two earlier concept for double deck aircraft befor3 A380

CZAR ALEKSANDER · Post by **CZAR ALEKSANDER** » 21 Jul 2006 11:51

hello Locomotion mod builders:

here two double deck aircraft one from boeing and the from MD
these where under development before airbus was around in 1980
the first one is the 747-800 and the other one is done Mcdonald & Douglas
MD-12

scpk2000 · Post by **scpk2000** » 21 Jul 2006 12:56

Well all I can say is Boeing and Macdonald Douglas were stupid for not keeping up in the race for the biggest passanger jet. I will always be a loyal fan and supporter of the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet.

metalangel · Post by **metalangel** » 21 Jul 2006 12:58

I'm confused. You say Boeing are stupid, but are a loyal supporter of their aircraft (the 74)?

scpk2000 · Post by **scpk2000** » 21 Jul 2006 13:03

metalangel wrote:I'm confused. You say Boeing are stupid, but are a loyal supporter of their aircraft (the 74)?

Allow me to illucinate...Boeing is stupid for dropping the ball in making the biggest passanger aircraft and now are going to have to play catch up, if at all, with Airbus...I like the 747 design better then the ones in these images...the cockpit on the lower deck just looks weird is all...merely an opinion...still a fan of Boeing, just think they made a mistake in dropping the ball with the jumbo jets is all.

metalangel · Post by **metalangel** » 21 Jul 2006 13:17

Hmm, I agree with you there, Boeing are a bit foolish... what happened to that weird extended-length 74 they were planning? The 747-EX or something it was called, it was intended to be a competitor to the A380

scpk2000 · Post by **scpk2000** » 21 Jul 2006 13:33

To my knowledge Boeing will not be creating any longer versions of the 747 at this time...however they are going to be making a 747 version of the Dreamliner they are currently producing which will hold more freight, and passangers, but will be a model of plane that will sit between the A380 and the current 747 family. A good source to get up to date info on aircraft is http://www.airliners.net

It's rather sad because the 747 was a benchmark of what a Jumbo Jet is and now they technically have to give that title up to the A380. One thing I have heard about the A380 is that it is a rather expensive aircraft to accomodate w/ terminal gates because airports will have to create a terminal gate able to unload both the top and lower decks at the same time. Along with other modifications that would have to be made to accomodate the aircraft all the updates are a very expensive undertaking.

Post by **Dave** » 21 Jul 2006 14:38

I'm sure it's not hard to build a flight of steps alongside the original terminal corridor that will connect.

scpk2000 · Post by **scpk2000** » 21 Jul 2006 15:31

A flight of steps no, but a mechanical gate to go to the second deck on however many terminal gates the plane will de-plane at...making adjustments to runways to accomodate any dimension issues...having appropriate ground crew support...might be a little bit costly.

metalangel · Post by **metalangel** » 21 Jul 2006 22:16

Dave Worley wrote:I'm sure it's not hard to build a flight of steps alongside the original terminal corridor that will connect.

Perhaps, but as someone who used to work in an airport and was responsible for attaching the airbridge to inbound aircraft, it'll be harder than you think, as for one thing, they'll basically have to be stacked on top of each other to get at both decks, the doors of which (ignoring the forwardmost door on the lower deck) are practically on top of each other. And what of wheelchair passengers, who are an extremely common (at least one per flight if not several) occurance, how do you get them from this new upper airbridge down to the terminal without either a huge, long ramp (as it'd need to be gentle) or an equally expensive lift?

Quite frankly, I think they'll just make people walk down the main staircase inside the aircraft to get out, just as they do on existing 74s, with the added issue that there's far more people coming down those stairs.

Regarding what you've said, scpk, the dimensions are virtually identical to the 74's, which was part of Airbus' plan. This image shows that in terms of overall size, the A380 is hardly bigger. I saw a documentary as well, which showed the size of the standard size for a stand at most majir airports was 80m x 80m or something, which the A380 just about (barely) fits into.

scpk2000 · Post by **scpk2000** » 21 Jul 2006 23:55

Well I appreciate your information metalangel and I said it is merely my opinion that I give...nothing stays the same and I guess classics have to make way for progress. Technically there are larger aircraft that carry passangers in the world then both the A380 and the 747. For example, the entire upper deck of the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy and Anotov 225 Myra are both adaptable to hold passangers and I got to be inside the 2nd level of a C-5 Galaxy and it is basically the same idea as the lower level of the A380 and 747, however, the C-5 Galaxy and Anotov 225 are usually used for cargo transport, but they still are larger then either A380 or 747. Boeing could have done a similar thing to the A380 as well by just making the 2nd story dome go all they way back...but I guess they didn't like the idea...who knows. Personally I have never really been a fan of Airbus...but they won this round it looks like.

Train-a-Mania · Post by **Train-a-Mania** » 22 Jul 2006 03:25

I'm surprised as to how much popularity airplanes for LoMo are now.

Whitewolfbane · Post by **Whitewolfbane** » 22 Jul 2006 05:02

In my opinion, it makes perfect sense. Trains aren't fast enough for cross the map travel, so you need planes, and when you're in the year 2050, or 2200, or whatever, the towns are bigger than ever, so more and more passengers and whatnot transported in bigger and bigger planes. Yay planes!

scpk2000 · Post by **scpk2000** » 22 Jul 2006 05:29

I agree...YAY PLANES!!!

TheGrew · Post by **TheGrew** » 23 Jul 2006 12:12

scpk2000 wrote:
metalangel wrote:I'm confused. You say Boeing are stupid, but are a loyal supporter of their aircraft (the 74)?
Allow me to illucinate...Boeing is stupid for dropping the ball in making the biggest passanger aircraft and now are going to have to play catch up, if at all, with Airbus...I like the 747 design better then the ones in these images...the cockpit on the lower deck just looks weird is all...merely an opinion...still a fan of Boeing, just think they made a mistake in dropping the ball with the jumbo jets is all.

The actulual reasons for boeing to quit their UHCA project was because of a speech said made by the american airlines chief where he said that in the future passengers would want smaller more efficeint planes (more regualer) rather than bigger aircraft. I think the problem with MD (now part of boeing) was purely finacial.

scpk2000 · Post by **scpk2000** » 23 Jul 2006 20:57

alistairgrew wrote:
scpk2000 wrote:
metalangel wrote:I'm confused. You say Boeing are stupid, but are a loyal supporter of their aircraft (the 74)?
Allow me to illucinate...Boeing is stupid for dropping the ball in making the biggest passanger aircraft and now are going to have to play catch up, if at all, with Airbus...I like the 747 design better then the ones in these images...the cockpit on the lower deck just looks weird is all...merely an opinion...still a fan of Boeing, just think they made a mistake in dropping the ball with the jumbo jets is all.
The actulual reasons for boeing to quit their UHCA project was because of a speech said made by the american airlines chief where he said that in the future passengers would want smaller more efficeint planes (more regualer) rather than bigger aircraft. I think the problem with MD (now part of boeing) was purely finacial.

Yep that's pretty much it in a nutshell...MD actually got bought out by Boening which is how the Boeing 717 model came to be, Boeing discontinued the 727 and made the DC 9 the 717. It's all so sorted..ugh.

dogfighter2111 · Post by **dogfighter2111** » 24 Jul 2006 08:32

Heya,

I loved the look of those aircraft but at the time they were under development there was no need for such a big aircraft.

Also, the new B747 model due for first flight in 2009 is the B747-8 and the B747-8i (i stands for Intercontinental). The aircraft will be longer, and the winglets will sweep on the wing. Now it would be great if there was a B747-8 model in the game.

Thanks
Mike

metalangel · Post by **metalangel** » 24 Jul 2006 09:26

Whitewolfbane wrote:In my opinion, it makes perfect sense. Trains aren't fast enough for cross the map travel, so you need planes, and when you're in the year 2050, or 2200, or whatever, the towns are bigger than ever, so more and more passengers and whatnot transported in bigger and bigger planes. Yay planes!

Planes would be even more sensible if the maps weren't so small the trains get from one side to the other in about 90 seconds.

scpk2000: That's true, but the Galaxy and Antonov are both designed to carry heavy cargo, and have had the adaptions for passenger cabins added later. They certainly won't be in regular airline service, and I wonder if you could even attach an airbridge to them if they were to land at a civil airport. I'd also be curious if they were anywhere near as fuel-efficient as the equivalent airliner, or if they'd fit into that standard airport stand size I mentioned.

Transport Tycoon Forums

two earlier concept for double deck aircraft befor3 A380

two earlier concept for double deck aircraft befor3 A380

Disappointed

Who is online