|
   |
Accueil >> Forum >> Aircraft in Passengers, Cargo Forum Aviation civile
Aircraft in Passengers, Cargo
Retour à l'index du forum - Poster un message à cette discussion
| |
Message de flylinefrontier - Envoyé le 03 Dec 2:22 |
|
| |
As you all know I have lots of questions, I feel... you know stupid...but I got to learn more, so teach me! 
In Boeing 747 series, there is been aircraft converted to a cargo, some of them is half cargo/passengers such as KLM...
My questions are:
If it is like KLM's, how many passengers are fit in? Would it change the range because of the weight?
Is it possible to change an Cargo to Passengers? Is it gonna be much expensive than coverting to Cargo?
Thank you guys or my teacher 
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de citation - Envoyé le 03 Dec 5:02 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de Werkur737 - Envoyé le 03 Dec 5:58 |
|
| |
B737-300QC (Quick Change), for exemple, has the range changed when in cargo or pax configuration. The cargo version has minus range than the pax layout.
B744C and MD-11C (Combi) combined cargo with pax layout and these versions exists for routes where the cargo demans are not so few and not so big. KLM is one airline that uses this Combi version successful for some routes.
The weight of Combi (Pax and Cargo) is higher and that is the reason why the range is lower than the full pax layout. Cargo version has the space more used, in terms of weight, from floor untill up space than the Pax version.
Let's wait more opinions of fellow guys of the forum.
AIRFLEETS.NET STAFF
PHOTO SCREENER
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 03 Dec 13:09 |
|
| |
Seating of a KL 744Combi: http://www.klm.com/travel/hk_en/travel_information/on_board/seating_plans/747-400Combi.htm
A few facts & observations re pax and freighter versions of the same type:
1. There has always been strict safety stds about the structural separation between cargo and pax. Stds are much much higher if both are on the same deck(e.g. KL's 744Combi) as loose cargo is a potential hazard to pax during severe turbulence. The requirements now are prohibitively expensive(Both in acquisition $ & operating weight) to comply for newer types ever since terrorist bombing became a constant threat in today's commercial aviation world. That's why we only see combi/convertible version in older types only.
2. QuickChange/Convertible airliners are almost exclusively fm the older generation(e.g. 733QC) when Osama Bin Laden was only a teenager and friends & families can walk you right to your gate to see U off before your flight departure in almost all U.S. airports.
3. Pure freighters typically fly with a higher density payload than the std. airliners so extra structural reinforcements are needed....Imagine the total weight of a cubic metre of space in today's super-spacious F-class suite with pax and compare that with the total weight of a cubic meter of space in the cargo hold of a freighter with boxes & boxes of computers...
4. Structural reinforcement for freighter & combis incur heavier weight on a type so something else has to be made much lighter/smaller(e.g. fuel tank) to maintain the same empty weight and MTOW or the max payload(i.e. pax+cargo) will suffer. e.g., the 77L and 77F basically hv the same total engine thurst+wing(Therefore, same MTOW), empty weight and fuselage volumetric capacity. To maintain the same MTOW and payload, the 77F has a reduced fuel tank to provide weight allowance to the extra structural stuff relative to the 77L. At max payload, max range for the 77L is 13,890km while the 77F can only manage 9,065km.
5. It's tech possible to convert freighter to pax configuration. However, due to 3., it's tech complicated & economically unfeasible to reduce structural strength or to retain the same structural strength/weight but suffer fuel economy and/or range.
6. Converting pax to freighter version by adding structural strength is always cheaper than 5. especially when converting fm a combi.
7. Newer widebody pax types now seem to hv sufficient belly cargo capacity for many airlines to reduce or even eliminate the need for combis/pure freighter. AC used to operate 744C ombis and hv cancelled their 77F orders when they realized their 333 and 77W pax fleet hv sufficient cargo capability. None of KL's new fleet is a combi as they find their 772ER and 332/333 already hv plenty of belly cargo.
8. It's a bit surprising but I recently find out that a 333 has belly cargo capacity similar to a 744 while the 772ER actually has more. I suspect it has something to do with the diff in shape/usable volume of the belly between the old(744) and the newer types(333,777). e.g., the main landing gears of the 744 just take up so much space near the center of the fuselage belly!
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster un message à cette discussion
|
|
Les messages doivent uniquement être rédigés en anglais. Tout message écrit dans une autre langue sera supprimé.
Les messages ne doivent concerner que des sujets liés à l'aviation civile et ne doivent contenir aucune publicité. Votre IP est conservée.
Les balises de format de texte pouvant être utilisées sont
[B]Votre texte[/B] : Texte en gras
[I]Votre texte[/I] : Texte en italique
[U]Votre texte[/U] : Texte souligné
[S]Votre texte[/S] : Texte barré
Pour inclure une photo Airfleets.net dans votre message, utilisez la synthaxe [P]Numéro de la photo[/P] |
|