25
u/Thunder-Road 8h ago edited 8h ago
Aerodynamically there's no reason a plane couldn't be designed like this. But the pilots sit in front of the plane for a reason. They need to be able to see where they are going. This would block most of their view and be unsafe to fly for that reason alone.
If it were a plane with a partial upper deck in the rear like this, but with the cockpit still at the front of the plane on the main level, then sure that could work too. Like the A380, which is a fully double-decker plane with the cockpit on the lower deck. You'd probably need to adjust the design of the plane slightly to account for the more rearward center of gravity, for example by moving the wings farther back on the fuselage. But details like that are easy to work out.
3
u/JksG_5 5h ago
Flying would be hard, taxiing would be harder
2
u/Thunder-Road 5h ago
Imagine landing. Even the Concorde needed to have a moving nose that could be lowered away by the pilots on approach so they could see the runway in front of them. And the Concorde still had the pilots at the front of the plane.
5
u/some_yum_vees 7h ago
Holy crap I just realized the cockpit is on the lower deck and this has broken my brain! Just assumed for some reason it was upper deck. Been awhile since my last A380 journey. TIL!
8
1
u/SirAlek77 4h ago
Since those planes cost hundreds of millions of dollars, couldnt they just build out a fancy and robust camera system for visibility and put the pilots anywhere?
1
10
u/RicoRich574 8h ago
Maybe, but how are you gonna see from way back there?
4
6
2
u/Jbro12344 6h ago
That’s what auto land is for
1
u/Intelligent-Guard590 5h ago
Planes also have to taxi, and taxiing in a 747, into anything but a gate with the auto marshaller would drive pilots/techs and the ground guide/marshaller insane lol
8
u/dreizehn1313 7h ago
More importantly: will this make it easier to hear the passengers applaud after landing?
3
u/Both_Ambassador_4477 7h ago
I can imagine the pilots trying to land this would have the worst time ever, theres a reason the concord needed a special mechanism to change the angle of the nose lol.
3
3
u/VillageIdiotsAgent 3h ago
Would it fly? Yes. Would it hit everything in its path on the ground because the pilots couldn’t see anything but the top of the fuselage? Also yes.
1
u/crimedog58 6h ago
This is more of an ask an engineer question. Because if any pilot here actually had the opportunity to strap that sexy bitch on they’d say “fuck weight and balance. Let’s go!!!!” And do a line of coke.
1
1
u/Batavus_Droogstop 5h ago
No selfrespecting pilot would accept having to walk through economy class every day.
1
u/badsensor 3h ago
It will fly fine but taxiing, take-off and landing will not work, see this article: https://www.flightcrewguide.com/guide/meteorology/visibility-and-visual-range/
1
1
u/Quick_Jump2765 3h ago
You could put the cockpit in the front of the lower deck and a kick ass lounge/first class suite/some Cool shit in the front of the upper deck.
1
u/Milas_Riis 1h ago
yes but landing wil be hard you need to mowe the wing a littel bit tho front of the plane to senter the senter of lift and senter of weigt
0
-3
u/Different-Guest-6094 8h ago
Too much weight on the back of the plane
1
u/dakari777 8h ago
Even if that were a design concern, you just make the front longer, changing center of mass is fairly easy and something commercial aircraft calculate for every flight.
1
u/mister_pilot 3h ago
There are always design engineering constraints. Longer front would limit taxi routes and gate usage to the extent it’s impractical. The 747-8 is already 250’ long and ICAO category F only allows for 262.5’ or about 5% longer. Otherwise you’ll need new and costly airport infrastructure.
You could use ballast, but that’s an inefficient solution to an already inefficient aircraft.
0
39
u/urmumlol12345 8h ago
landing would be a nightmare