You will find tons of information regarding the A380 in this document:
A380 AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS AIRPORT AND MAINTENANCE PLANNING:
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...80-Dec2014.pdf
Since you want to design you aircraft to the same restrictions as an A380 has the document might apply to your design as well.
Thanks! That's quite a useful document there!
I agree on earlier posts that the limit is the airport designs.
I have always marvelled at the inefficiency of nose in parking. Once during apron works we had to park side on, and de-boarding/boarding all happened quicker with two sets of steps equidistant from the gate entrance. Bags were kept away from the passengers too.
A properly designed pier system with underground passages for service vehicles and provision to connect airbridges front AND rear would allow aircraft like the B777, A380 and B747 turn quicker. Smaller aircraft would benefit even more as they are not limited to the constraints of the larger long haul ships, slots and spacing to enable two flight daily cycles, etc.
Just a thought.
I agree too. Personally I think the future would be about both size and efficiency. And with that comes along gradual airport innovations as well.
Imaginative design. It shows a lot of work and thought. But my concern is as a passenger. The five- and six-across middle rows look like a nightmare. I don't see how it is going to work with just two aisles -- unless they are double-wide so that at least two people can pass simultaneously. Think of the extra time to load the plane as people already seated need to get up and enter the aisle to let later-arriving middle seat passengers get in. Also, I think evacuation would present a problem.
Thanks. 5 middle row seats already exist (see DC-10/MD-11, B777, and soon the A380). 6 middle row seats though are new territories for airlines. I don't see why not when it's practically two A320/737s side by side. But I would expect most airlines would choose 5 middle row seats though over 6 for a total of 11 abreast. I just showed that 12 abreast is possible with 17.5in seats and 15in aisles.
I'm confident evacuation wouldn't be a problem since I configured my aircraft with sufficient exits per deck. The aircraft would have 4 pairs of
type A doors on the upper deck, 5 on the main deck and 6 on the lower deck. Each pair of type A door is allowed 110 passengers and I have 15 pairs for a total of 1650 allowable pax capacity. Each exit is within the 60ft separation limit and spaced almost evenly throughout the fuselage.
This is why I chose box wing design over blended wing body. A blended wing body would force you to have exits spaced more than 60ft. And if you put exit openings at the belly, it would be difficult if you have a landing gear collapse. This would need a lot of convincing to the FAA to certify.
Anyway, I have been playing around cabin configurations. Some standard features unique to this aircraft is the forward atrium and mezzanine on the main and upper deck. Since the fuselage curves downward at the nose, the "forehead" would be impractical to fill with galleys and seats, so I decided to leave it empty. Premium airlines can use that space for an ultra-luxurious first/business class lounge or potential for two loft-type suites (a-la Etihad Residence but on steroids). There will also be a lift (option for two) that can carry people and trolleys across the three decks. There will also be two staircases. One in the front, one at the back. Here are some preliminary studies I've came up with:
Ultra dense: Maximum possible configuration. Lavs and galleys of the lower deck are transferred to the main deck so this configuration might only be seen on military or special ops versions.
Dense: We might see this configuration for long-haul LCCs or holiday charter airlines.
Standard single class: This would probably serve as the basis of most configurations for major airline customers out there. This shows the second lift at the back.
I'll post 2-class and 3-class and more soon!