747-400m
 

Anyone have any experience with certification and flying of the 747 combi in the US?
I hear it has cargo compartments on the main passenger deck at the rear of the aircraft. Will the FAA go along with this in the US?
I think Lufthansa flies (or flew) them.

Thanks

FAA requires Pax to be behind the cargo. Evergreen has one of the few 747 US certified Combi's. It does not have a side door, nose loader only.

KLM operate a combi between Amsterdam and Houston. I have flown it more than a dozen times during the last 5 years and can say based on experience that the freight is aft of the passengers.

I was in first class (nose section) and a freight pallet got stuck in the aft door, we were delayed for 5 hours before the situation was rectified.

As far as I know all combi's are aft freight loaders. Front first and upper decks are pax areas.

Check out this seat plan on seatguru


SeatGuru Seat Map KLM Boeing 747-400 Combi (74E)


Cheers

KW:ok:

There is (unless recently taken out of service) a DC-8 combi operated by US carrier ATI which had a few seats at the rear of the aircraft behind the main-deck cargo hold.
Air India operates 747 combis and I've seen the freight loaded at the rear of the pax, just like with KLM.

The key is "US Certified" and having an "N" number. There are lots of combis with pax up front, BUT they are not US Certified.

Ummm sorry but not quite right - Check Alska Airlines seating

Combis - love them - very profitable as you don’t need (a) the bucket & spade brigade to fill up the back end and (b) you don’t need “X” tonnes at one go (where “X” is 15, 25, 55, 75, 100 or 120 tonnes depending on aircraft type).

With combis you have to think along the lines of the CEO of ((memory failure here )) Think it was MEA when asked why MEA only operated B707 types and did’t get lots of widebodies “A daily DC3 is 6 days quicker than a a weekly 747”

A daily 35 tonne B747 combi is 3 or 4 days quicker than a twice weekly 747-freighter (think about it)

Regarding opearing on the “N” register - yes it is possible : Alaska Airlines have operated combi’s for year
I think originally they had B727-100 combis and maybe B737-200 combis - they now operate B737-400 combis

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Alaska_Airlines/Alaska_Airlines_Boeing_737-400_combi.php

All these aircraft had (have) the cargo load on pallets in the front of the cabin with the pax at the back

The DC8-50 series operated in combi version with a variety of layouts anywhere from 4 to 12 pallets with pax at the back. loaded 108x88n pallets crosswise (in a cabin 128n wide ??? [memory loss].

I think the B707, B727 & B737 combis operated similar loading, since had pretty much same floor width.

Believe the DC9 10/20/30 series could also operate in combi config. but was 125x88n pallet lengthwise loaded in front, again pax at the back. Not sure “N” reg approved, but was done a few time with special charters in Europe.

AFAIK the DC10 & MD11 were also operated in combi config, DC10 with (i think) 1 version cargo in front, pax at the back, whilst the MD11 combi in 2 versions (a) cargo in front & pax at the back and (b) pax at the front & cargo at the back (Believe only Alitalia have (had) this one with big freight door at rear port side.

With the front cargo loaders the main trick is to maintain an access way between pointy end and blunt end so flight & cabin crew could communicate.

As regards the B747 combi; as far as I know only pax at the front freight at the back in “scheduled” service. I am happy for someone with nose-loader knowledge to flame me, but I believe the nose loaders were never loaded in ‘scheduled’ service with cargo thru the nose dor & pax in the back.

The original & best 747-combi were the -200 (later SUD “300”) which had 12 maindeck positions (later 13). could be operated as 12 maindeck or 6 maindeck ((later 13 maindeck or 7 maideck)).

Usual config would be “19” pallet (“20” pallet) with 7 lowerdeck pallets or “13” pallet (“13” pallet”) also with 7 ldps. ((rest lowerdeck put aside for pax baggage [spit]))

After the SAA 747-combi disaster over the Indian Ocean mostly combis restricted to the 6(7) rearmost pallet positions & all sorts of other restrictions about loading.

Going back to the “N” register thing; have a vague idea that many combis were kept on the “N” register for tax reasons, whilst simultaneously having a ‘shadow’ on the ‘national’ register. Don’t think you would be allowed to keep an “unauthorised” aircraft on the N-reg.

Also, of course, with Boeing & Douglas aircraft who would be the certifying authority ???


Gosh I’ve bored you all to tears again

Most of the world went off 74 Combis after the SAA one went down in the Indian ocean, something to do with the air circulation & fire suppression. Doesn't necessarily apply to all types of Combis but the cost of mods etc. made most of the 74s uneconomic.

Cheers,

RT

It is my belief that the old combi aircraft are grandfathered, but new types are much more strict. They are known as a Class C cargo area having fire detection and protection. Halon is used in the cargo area which is isolated from the passenger area which is theoretically sealed off from the cargo area.

I suppose it could be different from type to type but in my experience on a 727-200, in the event of a fire, a handle in the cockpit is activated closing off airflow to the cargo area. There are 9 Large Halon bottles. The number activated in the event of a fire depends on what combi configuration the aircraft has at the time as selected on the F/E panel(can range from 4 to 9 cargo pallets along with all cargo or all pax).

Halon fire extinguishers are activated which give a 5% concentration for initial knockdown. The remaining bottles discharge at a predetermined rate to maintain at least a 3% concentration for the remainder of the 75 minute suppression period(60 minutes to landing + 15 minute reserve). No fire suppression is available in all-cargo or all pax configuration.

In the all-freight configuration, the aircraft is thousands of pounds heavier than a similarly equipped aircraft although not all of this extra weight is due to the firefighting equipment.

Sorry Ramp Tramp,
the world may have gone off the B747-Combi, but KLM, Lufty, KAL, EVA et al found them very, very profitable.

Trust me, I'm an accountant...

But yes, after the SAA incident we had to reconfigure everything back to 6/7 MDP, there were a lot of tweaks in the loading as access to all pallets had to be made possible in-flight, change to some fire suppression stuff, the forward G-net also had to incorporate a fireshield, and some other shielding had to be added/improved. and ((from memory)) at least 2 flight attendants on every flight had to be trained in firefighting ((not sure if this was continued)) extra portable firefighting eqpt also carried.

Main annoyance was that the original 12MDP aircraft were hauling around 'heavier' cargo floor which couldn't actually be used; On the -300 (new builds) and the -400 (all new) only the 6/7 MDP area had the cargo floor

p.s. this is all from memory, so is quite possibly completely & utterly rong

I don't believe any of the DC-9 20 series had cargo doors. There weren't that 20s many made.

G&T ice n slice
 

Pretty spot on :ok: I wasn't on the DC-10's and I'd have to drag out the old data to be certain but for the MD-11; Martinalr on the Fwd Cargo - Aft Pax Combi (As I remember) with the Cargo Door up front. The Alitalia with the Fwd Pax - Aft Cargo with the Cargo Door in Rear (Optional 6, 8 or 10 Pallet positions. I seem to remember that they generally ran with 6.


AFAIK the DC10 & MD11 were also operated in combi config, DC10 with (i think) 1 version cargo in front, pax at the back, whilst the MD11 combi in 2 versions (a) cargo in front & pax at the back and (b) pax at the front & cargo at the back (Believe only Alitalia have (had) this one with big freight door at rear port side.

Think yr prob right about the DC9-20. cann't even remember who had them (NW ?)

Cheers

Thanks for all the info!

Just out of curiosity......

what was behind your question ?

PS..Air Namibia flew one for years and the freight was definately BEHIND the pax on that one...:confused:

747M/Combi whatever you want to call it. The pallets are at the BACK... 7 of them IIRC.

A client who is interested in using one. I'd like to be more specific but anything more would not be ethical.

I've PDF'd the thread and if anything comes of it, I promise to post the info here and let the folks who commented know what's going on.

Of course, most of these things just die on the vine but who knows.

Thanks again.

G&T ice n slice
 

[quote]Gosh I’ve bored you all to tears again[QUOTE]

Quite opposite, that post was great. "COMBI'S" have been the aircraft that most airlines have wanted to operate in an idealistic world. A big dream in the aviation community, unfortunately rarely sucessfull on a grand scale.

G&T ice n slice,

I fully accept your point that some operators did the mods & made money but there were others who didn't. Maybe I should have started with the words 'What led to the decline of B747 Combies was...........'

Cheers,

RT

The 747 Combis (or SCD)
 

The original idea of the 747 Combi came from Sabena in 1973-1974, when the oil crisis followed the October War. They wanted to reduce the seating on the BRU-JFK flights (and BRU-FIH) and replace the space for cargo. The two 747-129 they had (OO-SGA and SGB) became the first 747 Combis, which had a SCD and the rear of the main deck was usable for cargo. Actually, the seats-toilets-galleys of cabin D and cabin E were mounted on pallets "à la" QC permitting quick change from an all passenger to combi configuration.
xxx
PanAm followed-up with the idea, quite a few 747-121 were converted to what we called CRAF airplanes (Civil Reserve Air Fleet) by the DOD and could have been used for wartime cargo, or combi configuration. Some of the Singapore 747-212B-SCD acquired by PanAm were also CRAF airplanes.
xxx
The FAA never permitted Combis (with "aft cargo") to be operated in a mixed passenger/cargo configuration. Never were certificated as such. The only mixed passenger/cargo operation required cargo to be forward of the passengers. Only two US airlines had 747s certificated as combis by the FAA, these were the three TransAmerica 747-271C and the three World Airways 747-273C. Fact is both types had a NOSE CARGO DOOR (and only the 747-271C had a side cargo door as well).
xxx
The problem with such airplanes, yet operated in full passenger configuration, is the extra weight of the SCD and the cargo floor. In the day and age of weight savings, having a 747 with an extra 6,000 kg basic operating weight is not pleasing the airlines. The only value to a combi comes when the 747 is later sold to another operator, and converted to a full cargo configuration, such as the 747-200SF-SCD are.
xxx
Some 747 trivia... If FAA did not approve the "Combis" - did you know that the FAA never approved the 747-300 either...? A New York operator (Trans International Express) attempted in 1999 to operate JFK-TLV with ex-Singapore 747-312 (passenger) which would have required initial certification of the 300 type by the FAA - for an airplane that was 15 years of age.
xxx
Yes, there are or were 707, 727, 737 or DC8 planes operated as combi by US operators, but all had cargo in front of the passenger seats. That configuration also required additional emergency exits in front of the passenger cabin (see 707C and DC8F), i.e. emergency exits installed just aft of wing on the 707C.
xxx
With PanAm, I flew 727-100QCs in the combi configuration, we had 2 pallets in the forward cabin, the mid-aft cabin was occupied by galley and some 60 passenger seats. I also flew 707 combis, where we had 3 to 6 pallets, all located forward of passengers.
xxx
:8
Happy contrails