Fuselage section

I don’t have data right in front of me, but I believe LD-3 is the “standard” container for everything you name execept the B767. I’ll admit I don’t know about the I86 and A380 though.

LD-3 is something like 156 cm wide on floor and 201 cm wide on ceiling level – as well as 109 cm below ceiling (54 cm above floor). LD-1 is likewise 156 cm wide on floor, but 234 cm wide on ceiling level – and 76 cm below ceiling (86 cm above floor).

LD-1 is the standard for B747… what about A380?

Agreed!

How do the belly hold cross-sections of B767, A300, B787, A350, L1011, D10, I86, B777, B747 and A380 fit the shapes of LD-2, LD-3 and LD-1 containers? The belly height seems to be the same, at 163 cm for all widebodies….

I don’t have data right in front of me, but I believe LD-3 is the “standard” container for everything you name execept the B767. I’ll admit I don’t know about the I86 and A380 though.

Indeed – it is too narrow for A350XWB.

Airbus’s choices seem interesting to me. If the widely available internet data is accurate they are building an airplane with a wing area larger than the 777 but with a fuselage much narrower than the 777 and indeed only about 7 inches wider than the 787.
Wing area (ft2): 777 4605/4707 787 3501 XWB: 4740
Fuse width (in): 777 244 787 226 XWB 233

I would think if they were going to the trouble of trashing the 222 inch fuselage, and re-tool a larger one, they would want more advantage over a competitor than 7 inches.

Put me in coach….I’m ready to play.

Fuselage width is one of those issues that airliner enthusiasts love to enthuse about. For example, the 767 vs A300/310/330/340 debate.

Agreed!

The naysayers say that it’s unique size increases the cost of production since a dedicated line must be set up with jigs/tooling only for that width. And the naysayers repeate ad infinitum that it can’t carry LD-3 containers back to back, thus it is unable to maximize underfloor volume for an airline that only has LD-3’s. Response from the 767 crowd: 1) you have plenty of volume to put LD-3’s in singly and still have room left over. You typically don’t volume out a 767 in passenger operations for 4,000nm flights. 2) Are you buying containers for your airplanes or airplanes to fit your containers? Shouldn’t the airplane be the primary consideration, and then you buy all the other equipment to fit it?

Agreed!

How do the belly hold cross-sections of B767, A300, B787, A350, L1011, D10, I86, B777, B747 and A380 fit the shapes of LD-2, LD-3 and LD-1 containers? The belly height seems to be the same, at 163 cm for all widebodies…

Those on the side of the 222 inch widebody Airbus fuselage is that it has been very efficient to produce over a wide range of lengths, and for various wing/engine combinations. You only have to have one size of tooling for the barrels. And it is big enough to carry LD-3’s back to back. The argument against this width is that it is not optimal: It is too wide for the smaller A300 and A310, and is too narrow for the A330 and A340. (The A300 and A310 have to push a fuselage roughly 2 feet wider than the 767 through the air, and have roughly two feet less to work with in interior volume versus the 777.)

Indeed – it is too narrow for A350XWB.

Put me in coach….I’m ready to play.

Fuselage width is one of those issues that airliner enthusiasts love to enthuse about. For example, the 767 vs A300/310/330/340 debate.

Those on the side of the 767 say that the fuselage width is the right size for the capacity of the airplane with regard to efficiency. It allows for the most efficient carriage of cargo and pax for an airplane of it’s capacity. The naysayers say that it’s unique size increases the cost of production since a dedicated line must be set up with jigs/tooling only for that width. And the naysayers repeate ad infinitum that it can’t carry LD-3 containers back to back, thus it is unable to maximize underfloor volume for an airline that only has LD-3’s. Response from the 767 crowd: 1) you have plenty of volume to put LD-3’s in singly and still have room left over. You typically don’t volume out a 767 in passenger operations for 4,000nm flights. 2) Are you buying containers for your airplanes or airplanes to fit your containers? Shouldn’t the airplane be the primary consideration, and then you buy all the other equipment to fit it?

Those on the side of the 222 inch widebody Airbus fuselage is that it has been very efficient to produce over a wide range of lengths, and for various wing/engine combinations. You only have to have one size of tooling for the barrels. And it is big enough to carry LD-3’s back to back. The argument against this width is that it is not optimal: It is too wide for the smaller A300 and A310, and is too narrow for the A330 and A340. (The A300 and A310 have to push a fuselage roughly 2 feet wider than the 767 through the air, and have roughly two feet less to work with in interior volume versus the 777.)

And this is just some stuff off the top of my head. In the arguments that continually go on (ETOPS, engine technology, wing design, etc,) it seems the fuselage width issue is discussed less often, and is less detail.

Hi everybody! I’m looking for an overview / comparison of the sizes of fuselages of current airliner (table, and if pos-sible graphic), mainly fuselage external diameter (if not circular in section: height and width) and cabin width (up-per/lower level for A380 and B747).

This for Boeing 707 … 787 and Airbus 300 … 380.

Many thanks for your support!

Lets´s make the overview. Some numbers are approximate.

Boeing, Douglas and Mcdonnell plane descriptions are linked from:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/plan_manuals.html

Boeing 707: not circular. Width outside 376 cm, height outside 427 cm. Cabin width 353 cm.

Boeing 717: there have been two models of that designation. One is the military KC-135, which had the cross-section of early 707 design (narrower than 707). Another is MD-95.

The MD-95 has the same cross-section as DC-9, MD-80 and MD-90: not circular. Outside width 338 cm, outside height 361 cm. Cabin width 313 cm.

Boeing 727: not circular. Width outside 376 cm, cabin width 353 cm – just like 707. Height outside 401 cm.

Boeing 737: not circular. Cross-section shared with 727.

Boeing 747: front not circular. Width outside 650 cm. Height outside said to be 785 cm.

Lower deck cabin width 610 cm.

Upper deck sidewalls steeply sloping. Width about 350 cm on armrest level, about 400 cm on floor level.

Boeing 757: not circular. Cross-section shared with 727.

Boeing 767: not circular. Width outside 503 cm, height outside 541 cm. Cabin width 472 cm.

Boeing 777: circular. Diametre outside 620 cm. Cabin width about 586 cm.

Boeing 787: not circular. Width outside 577 cm, height outside 592 cm. Cabin width about 549 cm.

Airbus 300: circular. Diametre outside 564 cm. Cabin width 528 cm.

Airbus 310: circular. Cross-section shared with 300.

Airbus 320: not circular. Width outside 395 cm, height outside 414 cm. Cabin width 369 cm.

Airbus 330: circular. Cross-section shared with 300.

Airbus 340: circular. Cross-section shared with 300.

Airbus 350: not well published. Not circular. Outside width 591 cm.

Airbus 360: designation not assigned.

Airbus 370: designation not assigned.

Airbus 380: not circular. Outside width 714 cm, outside height 856 cm. Lower deck cabin narrows downward, width 658 cm maximum, about 630 cm on armrest level. Upper deck cabin narrows upward, width 592 cm floor level, about 530 cm armrest level.