View Full Version : 40 years of the 747
fizzwheel
11-02-09, 10:22 AM
Seems nuts doesnt it, 747 has been flying for 40 years, I'm still amazed by the shear size of the thing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7880808.stm
Mr Speirs
11-02-09, 10:34 AM
It does seem nuts how there has been little improvements in aviation in 40 years. Surely 40 years ago the 747 was built to meet the demands of a world wanting to travel and so needed big carriers to take them all.
That number must have increased massively now yet there isn't anything yet to replace it so that there are less plane in the sky.
Yeah theres that Airbus A380 but that isn't being used by everyone yet.
It just seems weird to me, why is it that aviation development effectively stopped after just 60 years?
fizzwheel
11-02-09, 10:40 AM
It just seems weird to me, why is it that aviation development effectively stopped after just 60 years?
You could argue that with Concorde out of service, its effectively gone backwards...
I surprised it had enough fuel!
Luckypants
11-02-09, 10:53 AM
Yeah theres that Airbus A380 but that isn't being used by everyone yet.
Well they only started delivering A380 planes last year, it will take a while to get a significant number into service.
Plus the big battle ground since the 60's has not been transatlantic hub-hub routes carrying large numbers of passengers, but the more frequent short and medium haul flights. We expect flights when we want them and to have a choice of departure time.
Aviation has not gone backwards, just in a different direction from the 747.
SoulKiss
11-02-09, 10:57 AM
Having made 2 flights on an A380 I can say the 747 is beaten :)
London to Singapore in both directions, with 777-200's for the Singapore to Auckland legs.
The A380 made the 777 seem VERY shabby (which it wasn't, but by comparison.....)
gettin2dizzy
11-02-09, 10:59 AM
It does seem nuts how there has been little improvements in aviation in 40 years. Surely 40 years ago the 747 was built to meet the demands of a world wanting to travel and so needed big carriers to take them all.
That number must have increased massively now yet there isn't anything yet to replace it so that there are less plane in the sky.
Yeah theres that Airbus A380 but that isn't being used by everyone yet.
It just seems weird to me, why is it that aviation development effectively stopped after just 60 years?
Boeing just cracked the perfect design early on, and airports were built to accommodate aircraft of that size. Any further improvements wouldn't be economically viable as the airline's profit margins are so tiny.
Boeing are shying away from large aircraft now, and are pinning their hopes on the dreamliner. Their strategy is more flights on quicker, more efficient planes flying direct, rather than massive planes flying through hubs.
gettin2dizzy
11-02-09, 11:00 AM
You could argue that with Concorde out of service, its effectively gone backwards...
Yep. Really sad :(
The Japs are building a super-sonic plane though :cheers:
It does seem nuts how there has been little improvements in aviation in 40 years.
It's true that in terms of the introduction of new airframes the aviation industry does move relatively slowly, but if you compare the specs of the planes from decades ago to their specs now you can see much improvement.
Engine improvements in terms of thrust, efficiency etc. are up. Generally planes are enlarged and can carry more passengers, or in the case of the A319, shrunk to fill a different market gap than the A320. And modern glass cockpits would be unrecognisable to the pilots of yesteryear.
It's not as if the 747 hasn't gone through some degree of evolution over the last 40 years either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Variants
I havn't been on one before, and i would love to before it becomes decommissioned.
I havn't been on one before, and i would love to before it becomes decommissioned.
Unless you're in first class, and have access to the upper deck, its' no different to flying on any other airliner.
Unless you're in first class, and have access to the upper deck, its' no different to flying on any other airliner.
Surely it would be better than the cramped a319 i was on last week. I felt like a sardine.
Surely it would be better than the cramped a319 i was on last week. I felt like a sardine.
Why would it?
It's wider, so they squeeze in an extra seat per row (typical 3-4-3). It's longer, so they squeeze in more rows.
I've flown in glorious comfort on a BA flight on a smallish jet, and cramped discomfort on an Easyjet plane of the same size. It's all down to how the airline specs the seating arrangements. The smaller and more densely packed the seats, the more bums you can accommodate, regardless of the size of the plane itself.
The real difference is the front and the upper deck but, as I mentioned above, to benefit from that you need to turn left after boarding, not right.
SoulKiss
11-02-09, 03:47 PM
Why would it?
It's wider, so they squeeze in an extra seat per row (typical 3-4-3). It's longer, so they squeeze in more rows.
I've flown in glorious comfort on a BA flight on a smallish jet, and cramped discomfort on an Easyjet plane of the same size. It's all down to how the airline specs the seating arrangements. The smaller and more densely packed the seats, the more bums you can accommodate, regardless of the size of the plane itself.
The real difference is the front and the upper deck but, as I mentioned above, to benefit from that you need to turn left after boarding, not right.
On the way back from NZ one trip (flying from Osaka) we got bumped up from Economy to the Top Deck of a 747 - still Economy with regards to food/drink etc, but in the better seating.
Was a really cool game you could play - can I touch the seat in front with my foot without falling off mine - never did manage it :)
You could argue that with Concorde out of service, its effectively gone backwards...
True, its a shame it is no longer flying.
Always like the 747 as it had four engines, more always feels safer when coming to important bits like an engine
Flamin_Squirrel
11-02-09, 06:34 PM
I havn't been on one before, and i would love to before it becomes decommissioned.
Boeing are bringing out the new 800 series soon, and old 200 series still fly. It's going to be some time before they're phased out completely.
When the major airlines have stopped using them they'll go where all knackered barely-airworthy airliners go: tinpot third world airlines. Wikipedia tells me there are still more than 50 707s in commercial service, and they've been around a decade longer than the 747.
NickWilde123
11-02-09, 06:48 PM
only problem with concorde was that it was banned in most countries because of the sonic boom it created. and aircraft manufactures are now creating quieter and more fuel efficient aircraft, thats the main reason the A380 will beat the 747 because in the cruise the A380 can connect any 2 points on the globe
The Japs are building a super-sonic plane though :cheers:
Will the Americans try and put the kibosh on that one too?
NickWilde123
11-02-09, 06:51 PM
the boeing 707 is still in service with the Royal Air Force used as the E3 sentry, but that is going to be fased out soon
try looking at how long the boeing B52 has been in service, nearly 60 years i think
passenger plane design......is well passenger plan design, they are all relatively the same. The development over the years has been within the engines
the boeing 707 is still in service with the Royal Air Force used as the E3 sentry, but that is going to be fased out soon
try looking at how long the boeing B52 has been in service, nearly 60 years i think
There's quite a gulf between military and civil aviation so the B52 is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.
Flamin_Squirrel
11-02-09, 08:02 PM
only problem with concorde was that it was banned in most countries because of the sonic boom it created
No, it was banned because it was an embarrassment to the Americans and French, because the Americans couldn't make their own, and the French couldn't make any money out of it.
NickWilde123
11-02-09, 08:04 PM
No, it was banned because it was an embarrassment to the Americans and French, because the Americans couldn't make their own, and the French couldn't make any money out of it.
ye but the reason that they gave was that they didnt want it flying supersonic over their countries, cant exactly say we dont want it cos it makes us look carp
Flamin_Squirrel
11-02-09, 08:10 PM
ye but the reason that they gave was that they didnt want it flying supersonic over their countries, cant exactly say we dont want it cos it makes us look carp
Which is why it wasn't flown supersonic over land, only over the Ocean. It's a carp excuse.
NickWilde123
11-02-09, 08:12 PM
because it wasnt able to operate on other routes, they tried to stop it going to NY but because of its design they could fly it in easily without making to much noise,
and it was also financially a money waster because they were bad on the fuel and even worse for maintenance
Flamin_Squirrel
11-02-09, 08:22 PM
because it wasnt able to operate on other routes, they tried to stop it going to NY but because of its design they could fly it in easily without making to much noise,
and it was also financially a money waster because they were bad on the fuel and even worse for maintenance
Uh uh. So you stop it flying to one place where it works well because it doesn't work well going somewhere it was never supposed to? :?
And it wasn't a money waster. At least not for BA, who made a profit. The French never managed to make a profit though, which is why they wanted to ban it for 'safety reasons'. Means they could stop operating it without admitting they were rubbish.
NickWilde123
11-02-09, 08:24 PM
And it wasn't a money waster. At least not for BA, who made a profit. The French never managed to make a profit though, which is why they wanted to ban it for 'safety reasons'. Means they could stop operating it without admitting they were rubbish.[/quote]
actually i dont think it ever made a profit due to the massive running costs and the small amout of passengers
Flamin_Squirrel
11-02-09, 08:45 PM
And it wasn't a money waster. At least not for BA, who made a profit. The French never managed to make a profit though, which is why they wanted to ban it for 'safety reasons'. Means they could stop operating it without admitting they were rubbish.
actually i dont think it ever made a profit due to the massive running costs and the small amout of passengers[/quote]
It used to run at a loss, but was making a profit when it was phased out.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.