The Flying Giant Is 40 Years Old 366
Ponca City, We love you writes "Four decades ago, Boeing's prototype 747 took to the skies over Washington State for a 75-minute flight that helped bring cheap airline travel to millions of people and would remain the world's largest commercial aircraft for 37 years until the advent of the double-decker Airbus A380. What made the 747 unique was that it was the first 'wide body' aircraft with more than one aisle — a big step towards reducing the sense of traveling in a narrow tube, and inducing a sense more equivalent to flying in a large room with high ceilings. But back in the 1960s, convincing people that the 747 would fly was a tough call. Joe Sutter, the director of engineering on the project, even spent an hour with Charles Lindbergh, going over all the data to prove that the jumbo would not flip over or become unstable at high speeds. Boeing has sold more than 1,400 jumbos in the past four decades, worth, at today's prices, more than $350 billion and although we might complain of traveling in 'cattle class' we have the 747 to thank for being able to do so at affordable prices."
Oh how I love planes.. (Score:4, Insightful)
It used to be fun to fly, not any more.
Re:Oh how I love planes.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how much of that loss of fun is the airlines' fault and how much is the result of the FAA bureaucracy?
Re:Oh how I love planes.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how much of that loss of fun is the airlines' fault and how much is the result of the FAA bureaucracy?
Or the result of greed on both parties.
Re:Oh how I love planes.. (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the result of consumers winning out? I think people forget just how expensive air travel used to be - no wonder you were treated like a king. Free food, free drinks (some airlines even had free alcohol)...
The fact of the matter is that airline travel is a *lot* cheaper and more accessible to the average person than it used to be. This is a good thing. It also necessitates us changing our expectation from "floating sky-palace" to "flying Greyhound bus", which is a more appropriate modern analogy.
If you want the service of yonder years, you can still get it. In fact, you can still get it at approximately the same prices *you used to pay*.
I for one welcome the democratization of long-distance travel.
Re:Oh how I love planes.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think they could change this if they took a different approach to those on vacation - specifically creating routes for vacationers and everything they expect. Get them started on their vacation early by providing them with large seats, good food, good movies. For the commuter or typical traveler they could offer a more traditional approach.
But imagine you want to fly to Japan from NYC. That's quite a long flight. Why not offer people on holiday the option to pamper themselves while flying? Give them a more leisurely route, better service, and better seating. Think a "cruise line" in the air. I bet people like myself would opt for it over the "sardine can to Asia" and be willing to spend the money on it. Sure I can fly first class now, but this whole everyone is the same approach is the past, we need more niche airlines that cater to specifics. I feel like a piece of cattle when flying, like somehow I'm not the consumer anymore and I'm just at the whim of the airline/FAA/TSA/various global agencies. It's become a "privilege".
BTW, I love to fly. So much I decided to learn how to fly and get my own private pilot's license. But I hate flying the airlines. It's not the same. One is a chore, the other is an experience everyone should try at least once.
Re:Oh how I love planes.. (Score:4, Interesting)
But they *do*. It's called first class! I know people who *do* pamper themselves when flying to their vacations, and it's a wonderful way to fly - but it's not for everyone, or indeed even a large portion of the traveling public.
I think you're suggesting that the cost of first class be lowered - and perhaps it can, I'm certainly not privy to the finances of major airlines. I would like to point out, though, that most people I know only consider spending good money on *the vacation*, and not the means of getting there. I don't know about you guys in the US, but up here in Canada we have "vacation airlines" that service only popular vacation routes, and completely redefine "cattle class" (in the bad way). Consumers are clearly more about cheap than comfort, and unfortunately the airlines are giving them precisely what they want.
Re:Oh how I love planes.. (Score:5, Informative)
But they *do*. It's called first class! I know people who *do* pamper themselves when flying to their vacations, and it's a wonderful way to fly - but it's not for everyone, or indeed even a large portion of the traveling public.
I fly long distance (London->Beijing, London->Dallas, about ten hours for either trip) quite frequently, and usually go British Airways. The BA long-haul planes are usually 777s, and carry four classes [seatguru.com]:
Food and alcohol is free in all classes, and in fact these days, even in economy the food is pretty good. Snacks, drinks etc can be had for the asking; they encourage you to go to the galley rather than ring for a steward. Personal TVs all round, laptop power everywhere but economy. What's best, the staff have always been uniformly friendly and polite to me --- although it helps that I've flown enough to know how everything works and so know how to behave so I don't make their lives harder.
BTW, if you're ever travelling long haul, go visit seatguru.com. It'll tell you everything you ever need to know about where the best seats are. (On these 777s, you want the front row premium economy seats. Extra legroom and storage and you can get out without climbing over your neighbour! Pity that these days they send me out economy class...)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what flights you're flying on, but I used to be able to consistently get flights from CA to TN for $200-$300 round trip, and sometimes as low as $150. Last Christmas, I actually flew with frequent flyer miles first class because it was going to be somewhere around $1,000 for the round trip and it took 5,000 fewer frequent flyer miles for first class than it did for coach. This Christmas, it's looking like I'm going to have a hard time getting below $1500 for that round trip---more expensive b
Re:Oh how I love planes.. (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of the loss of fun has to do with deregulation. When the airlines all have to compete on price they're going to squeeze things as much as they can get away with. For most people air travel is expensive enough that they'll put up with it to get the cheapest possible prices.
Re:Oh how I love planes.. (Score:4, Informative)
So Airlines weren't competing on price prior to deregulation?
No. Airfares were set by the FAA, so they competed on the quality of service during the flight. If it's the same price and equivalent schedule, do you go for the "free" salmon meal or the peanuts?
Prior to deregulation, airlines weren't trying to maximize profits?
Since they couldn't, by law, change the fare, they tried to maximize profits by having the most passengers on the most profitable routes by offer the best of the least expensive services.
Feel free to pontificate on other stuff you don't understand though.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Making customers happy is long term good business, and works fine in a deregulated market. The companies have to realize this on their own, though.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why Southwest is doing so amazingly well while a lot of the bigger airlines are struggling. The quality of customer care is so much better even though you give up some things like tray tables in the front row, assigned seats, and in-flight movies.
At the same time, though, Southwest did have a big advantage: they were paying much lower fuel prices because of some good investments.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bzzzt. Prices feel faster during regulation than after deregulation [vdare.com].
What about lower fares? Didn't deregulation pay for itself with lower fares? Apparently not. Morgan Stanley shows that airline pricing has been falling for 40 years. Eyeballing the chart, the fall in prices was steeper between 1962 and 1978 than after deregulation.
Re:Oh how I love planes.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder how much of that loss of fun is the airlines' fault
100%. I'm not aware of any FAA regulation mandating 5 passengers per square foot.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious solution then is to reduce the number of square-footed people from flying. That would give the rest of us more room if only 1 person in 20 had square feet.
Re:Oh how I love planes.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, not the FAA's fault. In fact, it's no-one's fault other then when the 747 started to fly, flying was out of the reach of almost all Americans, save the jet-setters. Nowadays, you can get a non-stop from Denver to Atlanta for $169 bucks. Of course it's going to be a cattle call.
Do I wish that I could have taken a trip on a 747 in the glory days of Pan Am? Absolutly. Would I rather live now and have the ability to fly to London for $500 bucks? You bet your a$$.
Re:Oh how I love planes.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is: there's virtually no middle ground.
You either pay through your nose for the business-class seats or you have to fly in cattle-like economic class.
Personally, I don't want champagne, I don't want caviar - I just want some additional leg and elbow space. I'll gladly pay 1.5x normal rate for it! But usually there's just no such choice :(
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A Premium Economy [wikipedia.org] option has actually started to emerge.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For the kind of routes the 747 flies, there IS that option. For example, British Airways has a "World Traveller Plus" - more legroom, mains plug for your laptop etc., and it costs about 1.5 times the normal economy fare.
I'm flying on BA to Houston in March. Being a cheapskate, I took the normal economy class (I fit the seats, and even in the cheap seats, you get free booze and free food). The return fare from London to Houston is £300 *all inclusive* travelling midweek (about US $450) which is tremend
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how much of that loss of fun is the airlines' fault and how much is the result of the FAA bureaucracy?
Don't forget the TSA. I really dislike the part where they ask "papers please".
Re:Oh how I love planes.. (Score:5, Informative)
> And then hate how they treat you like a farm animal on flights.
Nothing is stopping you from flying first class.
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to fly in business class if you want to. You get VIP lounges in the airports, big seats, free drinks, all the perks you used to get in the old days. Oh, and a similar price tag...
Here is the ironic part... (Score:2)
Many people are skeptical that the A380 will sell. YET, think of when the 747 was launched, and when the A380 was launched... Around the same time with same economics...
I think the A380 will be a success because there will be more cattle to transport at a more effective cost...
Yeah... Great guess which plane I will be avoiding!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I think the A380 will be a success because there will be more cattle to transport at a more effective cost...
Yeah... Great guess which plane I will be avoiding!!!!
Is it not the one that flies people to volcanoes to be blown up with nuclear bombs?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the A380 is selling fairly poorly. Because of the production problems their recovery number is probably up at around 700 frames. They are nowhere close to that number now. Worse, most of their orders are from Emirates, and with the collapse of the middle eastern economies (on average 40 percent down so far) these orders are not likely to be completely fulfilled.
So little progress in aerospace. (Score:5, Insightful)
747 and concorde launched, first manned moon landing. 40 years later, NASA can barely keep the ISS running (or the shuttle from blowing up).
I'm curious - how much better are the new planes compared to the 60s version of the 747 in terms of range, payload and efficiency?
Re:So little progress in aerospace. (Score:5, Informative)
Try finding a 1960s aircraft that is rated to fly for 208 minutes, or nearly 3 and a half hours, on one single engine. Thats how far the technology has come, its extremely reliable.
Re:So little progress in aerospace. (Score:5, Funny)
Try finding a 1960s aircraft that is rated to fly for 208 minutes, or nearly 3 and a half hours, on one single engine. Thats how far the technology has come, its extremely reliable.
Well, there was this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_st_louis [wikipedia.org]
It managed more than 33 hours, on a single engine, in 1927.
Now get off my cloud.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's an airplane designed to fly on a single engine.
The parent is referring to a multi-engine design that is capable of flying for extended periods of time on a single engine.
Also, he got the acronym wrong.
ETOPS: Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Glad you liked it :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
the best example is that of 'ETOPS' (Extended Twin Engine Operational Performance Standard)
To me, the alternate joke acronym seems to describe the situation more succinctly: "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim".
Re:So little progress in aerospace. (Score:4, Interesting)
It depends.
A 747 can't cruise on 2 engines - it needs at least 3 (depending on which two are left it probably could hobble back to a controlled landing after quickly dumping fuel - more of a powered glide than flight). So, a double engine failure on a 747 isn't really much better than a double engine failure on a 777.
Now, what was an issue prior to ETOPS was how long the jet could run on one engine. Prior to ETOPS a 777 could only reliably run on one engine for a short time - plenty to land if you were near an airport, but it wasn't designed to cruise for an hour or two. A 747 could run on three engines for a long time.
The issue is that jet engines become less reliable at their max rated speed. At cruise those engines might be running at 90-94% N1. If you lose an engine, even at the reduced cruising speed that remaining engine might be running closer to 100%. And at the reduced speed it takes longer to get to an airport. With three engines losing 25% of thrust isn't as big a hit on the remaining engines as losing 50% of thrust is.
However, being that a 747 still needs 3 engines to stay aloft I'm not sure that it becomes any safer than a 777 on an engine-out scenario. If anything I'd say that the 3 remaining engines are 3X as likely to fail as the 1 engine on the 777 - all things being equal.
In any case, those big planes are just way too heavy to control with engine power. On a glide their decent rates are very high so pulling off a landing without engines is a heroic matter indeed. Pulling it off in water is near-miraculous.
Re:So little progress in aerospace. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure your definition of "cruise" in your post, but the idea that a 747 can't stay aloft on 2 engines isn't relatively true. You should be able to maintain FL150 or so, depending upong conditions and fuel load. And if things get hairy, dump fuel until you get below MLW.
Now, if by "cruise", you meant maintain 490 KTAS at FL350, you are correct. Not gonna happen on 2 engines. But you're talking double engine failures, I'd _much_ rather be on a 747 (4-2 = 2) than a 777 (2-2 = 0). 747's with double engine failures have returned safely on multiple occasions.
> So, a double engine failure on a 747 isn't
> really much better than a double engine failure
> on a 777.
I agree with the sentiment of your post. More parts/engines, more chances or failure. And high ETOPS rated twins are more economical to operate.
Negative progress (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The problem with supersonic passenger planes was that they could not fly at those speed over land"
Concorde will quite happily fly at supersonic speed over land, absent NIMBYs pushing governments to prohibit such flights. It really doesn't care what's ten miles below it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Having worked next to an airport (so close the watch tower called the Fire Station during the company BBQ). The sound really wasn't that bad. Usually the building would shake a little Like when a heavy constructions trucks parked next to your house, but only for about 3 seconds then it was back to normal. It is not like it was ear hurting, it was barely noticeable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I live in Reading, UK, which was under the Concorde flight path, and when it went over it'd make the windows rattle.
I'm not complaining, mind. I rather miss it now it's gone: twice a day, there'd be this throaty, world-filling roar --- not loud, but somehow intense --- and you'd look up and there would be that beautiful shape going overhead.
I was deeply disappointed about the weaselly way the British ones were decommissioned; they drained the hydraulic fluid from the systems, more or less wrecking them. The
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can say that again. The problem is the people living 10 miles below, and the noise they have to deal with.
I really feel sorry for people living around airports today. We have noise pollution laws for everything but aircraft. The reason for this is the FAA, which has historically been more very receptive to air industry lobbying, and so more interested in promoting air travel than in limiting the consequences of air travel (a de-facto tax on those of us who have to listen to jets takeoff and land from 10s of miles away, night and day).
I live 5 blocks away from JFK long term parking. Grew up my whole life there. Watched the concord fly over my head, not to mention a slew of standard aircraft countless times.
It is worth the noise and stained lawn furniture to be able to wake up in the morning walk to the air train and get on a plane like its a commuter train. If you don't like it move.
Re:Negative progress (Score:4, Insightful)
We have noise pollution laws for everything but aircraft.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Ten seconds on Google would get you to Title 14, Part 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, "Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Certification" [gpoaccess.gov]. All airplanes built in the United States are certified to this standard. Europe (EASA) has very similar regulations, and most of the other national regulatory bodies in the world pattern their regulations off of the FAA/EASA regulations.
That same FAA disregard for anything that might negatively impact total air passenger miles got us 9/11
Wait, what? Are you seriously implying that 9/11 was the FAA's fault? Citation please.
and continues to cause well documented health and mortality effects in areas around major airports.
Please point me in the direction of some of these "well documented ... effects."
Enlightened governments are re-locating their airports away from population centers and building fast and convenient light rail to make it convenient to get to them.
Light rail is awesome, and has nothing to do with the FAA.
Another thing government could be doing to balance the substantial subsidies air industries have enjoyed is divert some of those dollars to rail and R&D into quieter and more efficient aircraft.
Ok, but your ticket prices will go up.
Also, you asked for quieter and more efficient aircraft, so here you go. [boeing.com]
Airlines are still focused overwhelmingly on the next quarter and the FAA doesn't care.
The FAA's job is not to make the airlines profitable. It's to make them safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the engines were that good. The problem is supersonic flight as a whole.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Moreover, the Concorde was cost-benefit-analysised at a time when jet fuel was in the tens of cents per gallon price range --- then the Arab fuel embargo hit and suddenly it was hard to justifiably profit on it (though for a long while they managed).
Sadly the new tires were just being certified when the 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred which was pretty much the final nail in the coffin.
William
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Negative progress (Score:5, Insightful)
Today there is no supersonic passenger aircraft in service.
The economics of supersonic flight suck, although it wasn't apparent at the time.
I've read accounts that suggest the 747's raised flight deck was designed that way because it was assumed the primary purpose of the aircraft would be cargo hauling, and they wanted access to the full diameter of the fuselage without hinging the nose, as is often done in cargo aircraft. The reason why cargo was targeted was because everyone believed that supersonics were going to own the passenger transport market "once a few bugs were worked out."
It turns out those bugs--noise, engine sizing and fuel efficiency--are pretty difficult to work around, and cutting an five hour flight to two and a half hours isn't such a big deal when the time spent getting into and out of the airport are added in. It's more like cutting an eight hour experience to a five or six hour one. Not worth the price.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What are you talking about? The Concorde was one of the biggest money losers for Air France and British Airways. Sure you can fly from New York to London really fast, but you're burning so much more fuel in the process.
Right now, the name of the game is efficiency in terms of passengers and fuel. And fuel efficiency is going up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Concorde being unprofitable is a major myth of the aircraft, and one that still dogs it to this day.
Re:Negative progress (Score:4, Interesting)
You are right, but only because the French and the Brit Govs wrote off the development costs.
"Concorde flew regular transatlantic flights from London Heathrow (British Airways) and Paris Charles de Gaulle (Air France) to New York JFK and Washington Dulles, profitably flying these routes at record speeds, in less than half the time of other airliners."
However:
"With only 20 aircraft ultimately built, the costly development phase represented a substantial economic loss. Additionally, Air France and British Airways were subsidised by their governments to buy the aircraft.
Wikipedia, of course, so it must be true.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was said to have no commercial future, but in the twilight of its flying life Concorde has emerged as one of the biggest money-spinners for British Airways, earning the airline as much as £50m in the past six months. In Concordeâ(TM)s final week alone BA is thought to have made about £6m in profit as customers vied for the cachet of being on board one of the last scheduled flights to travel through the sound barrier. . .
http://www.cronaca.com/archives/001605.html
In March 1984 the government ended its involvement with Concorde when British Airways assumed full responsibility for Concorde support costs. British Airways Board paid GBP16.5 million to acquire the government's stock of spare parts and was released from the profit share scheme under which the government collected 80 per cent of Concorde operating surpluses.
http://www.britishairways.com/concorde/faq.html
How much profit did Concorde make for British Airways? On average Concorde made and operating profit of £30-50 Million a year for British Airways in the boom years where many passengers were travelling first class. British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion. Air France made a much smaller profit.
http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html [concordesst.com]
If you want actual financial figures, BA detailed Concorde as a seperate operating centre in its financial reports up until Concorde was retired.
Bad statistics (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. Turns out it was a firetrap.
We ran out of frontiers (Score:5, Insightful)
Four decades ago:
747 and concorde launched, first manned moon landing. 40 years later, NASA can barely keep the ISS running (or the shuttle from blowing up).
During the jet age, it was all about higher performance. Higher speeds, higher altitudes, longer ranges, higher load capacities.
Aviation has matured, and now it's only about one thing: better efficiency. Our planes carry no more people than they used to. They go no faster or farther. Cost efficiency is the last frontier of a stable, mature... but boring... industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Four decades ago: 747 and concorde launched, first manned moon landing. 40 years later, NASA can barely keep the ISS running (or the shuttle from blowing up).
And how much of that work was done with a pencil and paper?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A380: Range: 14,800 km Capacity: 525 - 853 Speed: 900 km/h
747-400: Range: 13,450 km Capacity: 416 - 524 Speed: 913 km/h
Here's a more detailed comparison [howstuffworks.com]
It should also be noted that today's 747's aren't the same as the ones that flew in the 60s. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Improved_747_versions [wikipedia.org]
barrel roll (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the coolest video of a Boeing passenger jet was the 707's barrel roll. The test pilot got in a bit of trouble BUT WAS NOT FIRED. Needless to say it was only done once.
Well... he (Tex Johnston) actually rolled it twice that day.
Those were the days...
Re:barrel roll (Score:4, Interesting)
That was Tex Johnston [youtube.com] and he actually did it twice [youtube.com].
Re:barrel roll (Score:4, Interesting)
The Boeing President was so mad at Tex, that he didn't speak to him for years. This barrel roll was done in front of potential buyers, which did impress them.
Remember that a commercial airplane is not designed for aerobatic maneuvers. Which means Tex had to maintain a 1G downward force during the roll to ensure fuel stayed in the bottom of the tanks.
The President was mad because the Company bet the future on the 707. If it didn't sell (and/or if Tex crashed), then the Company would have folded.
The same thing was true with the 747, the Company bet the farm on this one too. It is such a big investment of capital, that there is no room for failure.
Re:barrel roll (Score:4, Informative)
But it did fail--initially. Boeing bet the farm on the 747 expecting ridership to increase. We entered a recession. It did not increase. Boeing went from 135,000 workers to 35,000 workers in the space of a few months. At the time Boeing was a one-horse show just like Seattle and the firm nearly went bankrupt. People left their homes to the banks and moved out of Seattle, Renton, Kent, and Auburn. Someone put up a billboard that said, "Will the last one to leave please turn out the lights." It took years for the local economy to recover. And the 747 caused it.
Today Seattle and Boeing are both very much more diversified. Anf yeah, Boeing is laying off a few thousand workers--but it's not 100,000 workers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You've got the and the effects of a number of events all confused.
The 747 didn't fail - thought it's entry into service was rocky due to teething troubles with the engines.
The huge jobs cuts occurred in 1971/72 - a year after the 747 entered service and a year before the recessi
To celebrate... (Score:5, Informative)
...Boeing will fire 10,000 workers!
I don't say this to troll. I work in the aerospace industry and am watching bright, talented friends and coworkers get laid off left and right.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
...Boeing will fire 10,000 workers!
I don't say this to troll. I work in the aerospace industry and am watching bright, talented friends and coworkers get laid off left and right.
And how would this be different from any other industry today?
The real flying giant is 62 years old (Score:2)
Hindenburg is older (Score:2)
The Hindenburg [wikipedia.org] was used for transatlantic flights 20 years before the Hercules was built.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the H-4 still exists.
The 100 year career (Score:2)
We may very well see 747's in the air for another 60 years. Boeing keeps improving them, and they're wildly popular as cargo carriers. I'm not talking things like airshows, I mean real, frontline service, especially freight service. Is anything better on the horizon? The A380 is, face it, just a modernized 747 knockoff... it simply extends the 747's double decker philosophy completely along the fuselage. Boeing engineers are looking at doing much the same thing to the current design. The parts pipeline is c
Re:The 100 year career (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The 100 year career (Score:4, Informative)
And you really are doing many many engineers a great disservice...
it might just be the culmination of transport (Score:5, Insightful)
what i mean by that is, to do better than the 747, one has to go faster further and cheaper. what mode of transport can outdo the 747 on all 3 counts at the same time?
the 747 is outdone by the concorde in terms of faster, but not further or cheaper. and so the concorde failed because in the end it was a niche tool for the rich: it offered marginally better speed for exorbitant increases in costs. we can't put a nuclear engine safely in an airplane, and so there is no cheaper for the immediate future
if we exclude extraterrestrial transport, transport on earth is pretty much at its zenith in our lifetimes. until some dramatic technological breakthroughs gives us a mode of transport that is, all at the same time, faster, further, and cheaper than the 747. in fact, on one count, further, the 747 can't really be topped. on that measure, the 747 pretty much is a dream: i, as a middle class westerner, can go anywhere on the earth i want in 24 hours. think about the history of mankind: that's a really incredible power. starting with us sitting on the back of horses, up through wheels, carriages, sails, the steam engine, rails, the ICE, jet engines... what else can there be?
so until someone invents a technology that can move us as far as the 747, perhaps 10x faster (to make an appreciable difference since 24 hours is a very comfortable amount of time to go to the other end of the globe), and perhaps 2x cheaper, we are in a golden age of transport that will not be surpassed for a very long time. we already have technologies like ramjets that are only used in exotic military applications, so really the bottleneck is cheaper fuel
until such future time, the 747 is the peak of human transportation technology
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:it might just be the culmination of transport (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Airbus A330. Fantastic success, sold over 1,000 airframes and continues to sell well.
2. Boeing 777. Fantastic success, sold over 1,000 airframes and continues to sell well.
3. Airbus A380. Debatable, yet to be seen.
4. Boeing 787. Fantastic success, yet to fly, sold over 900 airframes to date.
5. Airbus A350XWB. Fantastic success, still 4 years to EIS, sold over 450 airframes to date.
Clean sheet designs are still massively profitable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Until that hap
rail is cheap (Score:2)
and on that judgment, can not be beat (for land transport)
but i can't go to hawaii by rail, so on "further", rail is permanently limited, and as for faster, it sucks taking 3 days to get to san francisco from new york, as opposed to 6 hours
now what we could do is build some sort of global mach 1 maglev rail system so i could take a supsersonic bullet train on superconducting rails to moscow from new york via a bering straight tunnel/ bridge
but then the idea of rail being cheap disappears. building such a sy
Coming soon to a flight near you... (Score:2)
I don't remember the last time I flew on anything 747 or 747-sized. My flights have all been on CRJ's [wikipedia.org] or EmbraerJets [wikipedia.org]. I really can't say if life is better with more than one aisle, or what it is like to be able to stand up and not hit my head in on the airplane ceiling.
Although when flying alone it can be nice to be able to have a seat that is both a window and an aisle seat.
Luxury (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember flying from Washington D.C. to Washington state on a DC-10, around about 1990. The flight I was on had a grand total of 10 passengers in coach - the main purpose of the flight, according to a stewardess, was because they needed more planes on the west coast. I got an entire center row to myself - that's something like 6 or 7 seats. Since the arm rests flip up, I was able to stretch out and even lay down for most of the flight. They even had extra meals - I was a young guy back then, and quantity mattered more than quality.
I think about that trip every now and then - usually when I'm crammed in coach nowadays with my knees pushing against the seat in front of me...
"Flying In a Large Room High Ceilings" (Score:2)
Apparently the submitter has never flown in a fully-loaded 747 for twelve hours.
Inventor of the term "cattle class" (Score:4, Interesting)
The earliest use on UseNet was 1990 [google.com], and the earliest mention in the New York Times is 1999 [nytimes.com]. So I'm fairly certain Galen was the first inventor.
Outdated airline economics (Score:5, Interesting)
Nevertheless, since that first flight, the 747 has fulfilled the faith of its designers and has led to reductions in air fares, opening up air travel to many in a way that was previously unimaginable
The 747 was developed for the airline business before the Airline Deregulation Act [wikipedia.org] signed into law by Jimmy Carter. Before that, it was profitable for the airlines to operate under the "hub and spoke" business model: condense a bunch of folks going to a certain destination at a hub and then send them all at once to said destination. Which worked at the time because because all the airlines had to follow Federal rules; which, by the way, the airlines really miss those Government regulations.
Now, the way to be profitabile in the air ravel business is smaller fuel efficient aircraft with schedules more like trucks: Atlanta to Fort Lauderdale to Tampa to New Orleans to Atlanta again - for example. Not get a bunch of people to go to Fort Lauderdale from Atlanta and go back. My point? Big jets for anything other than long haul (Ocean crossings) are not worth it. The 380 is not going to have the market Airbus thought it would have.
New York to San Francisco? Please. The airline that runs the most flights between those cities is going to get the lucrative business travellers; not the airline that has a slightly cheaper fare that runs once a day, at most. Those once a day airlines are going to get the tourist business and you know what those flights are going to be like for a 380: 2 hours to board because the tourists have to figure out where aisle '34' is and where seat 'H' is. And then they have to figure out where they're going to put their trunk that should be checked. Then they'll argue with the stewardess about how this is a carry on, while their little brat is screaming because they couldn't get their French Fries from McDonald's. Then the .....
In the meantime, rich fat cat Wall street Banker Federal Welfare receiver has his own jet and just sails over to San Francisco. Then the SOB has the nerve to comment on how your suit is wrinkled and how your tired and absent minded. ....
Lokheed and Boeing (Score:5, Informative)
With hindsight getting the civilian market was the bigger prize.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you ever seen a C5 take off? It looks incomprehensibly slow as it lifts off the ground. I still watch large commercial and military jets with a sense of awe at what we achieved. Granted, it costs us a few hundred people every decade or two as one crashes...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To add to your comments about the C5 -- it can actually partially retract the landing gear on the ground squat down to truckload height, as well as drop a ramp for drive-on loading.
details here [theaviationzone.com].
Though they no longer have this capability, when they were first built they could caster the mainwheels up to 18 degrees for crosswind capability: the aircraft could take off at an 18 degree angle to the runway. That must've looked incredible. Castering mains was a big fad in the 1940's and many commercial aircraft
TFA, kinda off base (Score:3, Interesting)
Just like your typical USA-Today article, long on human interest, real short on accuracy.
(1) The Boeing 377 StratoCruiser was roomier, with sleeping berths and a bar on the lower level.
(2) The 747 was not suggested by any airline president, but by the development of large high-bypass turbofan engines.
(3) The 747 was not a success for many, many years. The early models had many delays and glitches and the airlines lost tons of money on each one for many years.
(4) Putting your wife by the runway on a first-time takeoff might not be a show of affection.
Re:777 slimmer and faster than 747 (Score:5, Interesting)
FYI,
Standard cruise on a 747 is .85 Mach (567MPH) and a 777 is .84 Mach (560MPH).
Both of these planes are capable of much greater speeds, the limiting factor..... the sound barrier. They are not designed for the shock wave build up such speeds will generate.
If you were watching the NatGeo special on Air Force One, you'd of saw the interview with the Air Cap F-16 pilot who had to radio AF1 to actually slow down so he could limit his fuel burn. AF1 was cruising at .90 Mach at the time.
Don't think for a second these lumbering giants can't get up and move... Those cruise speeds are chosen for maximum efficiency and to limit air frame fatigue.
747s have broken the sound barrier (Score:5, Interesting)
747s have broken the sound barrier on at least two occasions. One was during certification, and a second during a in-flight screw up on China Airlines 006. (Powered descent).
Both airframes survived.
Re:747s have broken the sound barrier (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"But this one goes to 11!"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you think they'll survive long if they do this several times each day?
Re:747s have broken the sound barrier (Score:5, Informative)
The China Airlines 747 was severely damaged and nearly had to be scrapped. Not due to supersonic flight loads, but due to damage from the high-G pullout required to recover from the out of control power dive towards the ocean.
Among other things the landing gear locks pulled out of their fuselage mounts and the gear extended partly during the dive pullout, damaging the gear and gear doors.
The pullout encountered 5.1 and 4.8 G peaks, which exceed the normal structural limits, and the aircraft's wings were permanently bent upwards 2-3 inches.
The horizontal tailfins also were partially shredded - see pictures and more incident data at:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19850219-0 [aviation-safety.net]
Also NTSB report available at:
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/ChinaAir/AAR8603.html [uni-bielefeld.de]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Both of these planes are capable of much greater speeds, the limiting factor..... the sound barrier...and to limit air frame fatigue.
That's certainly true. Citations are not certified for mach speeds but test pilots routinely take them right beyond the barrier, as an experimental flight, immediately before being certified. Remember, each plane is tested before delivery by a test pilot. This is true of all planes. In an accident it is pretty easy to exceed their Vmax speed, which is near the barrier, and the
Re:777 slimmer and faster than 747 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
AA, UA, NWA, USAir, Delta, Southwest - they all suck as far as economy class treatment goes. Shitty seats, dirty cabins, nickel-and-diming you for a bag of chips or box of shitty food. All of the major carriers are pretty bad. The smaller carriers do a slightly better job.
Re:Cheap and painful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even RTFA?
Boeing had done the analysis in depth. Lindbergh was the suit from Pan Am, who had to be convinced.
Re:A whole hour! (Score:5, Funny)
It was a 1960's hour. You have to adjust for inflation and ADD in 2008, that's over a month in 2008 time.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that what that sentence is saying is that the Boeing guy spent an hour convincing Lindbergh "that" the plane would fly. Not that they were doing back of envelope calculations to see "if" it would fly.
Poorly worded I admit, had to read it a couple of times myself.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Joe Sutter has written a awesome book on the 747. It really goes into how the plane was developed. It was kind of the black sheep at Boeing - everyone was focusing on the SST - the big brother of the Concorde.
They spent a lot of time looking at the behavior of the plane well before manufacturing. These engineers have passed from the scene, and given how much both Boeing and Airbus have screwed the pooch with the A380 and 787, the engineers after them have not yet lived up to their mentors.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No it isn't, not remotely.
The airframe is superficially similar but is probably made of advanced composites. It's also aerodynamically more efficient.
The engines are now high bypass turbofans with increased efficiency and reliability and reduced noise.
The avionics are unrecognisable compared with 40 years ago. Flight controls are electronic. The cockpit is a few CRTs instead of hundreds of mechanical dials. Navigation systems include GPS. The plane can now be flown by two people instead of three. Actu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're so confident that other like minded people would pay it in a heart beat, then why would you have to ensure that all airlines did it?