Slashdot Mirror
The Flying Giant Is 40 Years Old
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."
...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 then hate how they treat you like a farm animal on flights.
Nothing is stopping you from flying first class.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Modern aircraft compare extremely well to their 1960s counterparts - the best example is that of 'ETOPS' (Extended Twin Engine Operational Performance Standard), or 'LROPS' as it is known today (Long Range Operational Performance Standard).
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.
747-400 still has slightly longer range than 777. The longest flights are still on 747s - Newark NJ -> Singapore (nonstop). Chicago - Hong Kong (nonstop), etc etc. I prefer the 777 because they have more modern amenities in coach like seatback entertainment systems instead of a single giant screen for the whole cabin like its 1981 or something. *SOME* airlines (NOT UNITED) have actually upgraded their economy class on the widebodies in the past 20 years.
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.
With hindsight getting the civilian market was the bigger prize.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The 747 was not the first double deck plane, there were several multiple deck aircraft before it - the Boeing 377 being an excellent example.
And you really are doing many many engineers a great disservice...
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
Also NTSB report available at:
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/ChinaAir/AAR8603.html
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.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
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:
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...)
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.