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."
It used to be fun to fly, not any more.
Is this thing on? Check. Check.
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).
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?
If the A380 is a modernised 747 'knockoff', then the Boeing 787 is a modernised Airbus A300 'knockoff'. Doesn't detract from the fact that either plane is simply fantastic.
Consumers have voted with their dollars, and apparently they prefer traveling in "cattle class" to traveling on the Concorde. Who are we to criticize the airline industry for giving the customer what they want?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's worse than little - its negative progress. Five years ago if I was rich enough I could purchase a ticket on a craft, Concorde, capable of cruising at twice the speed of sound. Today there is no supersonic passenger aircraft in service. Since I understand that a vastly more efficient supersonic aircraft could be constructed today the problem seems to be one of being willing to take an economic risk rather than a lack of technical expertise.
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.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Just because the frames survived breaking the sound barrier two times doesn't mean that they were designed to do so, or that it would be a good idea to do so again. Or, in other words, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it is SAFE.
"But this one goes to 11!"
let's assume i want to go to new delhi from new york
the concorde can do it in 4 hours, the 747 in 24 hours. but the concorde will cost me 10x as much: speed and fuel cost is not a linear relationship. for me, the extra money is not worth the time savings. sure, to someone it is worth it, but such a person is rich, and there's not enough of them that would make investing the infrastructure to make this possible
avoiding all other arguments, such as safety, a hypothetical concorde that made that trip would burn a lot more fuel than a 747. this is a permanent limitation, not some sort of economics of scale limitation that would make the concorde eventually profitable
besides, 747s CAN fly supersonic. but they remain subsonic because their hull strength can't handle the fatigue of flying supersonic. it wouldn't be that much of a feat to start flying supersonically around the world in modified 747s that didn't shake their occupants. the limiting factor is fuel cost, its not a linear relationship to fly faster, and that's a permanent, hard limitation on the concorde or any supersonic aircraft
there are also schemes to leave the earth's atmosphere and come back in. but then you need to transport half of your fuel, because current airplanes have the luxury of flying through half of their fuel: oxygen
so yes, the 747 really is some sort of transportation sweet spot, a zenith in human technological progress that won't be passed for a long time in speed, cost, and distance (all measurements at the same)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Maybe we shouldn't consider the airline at fault for not changing seat sizes rather than mainstream america (or UK, or Canada, or Australia) for changing ass sizes.
Nope. Turns out it was a firetrap.
I don't mind the 747 "cattle car" so much as the vile 737 "chicken coop". Six abreast, one aisle, and no additional overhead space. I would rather travel across the country on a Greyhound; at least there is more legroom.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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?