Slashdot Mirror
The Boeing 747 Is Heading For Retirement
schwit1 writes: After 45 years of service, Boeing's 747, the world's first jumbo jet, is finally facing retirement as airlines consider more modern planes for their fleets. The article gives a brief but detailed outline of the 747's history, and why passengers and pilots still love it. From the article: "The 747 was America at its proud and uncontaminated best. 'There's no substitute for cubic inches,' American race drivers used to say and the 747 expresses that truth in the air. There is still residual rivalry with the upstart European Airbus. Some Americans, referring to untested new technologies, call it Scarebus. There's an old saying: 'If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.' A comparison to the European Concorde is illuminating. The supersonic Anglo-French plane was an elite project created for elite passengers to travel in near space with the curvature of the Earth on one hand and a glass of first growth claret on the other. The 747 was mass-market, proletarianising the jet set. It was Coke, not grand cru and it was designed by a man named Joe. Thus, the 747's active life was about twice that of Concorde."
Typical dicenuts
Come on editors. I know this site is US centric, but do we really need the flag waving? Aside from anything else it will polarise and divert the debate from the real topic, the 747.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
As a frequent flyer, I'd much rather fly on an Airbus or a 777 than a 747. The 747 is noisy, it vibrates, and it's just generally unrefined. Sure it was an impressive plane several decades ago, when the competition was trijets like the DC10, but the world has moved on. In a way I'll still be kinda sad to see an icon of 20th century aviation go. It's also a far more elegant-looking on the outside than the A380. The A380 is pretty ugly front-on, but the 747 has nice lines.
'There's no substitute for cubic inches,' American race drivers used to say and the 747 expresses that truth in the air.
Not only is there a comma missing from that sentence, but it's there's no replacement for displacement. You ignoranus.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Pepper your article with "old sayings" you don't actually remember or understand.
No. The phrase is "there's no replacement for displacement," and they still say it. Displacement is the measure of the volume of the cylinders that's "displaced" by the movement of the pistons (cylinder area * piston travel distance), and so measures how much fuel/air mix the engine holds (and so relates to power). Because it's a measure of volume, it's MEASURED in cubic inches (or frequently cubic centimeters, even in the US). But it's referring to the interior of the engine, not the interior space of the vehicle. You have no idea what the phrase means. Please stop using it.
Citation needed. I do not believe anyone has ever said this.
It depends which model of the 747 you're on. There's a big difference in terms of noise and vibration between a 747-400 and a 747-800. They may look very similar from outside, but there are massive differences in engines, as well as substantial refinements to the airframe on the later models.
I have no idea why the comparison between the Concorde and the 747 was even made in the first place. The 2 jets were made for entirely different purposes.
The Airbus A380 would be a better comparison, since it has the same intended purpose as the 747 (massive amount of seating and cargo space for cheap flights)
Also, Boeing was working on it's own version of a luxury supersonic competitor to the Concord (the Boeing 2707 SST), but the project ended up being cancelled before it was ever mass produced (mostly due to to all the sonic-boom issues related to flying over land)
Comparing the 747 to the Concorde is like comparing a double-decker bus to a stretch-ferrari limousine
Look, I'm an American but the summary is a ludicrous troll.
Some Americans, referring to untested new technologies, call it Scarebus.
Maybe some people working for Boeing. I've never once heard anyone use that term in my life.
There is still residual rivalry with the upstart European Airbus.
"Residual rivalry"? Uhh, no. Try huge and ongoing rivalry between the two biggest players in the industry. This is Coke v Pepsi. Ali v Fraser. Ford v GM. The notion that the rivalry isn't still alive and well is simply absurd.
"Upstart"? A company with revenue of 60 Billion Euros is hardly an upstart. For comparison Boeing has revenues of about $90 Billion. It may have been an upstart many decades ago but upstart isn't a description that has fit for a very long time.
A comparison to the European Concorde is illuminating.
No it really isn't. It would be hard for it to be less illuminating. The Concorde was an experiment that didn't work out as well as hoped and likely was a bit ahead of its time. Had it worked out better we might very well have seen more supersonic aircraft. It was truly a first of its kind. The 747 was in many ways far more conservative and conventional - just a bigger and incrementally improved version of stuff we mostly already knew how to do. We'd already made aircraft that large (see the B52 which is about the same size and came 15 years earlier) and while the 747 was impressive it wasn't unprecedented. Ask anyone if they'd rather fly on the Concorde or a 747 and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't find many takers for the 747.
according to my dad
Your dad is wrong.
The fundamental flaws in *every* SST are:
1) sonic booms (which make them banned everywhere over the US except over certain desert regions allocated to the Air Force for training/testing; similar rules almost certainly applied in Europe), and
2) fuel consumption: at supersonic speeds, they suck gas like it's going out of style.
Neither of those problems were even *close* to being solved in 1970.
Also, the Concorde was stunningly loud (violating all sorts of noise regulations), belched tons of soot, and it's range was limited, so it couldn't fly Pacific routes.
Thus, it was doomed from the start.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
-At the time of the 747's creation AIRBUS was an upstart in the industry.
That was almost half a century ago. Referring to Airbus as an upstart at this point in time is just dumb. Calling it a "residual rivalry" is equally dumb since the companies are the two biggest and most intense rivals in the industry. It's almost a zero sum game between the two when it comes to getting sales since there are no other meaningful players in the large jet market at this time.
-Also at that time, there was debate within the industry as to which vehicle was the way forward: faster or larger.
And larger was the safe bet. We had built jets roughly the size of the 747 15 years before it hit the market. (see the B52 which was built in the early 1950s). The 747 was basically an incremental improvement on already proven technology. The Concorde was a much more risky bet on technology that had never been used in civil aviation.
The Concorde was an experiment really and it used technology that worked but probably wasn't sufficiently developed at the time. Had the engines been more efficient and able to supercruise the Concorde may have made more economic sense and had follow on aircraft. It served for nearly 30 years anyway so if it failed it didn't fail badly.