46 years ago I was introduced to the 747 via one of the first fledgling computer drafting programs. We stood in awe as it drew wing ribs with the crosses for fastener locations at the stiffeners. I worked on the 747 program until 1970 when number one flew. An amazing airplane and an amazing experience and amazing that it has been such an unqualified success when we struggled with one problem after another and felt totally overwhelmed at times when nothing was going right. Without the dedicated work force and talented people, that program would have been a bucket of snakes instead of worms. It was an excellent design to begin with but getting everything hooked up and holding hands took a bit of doing because of the massiveness of the entire operation. A lot of individual sacrifices were made to do it with extended hours without pay in some instances and relentless pressures from management. We were called " The Incredibles."
As I recall the design of the 747 was meant for easy conversion to freighters because it was envisaged to have a relatively limited life as a passenger aircraft. This was because in the late 60's long distance travel was a premium product and it was thought SST's would take over for passenger travel. What happened was the economics of the 747 brought in low cost international airfare, so the plane had plenty of potential passengers and did both passengers and freight. Meanwhile a sst proved to be too expnsive and there were also noise and enviromental concerns. Now the market is splitting to premium and low cost, and tech allows more planes to travel with higher frequency and low fuel burn. So airlines can offer low cost and premium seperatly using smaller aircraft that are economic and full more often. This is more of an issue in Japan and maybe the USA where hubs are less of a necssity or pressing for inetrnational travel. With low fuel burn long range twins, you can serve more cities direct and or offer more frequency from your hubs with full load. the economics works betetr than trying to fill one 747 less often or bringing in passengers from other cities to your hub to fill it. In Europe flight frequency is restricted by airport capacity and route capacity, so the theory is less flights with more passengers, this trends towards large aircraft hence Airbus decision with the 380. Boeing saw more flights in very fuel efficient aircraft servng more niches hence the decision not to build an all new very large aircraft and go with the 787, and 777 upgrades for hub or high capacity routes. Simply put the 747 is too big for a lot of passenger uses these days, now that their are fuel efficient smaller aircraft with range, the 777 with slightly elss load and more fuel efficiency and the 380 going for mega capcity. Per passenger if full the 747 is not as big or economic as an A380 on lower requency full load long distance flights, but as airbus has discoivered there is a limited market at the long distance high cap level. The A380 was prohibitively expensive to develop and is not a huge seller. Maybe in time with no passenger 747 the A380 will have a monopoly on the limited very large market and can be priced profitably for the low volume. That is the space the 747 occupied in the latter years before the 380. Still as a passenger, it truly is the cadillac of the sky, and a proven safe airframe. So for a passenger its a great ride. I still see the 747 on a lot of passenger routs. What does an airline decide to do for a 747 replacement, go slightly less capacity on 777 or go for more capacity on 380. Seems many are hanging on to the 747 and doing less 380's and more 777's mixed with 787's. Seems like boeing got it right. I had read somewhere that the 747-8 makes a great freighter and is betetr fro freight economics than a 380 or other alternatives. But that -8 sales are limited because there are plenty of less expensive used 747 -400's to convert instead of buying new. Is this correct? If so over time we might see more -8's produced as freighters when the -400 supply gets thin.
IIRC, the 747 was the "looser" in the C5 competition. The AF wanted a "roll on/roll off" solution and the 747 required equipment to load and unload and in reality probably wasn't the right solution for them. Boeing was offering something that they could also use as a passenger aircraft and that had advantages in that the cost would ultimately be lower. In looking back I don't think the AF made the wrong decision, and both the C5 and the 747 were both great aircraft. The C5 being the better configuration for the military, and the 747 being a great aircraft for hauling passengers and cargo between terminals. My best 747 ride was back from the UK in the upper deck on BA, that was a fine ride. Boxerman is right in that it is clearly a cut above any other aircraft for that duty.
I watched that story, but this is a case where the business is not listening to the customer. The 747 is the nicest looking plane inside and out and has the best flight characteristics.
The 747 was not offered to the Air Force as competition to the C-5. We proposed our own nose-loading design for the large freighter and lost to Lockheed. Boeing never slowed the pace for a very large airplane when Juan Trippe entered the picture and asked for a 747 sized pax plane. We studied 380 type designs with the double deck ( and it was just as ugly). Joe Sutter eventually created what we see now with the flight deck above the main deck so that it was clear to load through the nose for the cargo version. I remember that our C-5 offering looked very much like the Lockheed C-5.
Mine too... If I understood correctly, they retire completely the type...so i have one question. What they will do with the rest of 747-8 that produced lately?
They are going to the southwest to grace the desert there in Arizona. There are quite a few there already from what Iv'e been told.
I still think we're 10-15 years out from passenger 747s (everything but the -8i) being put out to pasture. The last -100/200 had been put out by Iran Air earlier this year. SP is still flying and will until 2016/2017 for Iran Air. -300, The -400 I think will be with us for another 10-15 years before the very last one is fully retired. Add another 10 years on top for the -8i (given Korean/Transaero have yet to take delivery). Freighters, they'll be flying as long if not longer. No other nose loading widebody jet available outside of the Russian AN-124/225.
Some, (see Lou's 747 thread) have been flown NEW directly from the Boeing plant in Washington to Arizona for storage... The airline bought them and immediately stored them for future use.
I fly quite a lot as a passenger. The 747 is way way more comfortable and pleasant than a 777, not to mention less noisy. But I dont think passenger requests for part of the airline equation.
Flew 20 times to Taiwan in the nose section "Business Select" on Evergreen Air (Eva Air) in the last decade. Wonderful experience - my favorite plane as well. I have a poster over my office desk of the cockpit of the original 747 era planes. And just 40 minutes North of me sits Prototype #1 of the 747 at the flight museum. Remember it very very well from my grade school days when it was all the rage here in the Seattle area. Jedi
I remember the first time I ever saw a 747. South African Airways had taken delivery and flew one up to Salisbury (Then Rhodesia) and circled over the city for 20 minutes or so. I was in history class fortunately on the upper floor of a two story building. I had a clear view of the aircraft and was in awe. I bet many can remember the first time they saw a 74!
Air New Zealand operates two 747s on the San Francisco-Auckland route. As a passenger, I love them! The 747 is the queen of the skies!
In the spring of 1970, I was attending boarding school in Rome, Italy. On weekends, we used to sunbathe on the roof of the small hotel that served as our dormitory. One afternoon, the huge plane, in TWA livery, made a turn almost directly above us on its final approach into Fiumicino. At most, it could only have been 1000' feet up. Incredible!
First time I saw one it was the early 70's in Hong Kong a NWA plane, we drove up to it on the bus as they did in those days and then got on. Flew to South Africa from Ny on the SPs a few times, back in the days when you could visit the cockpit.
Bob I read once that the nose section of the 747 was has aero good for supersonic flight but the wings not.
Seven 747-8 are currently getting conversions to VIP. In the future expect that the US government will buy two. They will make it look like a competition but the requirements and evaluation criteria will be written so there will only be one compliant aircraft. They did it when the current 747s were selected so that the DC-10would not win. Jeff
A few 747's cargo planes come in and out of McGuire (a few with nose loading capability) and I can say the AF should have gone with the 747 instead of a C-5, it would have saved $$$$$$$$$'s if it had. What a massive POS the C-5 is. In terms of reliability there is no contest 747 vs C-5 Jim
