Let's talk about 747s

[Tim Jodice]

Most airlines are dropping them like bad habits but some have bought newer -8 and UPS is still taking delivery of new ones. I know it is all about efficiency, but why is it different for some? Why didn't Korean Air, Air China and Lufthansa buy Prius like 777 or A350s? Why is UPS still buying brand new ones? There must be still be something that a 747 does best. Does anyone know what it? It will be a sad day when the last one is built. Anyone who has experience with any 747 I would love to hear what it was/is like. Thanks!

[Mjknick@gmail.com]

Great machine just four hungry engines to feed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Denver98]

I haven’t flow the 747, sadly.  But as far as commercial passenger airliners go...it’s a 2 pilot, 2 engine world.  The 777-300ER is the same length as the 747-400, just no upper deck.   It does everything the 747 does but with 2 engines...except carry cargo.  UPS can fill the majority of the cubic feet with revenue cargo, no need for legroom or galleys.  I would imagine that the days as a freighter are limited.  The 777X flew for the first time today, 2 engines will always be cheaper that 4, regardless how sexy the 4 engine jet looks.  

[carusoam]

Four engines to feed and maintain...

Gates specialized to handle them...  the double decker Airbus seems to have run into this challenge as well...

 

Less universal usability... and the extra challenge of filling all the seats all of the time...

 

 

Really good for going between places set-up to handle them, when they can be full all the time...

 

What makes things more interesting...in some cases... dynamic pricing, and selling open seats... 

Kind of cloud computing meeting the app world and inviting everybody to play...

 

People still have jobs, and limited free time... so filling a 747 is a large human challenge...

 

Does the 747 get new efficient engines developed for it like the 777 and 737 are seeing?

Do all the older 747 go into package hauling and fire bombing like DC10s...?

Inviting @GeorgePerry to the conversation... George has flown all kinds of planes including big ones for UPS... (and some small ones like the F18...   )

PP guessing about commercial aviation economics... I have no real knowledge here... 

Best regards,

-a-

[Tony Starke]

3 minutes ago, carusoam said:

... so filling a 747 is a large human challenge...

A large challenge for humans or a challenge for large humans? There is a guy on here that has access to large humans.

[carusoam]

I promised to work on the quality of my posts when I hit 25k...

I got quantity, but quality.... I still plenty of work to do...

The Boeing 747 can hold 605 standard passengers... I asked Alexa.... 

Best regards,

-a-

[Mooneymite]

For airlines, there always seems to be a struggle between the efficiency of "big" versus the marketability of frequent flights.  While Delta could probably fill up an A-380  and sell the seats very cheaply if there were only one flight a day between ATL and BHM, it is doubtful the traveling public would go for that schedule.  The other end of the spectrum would be an RJ leaving every half hour.  As narrow bodies become capable of longer and longer distances, frequent flights seem to be winning over efficiency, so we're seeing 737s and A-321s going to Europe.  Cargo flights are not so schedule sensitive, so boxes can collect for more efficient big planes.

I don't think it is just the cost of 4 engines that is ending the reign of the 747.  The frequent flights of smaller planes are winning in the market place and squeezing the behemoths to fewer and fewer city pairs.

[flyboy0681]

Great subject, but sad at the same time since the days of the 747, one of my all time favorites (that's reserved for the 707) - are numbered. Just as I said in the 737 post, if Boeing had the current engine technology available in 1966, the 747 would have two engines.

The 737 and 747 were both designed by Joe Sutter, who passed on just a few short years ago at 95, who wrote a great book about ten years ago about the development of the 747. He  added a lot of insight into the design and manufacturing that I hadn't previously known. One such fact was that the original design and prototype originally didn't have body gear steering and it was added only after the tires were scrubbing on tight turns.

Last year I made a pilgrimage to the Museum of Flight and fulfilled a childhood dream of boarding Ship One. While I was disappointed that the upper deck was off-limits to the public, it was well worth the trip.

 

[Captnmack]

I have several thousand hours flying both the Classic and -400 models of this Beauty. Long ago I was told it was a Gentleman’s Airplane. When I was just starting out it was only a dream to fly one as you had to be a senior gray headed guy or gal to be a PIC on the Queen. Today however they are operated by very young crews! One thing that the 747 does, especially the Nose Loaders, is carry “out sized” freight. I have carried everything from Orca’s to M-Raps and Humvies and sadly a few fallen hero’s. Yes, the 777 freighter will become mainstream but when a 777 needs a new engine, what brings it? A 747...

[Ron McBride]

Would it be practical for Boeing to re-engine 2 large engines onto it?  

[aviatoreb]

24 minutes ago, Ron McBride said:

Would it be practical for Boeing to re-engine 2 large engines onto it?  

Forget that - I want those two large engines on the wings of my Mooney - ZOOM!

[Mooneymite]

23 hours ago, Ron McBride said:

Would it be practical for Boeing to re-engine 2 large engines onto it?  

Based on engine technology progress, it will probably be possible to have a single engine 747!

However, what no one talks about is "double engine failure".

In the old days, it was said that you knew you had enough engines when you called, "Feather number four!" and the flight engineer asks, "Which side, sir?"

We've come a long way.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Mooneymite

[McMooney]

love the 747, my dream job would be as a 747 UPS/Fedex Pilot.

[flyboy0681]

11 minutes ago, McMooney said:

love the 747, my dream job would be as a 747 UPS/Fedex Pilot.

My dream job came and went - Pan Am 747-100.

 

[M20F]

The 747 has advantages in the cargo market due to interior height, volume, and nose loading.  
 

A 777 passenger plane can lift more cargo then a 74F depending on route.  Weight though is rarely an issue in the freighter world except as it relates to range (more gas, less cargo).  You almost always cube out before you weight out (minus fuel issues).

It is a niche plane these days for cargo and will probably always be around just like the Antonov’s are.  There just isn’t anything that can replace them.  Personally I don’t think the $$’s make sense on an 800 versus a 400. 

For the passenger market the 777/787 and their Airbus counterparts are king.  There are not enough saturated lanes to support 747 seating capacity and where there is (JFK-LHR) as example, more frequencies are preferred.  Hub and spoke is back out of favor and with a 787 you can run more directs.  

[flyboy0681]

One more comment.. I remember vividly around 1975 when Airbus was starting to catch fire with the A300 when Boeing took out full page ads in major American newspapers stating that the flying public would not accept flying over oceans in twin engine planes. Boeing just laughed at Airbus and didn't take them seriously, figuring they were just another Vickers (VC-10), Sud Aviation (Caravelle) or better yet - General Dynamics (Convair 880).

[M20F]

 

[jetdriven]

747-400 burns around 24,000 pounds an hour of fuel. The 777 burns around 16 or 17,000. I think the 777-9x is lower than that.  

[Jim Peace]

Sometimes work has its moments

[Mooneymite]

21 hours ago, flyboy0681 said:

One more comment.. I remember vividly around 1975 when Airbus was starting to catch fire with the A300 when Boeing took out full page ads in major American newspapers stating that the flying public would not accept flying over oceans in twin engine planes. Boeing just laughed at Airbus and didn't take them seriously, figuring they were just another Vickers (VC-10), Sud Aviation (Caravelle) or better yet - General Dynamics (Convair 880).

I think it was shortly after this that people quipped that ETOPS (extended twin ops) really stood for "Engines Turn, Or People Swim."

[GeeBee]

On 1/26/2020 at 6:54 PM, flyboy0681 said:

One more comment.. I remember vividly around 1975 when Airbus was starting to catch fire with the A300 when Boeing took out full page ads in major American newspapers stating that the flying public would not accept flying over oceans in twin engine planes. Boeing just laughed at Airbus and didn't take them seriously, figuring they were just another Vickers (VC-10), Sud Aviation (Caravelle) or better yet - General Dynamics (Convair 880).

After the MAX debacle, I think Boeing takes the Airbus control concept quite seriously now.

As for 4 engines, consider Virgin Atlantic. All Branson would buy is 4 engine airplanes. 747s and A340s. He just about bankrupted the company, which is why he sold 49% to Delta. They got rid of their 4 engine airplanes.

 

[Immelman]

On 1/26/2020 at 3:27 PM, McMooney said:

love the 747, my dream job would be as a 747 UPS/Fedex Pilot.

A friend of mine was offered UPS 747 (and was young enough to retire very, very senior at UPS) and, at the same time, Delta. He took Delta. I think he'll come out ahead.

[Ross Taylor]

 I had a friend who flew 747s for Atlas, hauling freight.  I once asked him if he ever wanted to move to a passenger airline and he said, "I don't want to haul self-loading cargo..."  One of the funniest flight comments I've ever heard.  :-)

[jetdriven]

It’s funny, But very self-defeating. 

[Mooneymite]

13 hours ago, GeeBee said:

As for 4 engines, consider Virgin Atlantic. All Branson would buy is 4 engine airplanes. 747s and A340s. He just about bankrupted the company, which is why he sold 49% to Delta. 

When it comes to 4 engines and bankruptcy, don't forget this gem: