Jump to content

Talk:Boeing 747/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Untitled

Stuff needed: we are planning on using a 747 cargo plane to ship a spray plane from colombia south america to the states. i want to know the clearance of the cargo door on this plane. thanks, tim emory, erad maintance mgr, u.s. state dept. eradication program, colombia south america, email address, emory69@msn.com

  • When was it first introduced?
  • Variations, production history.
  • Notable variations (Air Force One, Space Shuttle carrier. . . others?)

Much of the material recently added is from; http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_facts.html

Do we have permission to use this under terms of our license (GFDL)? --mav

EricD, I am just wondering why you removed that mass of interesting facts about the 747. I didn't put that stuff onto the page but it's a pity to lose it. Was it not in the public domain?
Just for your interest I took the pic of the JAL 747 at Heathrow. I hope you like it. I always provide a link to a larger pic (800 pixels wide). There is another of my pics at the top of the Paris page.
Best Wishes, Arpingstone 23:19 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Nice photo. I believe these facts come from Boeing and yes it might be a copyright infrigement. What do you think about sending a mail to Boeing ? I think they will accept. Ericd

Or just re-write them. This has several advantages: (a) no copyright problem, (b) can be more concise, and (c) provides the opportunity to use some editorial discretion - for example:

During test flights, a Boeing 747 almost reached the speed of sound while in a dive.

can be left out - this is true of just about any high-subsonic aircraft. It's routine to test this stuff.

The 747-400 can carry more than 57,000 gallons of fuel (215,745 L), making it possible to fly extremely long routes, such as San Francisco to Sydney, Australia.

can become:

The 747-400 carries over 215,000 litres of fuel, making it possible to fly long routes, such as San Francisco to Sydney.

(Gallons is a very bad measure to use in an aviation article - not only is it an obsolete measure outside the USA, but there is the perennial confusion between Imperial and US gallons, and aircrew tend not to use volumetric measures of fuel anyway - in the US it's normally pounds of fuel that matters. Secondly, SF to Sydney is no longer a "very" long route. It's aircraft like the A340 and the 777 that fly very long range routes.)

I would recommend that pounds of fuel, be specified, instead of liters, gallons, etc. That is how fuel is always boarded on the manifest----by pounds, because on the long flights the tanks often cannot be filled to capacity because of the Max Takeoff weight limitation. Fuel density varies, which is why the 747-400 has a fuel density measurement in its fuel software. There can be considerable differences in how many liters/gallons of fuel the tanks can hold, because of density variations of the fuel being loaded. EditorASC 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I recommend "liters" as the primary unit of fuel because most people think that way. For example, people buy car fuel in liters in most countries, not pounds or killograms. Mark Wales, 15Jul07

and the several dot points on parts can be neatly trimmed down to:

A 747-400 includes 66 tonnes of aluminum, has six million parts (half of them fasteners), 8km of tubing, and 274km of electrical wire.

There are several uses of statute miles too: air and marine distances should always be in nautical miles or kilometres. Statute miles are only for cars. Tannin 00:14 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

The only problem with using nautical miles, is that most people (people that are not diehard aviation fans, or pilots) can not relate to what these terms (nautical miles, pounds of fuel, etc.) mean. Also, a specification can not be copyrighted. It is like saying that a certain car can go 0 to 60 in so many seconds. Is everybody who republishes this information violating the law?

I don't agree with the class of airliners known as jumbo jets bit. A jumbo is a 747, end of story. I don't know what the A380 will do to the terminology, but today, referring to a plane other than a 747 as a jumbo is just plain wrong. Markonen 17:15, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

  • Agree. This is a glaring error. I am going to change it.
    • Disagree. Even though the term is less generic that it was, I predict that the Airbus A380 will become a jumbo jet as well once it is released, at least in informal conversation. A Google search for "jumbo jet airbus a380" gives 19 000 hits. I don't think 'jumbo jet' should redirect to Boeing 747; I think that it should talk about large aircraft in general or at least be a disambiguation page.

In the early days of wide-body jets, Jumbo-Jet was a more general term than it has become. Once the 747 was rolled out, it became THE Jumbo-Jet, and the term tended not to get used for other planes. But the fact remains that the term was general before that. Graham 02:01, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I found out a bit more about this. The media was using the term jumbo jet in the 60s for all wide-body types. When the 747 was rolled out, Boeing went out of their way to try and prevent the media applying the term to the 747. I'm not sure why they were so keen to avoid the term, but the press packs at the time were at pains to avoid the term, and the press instructed not to use it. Of course in time this effort was a waste of time. I've added a para to the trivia section to mention this. Graham 00:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed most of the photos, on the basis that they all looked pretty much the same, and do nothing but make the page slow to load. I realise that they each represented slightly different versions of the jet, but so what, the differences are very minor. The one I left in was a random choice - if you prefer another please change it, but I do strongly feel that multiple images are unnecessary here.

In addition, does the list of airlines really belong here? Most major airlines use 747s. Graham 02:01, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed that the list of airlines is irrelevant and just looks like padding. For comment on removal of my two pics see User talk:GRAHAMUK.
Adrian Pingstone 10:26, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi Adrian, I think linking to the other pics is a good idea - in fact I almost did that myself, but got called away and didn't have time. The small differences that you mention are very small however, I don't think they are noticeable except once they're pointed out, or unless you're a 747 anorak, but other may disagree! I think had the images shown different aspects of the aircraft, rather than all showing more or less similar views, it would have been harder to make the case. Graham 21:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK, I completely accept your argument on the three identical views, I'll do a link to the other two. I'll also remove the airlines list, it just looks like padding. Your info about cameras was very helpful, thanks for giving up the time to write it.
Adrian Pingstone 09:08, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see another photo has crept back onto the page ;-)

Is the download link for a flight sim model of the 747 appropriate here? I don't think so. For one, not everyone is using windows, for another, this article is about the actual plane, not the flight sim, or the flight sim model of the plane. It just doesn't seem as if it should be here. Graham 00:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I changed the New York to Tokyo range reference to Hong Kong, as I recall United Airlines used to fly that route, and it's a lot more dramatic than the relatively short JFK-NRT flight.

I was curious about statistics for the 747 such as length and wingspan, but that information doesn't seem to be on this page for any of the models. Could someone add that information? I didn't overlook it, did I? thanx -R. fiend 18:16, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image

I changed the image because Pan Am helped create the 747.

Airbus Contrast

Should the following addition be re-worded from;

"The fact that Boeing had to "bet the farm", and came through with a revolutionary product is often contrasted with Airbus, which some argue receive risk free loans for their developement projects in violation of WTO rules."

-to-

"The fact that Boeing had to "bet the farm", and came through with a revolutionary product is often contrasted with Airbus, which receives risk free loans for their developement projects that some argue is in violation of WTO rules."

?

Pud 02:04, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes --IRelayer 21:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This appears to have been removed but incase someone tried to add, it is inaccurate. For starters, the Boeing-Airbus situation is much more complex. Boeing in fact is heavily subsidised in one way or another for example by US miltary contracts. They are also helped by US politics, for example with the Japan deal and with the large number of Chinese orders which appear to have been mostly do appease the US government rather then because of technical or price merit (these may have been true but we don't know because the Chinese didn't consider them greatly). Also, calling these loans risk free is just plain dumb. Although they're not normal loans, you can be sure as hell if Airbus blows a lot of money for nothing, the people and the European governments are NOT going to be happy. Furthermore, Boeing had no choice but to "bet the farm" these many many years ago since they likely would have died otherwise. They did it and were lucky. However Boeing might not have even gotten to the 747 without the 707 and if you'll read the 707 and other related articles, you'll realise the 707 developed was basically subsidied by the US as it was largely based on a project virtually guaranteed to be a miltary succeed. The truth of the matter is neither Boeing or Airbus would be where they are were not for government support which continues to this day... Nil Einne 21:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

When pressurised, a 747 fuselage holds over a ton of air.

I think this part may require a rewrite. You're pressurised while you're up above. But the cabin pressure is actually a fraction of the sea level pressure. -- Toytoy 15:25, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

The FAA requires civilian airlinear's cabin pressure be no less than 0.75 ATM (pressure at about 8000 ft). That means when on the sea level, a 747 fuselage may contain about two tons of air. -- Toytoy 14:54, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Er, why would a plane be pressurised when it's at sea level? Nil Einne 21:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be pressurized, the atnosphere will hold that air in there, but the atnosphere will also provoide boyancy canceling out its affect. Plugwash 22:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed this statement, because it is inaccurate:

"*When pressurized, a 747 fuselage holds over a ton of air."

The weight of a given volume of air, changes with the atmospheric altitude of that air. The higher the altitude, the less it will weigh. EditorASC 21:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The air in the plane is at a controlled temnperature and pressure. Therefore the density is steady. -Fnlayson 21:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong about that. The cabin altitude climbs as the plane climbs. If the plane is flying below 25,000 ft., the cabin altitude will be near sea level. But, if it is flying at 39,000 ft., the cabin altitude will be closer to 8,000 ft. As for temperature, that varies a lot too. It can be a lot hotter in the rear of the cabin, where passengers are jammed together (more people per sq. ft.), than in first class, where they are spread out. That is why the most modern airliners have zone controls that allow the flight attendants to adjust temperature for their particular zones, by as much as 10 degrees, either side of the master control in the cockpit, for that zone. EditorASC 21:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You are using incorrect nomenclature. The density of the air in a pressurized cabin is a function of the actual altitude of that cabin. Thus, the air in that cabin weighs less when the cabin is pressurized to an altitude of 8,000 ft., than when it is pressurized to sea level. "Far more steady" is a meaningless statement, in this discussion. EditorASC 22:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea. Like I said fair enough... Also, you really should use edit summary box. -Fnlayson 22:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I keep forgetting about that box; I will try to remember it next time. EditorASC 22:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++

I removed this statement, because it is not true:

"*As with other airliners such as the DC-10, the engines on a 747 are not visible from the cockpit windows. This configuration has had significance during various accidents and incidents involving this aircraft."

I have taken photos of the engines, from cockpit windows. I know of no accident which listed as a contributing factor, the pilots not being able to see the engines from the cockpit, especially since that is not true, for 747s. EditorASC 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)\

++++++++++++++++++++++++

I removed this statement, because it is filled with inaccuracies:

"Because of its length, there is a small flexure of the fuselage in flight. This effect was not anticipated in the design of the autopilot on early models, and so there is a very slow oscillation in yaw when flying on autopilot. This was first discovered on an overseas flight to the Paris Airshow, when some of the people in the rear became air sick. Upon return, the plane went through tests to solve the problem and adjust the yaw damper system. The effect is now too small to be noticeable by passengers."

The "dutch roll" problem of jet airliners (which causes irritating side-to-side yawing) is caused by the degree of sweepback of the wings, not by the flexing of the fuselage.

The yaw problem is addressed with a yaw damper, which all modern jetliners have. That is not a part of the autopilot system. The autopilots do not command any inputs to the rudder (the only way to counter-act the yaw, is by commands to the rudder), during most modes of flight. The only time the autopilots give commands to the rudder, is during a Category III coupled autoland approach and landing.

The irritating yaw problem was well known long before the 747 was designed. It was pretty uncomfortable in the rear section of the Boeing 720 (the short version of the 707), even though it had a full-time yaw damper. The yaw dampers on the newest jetliners do a much better job of counteracting that irritating yaw, than the ones designed in the 60s. EditorASC 21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++

I removed this statement because it is not trivia unique to the 747:

"*The 747 is certified to fly on 3 of its 4 engines. A 747 can successfully take-off even if an engine fails after rotation, and in many cases the flight can continue to its destination."

All airliners are certified to keep on flying after the loss of one engine, at the most critical time (during takeoff, right after V1 speed). As to any flight continuing to destination, that is a decision function of the captain and dispatch, in light of the applicable FARs, weather, etc. It is not a function of the design of the aircraft, that differs from any other type of aircraft. EditorASC 22:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to check that a change I've made to the image presentation in this article meets with approval (or not). If it's acceptable I can do the same thing with some of the other image-heavy airliner pages.
Previously the page had a List of Images which was a just a list of clickable airline article names (it was not a list of images at all). It was a long job to click on each airline name, open the article, search down the article for the pic then open it. Now it's just a click on the Image Gallery at the bottom of this article. I like the gallery, what do you think? - Adrian Pingstone 21:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great idea - well done (well, no one else has answered!) - Adrian Pingstone 19:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I have an image that I took MYSELF of HL 7463 (it's the one in storage in Jeju Island), it's mentioned in the Preserved Aircraft section does anyone think it would be a good idea to add it? If so, can you also tell me how? Revoltracers 06:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Merging 747A/747 articles

I disagree with this. For one, the 747A program has **not** been officially launched yet. Secondly, the 747A is signifigant enough to warrant its own article for the time being, for the sole reason that it is dealing with a specific program that is relevant to ongoing events, while the 747 article is a more general overview of the entire family. References to the 747A program are fine, but, unless the 747A program passes into oblivion, or until it becomes an official part of the 747 family (entry into service or perhaps before), it should be kept in its own "pen". --IRelayer 00:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I also disagree with the proposed merger. I feel the 747A deserves its own article, particularly if gets the go-ahead. The technological advances over the -400 and the effect on competition with Airbus should be explored in depth at Boeing 747 Advanced. Other issues include the ability to add an orders table (as in 787 and A380 articles) to the 747A article, which would not be easily accomodated on the main 747 page.Mark83 13:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't merge this. Delete it. Even if it gets a go-ahead from Boeing. We don't divide 737 into first generation and second generation...heck, the DC-9 article encompasses everything from DC9 to MD-90. This plane is purely speculation and is NOT worthy of a second article--24.255.83.59 04:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Disagree, and keep article. We have dozens, if not hundreds, of articles about aircraft that never saw the light of day, and that gives wikipedia an edge over print media - just because it never flew doesn't mean it's not worthy of mention. Anyway, there are separate articles for Douglas DC-3 and C-47 Dakota, despite there being pretty much no major differences at all. There's also as much text in this article as there is in the entire DC-9 article. -ericg ✈ 04:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Maximum Speeds

For some reason, I feel that the maximum speed figures given are inaccurate. For example, while tracking flights on-line, I noticed that B744 speeds often exceed 540 knots (1000 km/h) - on one occasion, an Air China B744 that I tracked was flying at 623 knots - that's about 1154 km/h! I wonder how the maximum speeds specified on this page were derived - and I also feel odd that the maximum speed specified for the B744 is slower than that specified for the B741. --Metric1031 04:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Chances are the online flight trackers are showing you ground speed, rather than airspeed. -ericg ✈ 04:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


Also Boeing specifies speeds with neitral winds. Tailwinds increase your speed and headwinds decrease it --Bangabalunga 20:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

When airliners are compared, their economical max cruise speeds are given, in terms of Mach number (percentage of the speed of sound). It is possible to fly a 747 at Mach .90, but that would significantly reduce the maximum range, because of the increase in parasite drag. The most efficient cruise speed of the 747-400 is in the Mach .82 to .84 range. Some versions of the B-737 (by comparison) are most efficient at Mach .77. Both planes can be flown faster than that, but again, it will increase the pounds of fuel used, per nautical mile, if they are.

Temperature is the only variable for the speed of sound. The wide range of speeds, shown on tracking pages are ground speeds, in terms of knots. The winds aloft greatly affect actual ground speeds, but they do not affect cruise Mach speeds. EditorASC 08:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A factual error somewhere

This page states: "...the 747 is the fastest commercial airliner, flying at high-subsonic speeds (typically 0.85 Mach..." but the page about A340 states: "Cruising speed: Mach 0.86". Obviously at least one of them is wrong but I don't know which.

I changed the text so that that statement is no longer made since there's a factual error somewhere and I think that everybody agrees that it's better to omit something than to state something, which might be factually wrong.

747's Decline

Could this be written better and placed into the article? The main reason passenger airlines have been dropping the 747 is the length of time it takes to prep and load the 747. Passengers often complain of 3 hour waits from first being seated till they leave the gate. I'm not sure the average time the 747 ties up a gate from arrival to departure. This is costly for the airline and over the years passengers have wised up in favor of booking a smaller plane. --67.3.209.74 08:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not the sole reason, and it's not entirely accurate, either. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 11:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
If that was the case, then the A380 would be a much harder sell. ericg ✈ 13:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
It's most definetely not accurate. I don't know about in the US, but I have never waited in a 747 for 3 hours for it to take off. Heck not even 1 hours AFAIK. It's also most definetely not the main reason since I suspect the number of people who actually worry that much about the type of airplane (well unless we're talking about some poorly maintaned Russian thing used by the cheap African airlines) they're going to be in is small (mainly business class and the like if anything and they wait the least anyway). The truth of the matter is too that for longhaul international flights, the check in time spent waiting due to security etc is probably longer then you'll wait for the plane to take off after being seated and giving the length of the flight (say 5 h at least) for most people the extra 30 minutes or whatever (if this figure is even accurate) it takes for the 747 is insignificant... Nil Einne 21:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Absorbing Powder

Removed:

"In the light of Hurricane Katrina, it is also in the plans to use 747s as super tankers to drop water-absorbing powder onto hurricanes."

There are many references[1] [2] to this, but all appear to be attempts by the manufacturer of the powder to promote the product. A NOAA FAQ [3] on the subject provides convincing evidence that such plans are impractical. Exia Exia 02:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, limited experiments by NASA, USAF, and NOAA tried seeding hurricane clouds with silver iodide -- with inconclusive impact. 147.145.40.43 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

747-8 split proposal

The discussion above was 4 to 5 in favour of keeping 747 Advanced/747-8 as a separate article. It has since been merged into this article. I propose having Boeing 747-8 as a heading within Boeing 747 which gives a brief description of the plane with a link to Boeing 747-8 article where a full description and analysis can be written. Will also help reduce the page size, which at present is over ideal size.

  1. Split. For reasons above.
  2. Split. I concur. ericg ✈ 22:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Disagree. It shares a lot of content with the main article. With two separate articles, it's harder to draw context. Also, things such as the table below would be more difficult to express otherwise. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I just don't think the subject can be fully covered here. There is already more written about the 747-8 than the rest of the models combined and if the A380 page is anything to go by there will be much more to come when production commences. As for the table, I don't see a problem. As I propose there would be a 747-8 heading with a summary in line with the other model summaries with a link to the main article.
  4. Split. Summary style is strongly recommended by the MoS, and it certainly applies in this case. Fawcett5 23:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Split. - with the recommendation that the section on the -8 left in the main 747 article should be of comparable length to the other model subheadings. I'd hate to see "747-8: see *link*" for example, because that would actually make the main 747 article less useful, I think. --ABQCat 22:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Split. At the moment the 747-8 is a paper plane, yet another in the long list of attempts by Boeing to come up with a competitor to the A380 short of actually building one. I think there is far too much emphasis on the project and it should be scaled down radically in this article. If and when it actually becomes a reality, then it should only have a few paragraphs in the main aricle anyway, as do all the other 747 models. --Jumbo 10:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It's been ordered by launch customers and announced; you might as well call the 787 or A350 paper planes. If it's as drastically changed as Boeing claims, then there are far more changes than between previous models. ericg ✈ 23:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a proposed new model of an existing and very successful aircraft. It's not the Second Coming. Let's keep perspective and NPOV. --Jumbo 01:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Of course it's not. But I think you need to calm down a bit and look at the aircraft selection here as a whole and the existing trends of WP:Air. The CH-47 Chinook and RAF Chinook have separate articles and are basically identical aircraft. There are a half-dozen C-130 Hercules variants (including one that's simply ski-equipped) with their own articles. The list goes on. Do you want to consolidate these? We need to be consistent. ericg ✈ 05:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
          • It just seems odd that the 747-400, a hugely successful and popular airliner, has three paragraphs in the 747 article, and no separate article. Yet the 747-8, which doesn't exist and is essentially yet another reaction to the A380, has nine paragraphs, several subsections and a table. Hive this stuff off to another article, sure, but what's the story here? --Jumbo 10:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Split. We should split everything after the first paragraph, keeping the intro to it here. Obviously another similar intro should be on the page, but it is a long document in its own right. Nippoo 23:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion

The result as of Dec 15 2005 is 6:1 in favour of a separate article. Mark83 11:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Incredibles

I've removed the line:

(in 2004, Disney decided to use that name for four superheroes in their movie, The Incredibles)

as I don't see a clear connection between the two, other than the name. If you can support that the Pixar movie took from their nickname, please re-add. 01:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

World's largest airliner

The Airbus 380 exists, is flying, and is carrying passengers, albeit not in airline service but on short promotional hops, such as the recent trip to Dubai. It doesn't suddenly become an airliner when someone slaps down a credit card and buys a ticket (although you can probably do that already, given that Singapore Airlines is due to commence operations within less than a year). It IS an airliner now. It's not a paper plane. --Jumbo 21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Its not an "airliner" because its not in commercial revenue service. In fact, with the number of cancellations, delays, and technical problems -- who knows when the aircraft will become an airliner (i.e. with paying customers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.244.115 (talk • contribs)
Jumbo posted a year ago, and it's now going to be at least another year before the A380 enters service. However, saying it isn't an airliner because it hasn't carried paying passengers yet is a stretch. The A380 is designed as an airliner, and is the largest one ever built and flown. It's not the largest "operational" airliner, however, and that distinction should be made in the text. I am pretty sure the A380 will enter service eventually, as there are several flying already; they'll put those to use. However, it may turn out like the concorde, with only a limited number in service. - BillCJ 05:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Upper Deck

The article states: "The 747's upper deck was initially used as a luxurious first-class lounge/bar area. Now, however, the upper deck is most often used for extra seating capacity. Some say this trend will also happen to the Airbus A380."

I find this absolutely bizarre. Has Airbus or any airline customer stated that the A380 upper deck will not be used for passenger seating? --Jumbo 11:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Further to this, I note that the first 747s had quite small "humps", identifiable by three windows on each side. This area is (or was, rather, as most jumbos now have stretched upper decks) equivalent to a very short section of a narrow-body airliner with a single aisle. In comparison, the upper deck of the A380 is a full-length widebody. Of course it's going to be used for passenger seating.
In passing, it is worth noting that the widebody Ilyushin Il-86 has two full-length decks and the upper deck is entirely given over to passenger seating. --Jumbo 10:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

List price of 747s and other information

This article has some information about Boeing 747's that I think would go quite nicely in this article:

Delivered to date: 1,364

Unfilled orders: 42

747-400 list price: $205 million to $236 million

Most recent passenger jet order: Air China in November 2002 ordered four passenger versions of the 747-400

Orders in 2005: 26 airplanes, all freighter versions, including eight for UPS

Deliveries in 2005: 11 airplanes, including just two passenger jets

The list price could probably be incorporated by just editing the Technical data tables towards the bottom of the article, but what about the rest? It seems to me to be worthy of addition as it kinda gives an impression of how long it takes to build a Boeing 747, how many are produced each year, etc, but I'm not really sure how best to do it... TerraFrost 06:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the most recent passenger jet order is China Airlines. Air China is based in China and China Airlines is based in Taiwan. --Starcity ai 00:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

747SP

Hi all. 747SP is an orphaned article, unwikified and needing cleanup. It's been tagged for potential merging with this page, but no notice here. Could someone well-versed in the subject have a look at it and determine if there's anything useful, or if it can be just turned into a redirect? Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 17:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

...and it's done! Magic. One cleanup down... Shimgray | talk | 17:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


The SP is in good shape now. Too important a variant to not have a significant description.--Bangabalunga 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that now the info on 747SP and the record-setting flights made the 747SP part far too long. Maybe we should leave a few lines about it here but move the main thing to another article. KK kap 09:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

CBM

Can someone please tell me what the hell a CBM is? If it's cubic meter, it ought to be m³. ericg ✈ 06:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Bigger pic

In line with recent changes at the A380 article, I've made one of the lead pix of the jumbo bigger. I've got to say that "Tinker Belle" is very nicely photographed, and deserves to have a bit of prominence - that's one lovely bird! --Jumbo 12:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Maximum number of seats in commercial use?

What is the largest number of seats actually crammed into a 747? JAL seems to fly 747-400Ds with 568 seats. Jpatokal 08:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

About the new templates

I just choosed this article to test automatic conversion of numbers. If something is wrong, please say so :) →AzaToth 17:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Area rule

Can someone confirm/disconfirm the claim I've heard that 747 can cruise slightly faster than all other airliners because the two-story nose hump makes it conform somewhat to Whitcomb's area rule? - Emt147 Burninate! 06:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think the hump is so that the pilot can sit on his wallet.

Max cap

I just noticed this on El Al: On 24 May 1991 an El Al Boeing 747 airlifted a record-breaking 1,087 passengers - Ethiopian Jews flying from Addis Ababa to Israel as part of Operation Solomon.

Is there a place in the article for this? They must have been riding in the baggage deck to cram 'em in like that! --Jumbo 07:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Cruising speed

The cruising speeds that are listed are not accurate in that the speed of sound varies with altitude and the speeds listed in kph correspond to the given Mach number at sea level. For example, Mach 0.84 at 35000 ft is ~896 kph not 1029 kph. The other aircraft pages I looked at give the speed at altitude, so it should probably be made consistent. I would change them, but dealing with tables is not my forté. There is a nice utility here if someone needs the conversion--66.253.174.65 10:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think listing the speed at cruising altitude would be fine. Something like ".. flies at high-subsonic speeds (typically mach 0.85 (~900 km/h))" with a note for the altitude used. - Fnlayson 16:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Concorde criticism

I have toned down the language used in the brief mention of the Concorde. The referenced article actually begins, "The Concorde supersonic airliner, built jointly by France and Great Britain, to this day remains the only such supersonic plane to operate successfully in commercial service..." which is hardly the failure implied in the previous wording. However, it needs to be noted that SSTs were never widely adopted, effectively making the 747 the flagship of commercial aviation. --Jumbo 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The concorde comments in the article now look fine. The 747 article is not the place for SST details anyway. - Fnlayson 13:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • concorde was a failure, the governments wrote off its development costs and plans for further revisions were scrapped. The already built planes remained in service for a long time but there was no further development of the concept the concorde started or clones produced by other manufacturers. Plugwash 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments on the Concorde has no place in this article anyways. KyuuA4 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section

This page has been processed by N-Bot, which, for browsing convenience, changes links to redirects to lists to links to the relevant list sections: e.g. [[Boeing 747-200]] is changed to [[Boeing 747#747-200|Boeing 747-200]].

As a result, anyone who intends to split a section out of this page should be aware that, as of 14 August 2006, the following sections were linked to from the following pages:

~~ N-Bot (t/c) 11:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Seat Chart Links?!?

I'm surprised this article has links to seat charts. The airplane seat layouts are decided by the operators, not the aircraft designer. (Of course the designer provides the operators options.) So this article is about the aircraft, not the operators, so seating charts shouldn't be here.. I think this is one of the only airplane articles that I've seen all the links to seat charts.. I'm in favor of removing them, or at least moving them to the external links section, instead of scattering them throughout the article. Comments? —Cliffb 04:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

References

I was working on reference, updating them. Several edits worked fine, but then the references were doubled up, i.e. two of everything. I started reverting to earlier edits to see if it was my mistake, but I've now reverted to a version earlier than my edit and it's not fixed. A problem with the reference templates? Mark83 13:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The Refs numbers were acting strangely a few minutes ago. A couple Refs in the 20s were repeated at 1 & 2. I edited the Notes section and the repeated ones went away.  ??? -Fnlayson 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lockerbie

Was lockerbie really against the US or just against the US as is inferred in this article? Why is that even in there except as hyperbole? Why not just make reference to Lockerbie with a link in there? Just seems trung out to include a reference to 11/9/2001. Narson 14:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

First 747 Used in Commercial Operations

Wasn't the Pan Am B747-100 that made the first commercial flight between JFK and LHR the same one that was destroyed in the Tenerife disaster? If this is true, shouldn't it be included in the trivia section?--Palm90 03:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Orders and planes built

Through August 2006, Boeing's site ref 3 lists 1375 planes delievered, (i.e. built) and 1441 orders. I corrected this last night and it got reverted with no reason given. Is there a problem with these numbers? -Fnlayson 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

747 engineering memoir

I read this book and recommend it to readers here, particularly engineers and technical managers.

747: Creating the World's First Jumbo Jet and Other Adventures from a Life in Aviation by Joe Sutter and Jay Spenser

MWS 17:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

747-200 Phaseout

Under the 747-200, phase out is mentioned as a result of September 11. Why was this? This is too ambiguous. Either delete or explain. For now I will delete. Please add it back upon explaining.

  • The airline market had a downturn after the 9/11 attacks. That just made the -200s age and likely higher operating costs more critial. The statement there now is fine. -Fnlayson 04:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Updated Specification Chart

I added the 747-8I to the specification chart based on information from the 747-8 page. (It needs to be completed.) I also made some changes to so the chart fits properly. This is appropriate since the 747 page is about ALL the versions of the 747 and the difference between the current 747 and the new 747-8 are quite impressive. I suggest that the specs from the new 747-8F should also be included. user:mnw2000 18:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Largest Building

Kind of trivial, isn't the new A380 assembly plant now the largest building by volume?72.83.117.107 03:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)NWeinthal

The new Y3

Does anyone agree that the Y3 is the combination of 777 and 747 will look like a stretched 777 with the 747 upper deck (cockpit only)?

Eclaw 16:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


BA 747 Incident

Does the 19-Feb-2005 incident of a British Airways 747 taking off from LAX to LHR, having an engine go out seconds into flight (a shower of sparks coming out of the engine was reported to the aircraft by ground controllers), and then continuing on with an 11 hour flight with only three engines, and then running out of fuel prior to arrival at LHR, qualify as being reported in the incidents section on the main page? http://www.atca.org/singlenews.asp?item_ID=2420&comm=0 RainOfSteel 00:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

747 engines

Someone told me that while European 747s use RR engines, the American planes do not. They use some other manufacturer. IS this true? I can't find anything anywhere to substanciate this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cape Fox (talk • contribs) 21:36 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What makes a 747 "European" or "American"? What about "Asian" 747s? Who are they supposed to get their engines from, Toyota? And why do Air France-KLM and Lufthansa 747s have General Electric engines? While it's true that no U.S. customer has ordered a new 747 with Rolls-Royce engines, that is mostly because the Rolls engines weren't available for the earlier 747s, and after that point, 747s fell out of favor of many U.S. carriers. I suggest looking at Boeing's orders page. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Unit cost in the infobox

Rather than having the 747-400 price in 2006 dollars, we should have the price at either the time of launch or at EIS. The 747-8 price in 2006 dollars should then be added. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Manufacturer

Why is Boeing Commerical Airplanes listed as the Manufacturer in this article (and others) and not Boeing? There is a link to BCA in the text if someone is looking for it. According the link in the Infobox, the Manufacturer is a company or individual involved building, etc. the hardware. The company, Boeing is the manufacturer. Boeing Commerical Airplanes and Integrated Defense Systems are not companies. They are business units within Boeing. -Fnlayson 22:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather than fragmenting the discussion, let's keep it over at its origin: Talk:P-8 Poseidon#Manufacturer. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Image: Japanese_Airforce_One.jpg

I've temporarily commented this picture out of the article as it was overlaying the able beneath

Can be re-added when someone finds it a new home =)

Reedy Boy 20:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who placed it there today, and it shows fine on my browser. Obvioulsy it is overlaying on some systems, I'm not sure which ones or why. The US AF1 has its own article (with this pic!), so I am going to switch the pics for now. - BillCJ 21:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I usually tend to use firefox for WP edits. I just checked the old revision in IE and its fine.... lol Reedy Boy 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

747-300

I made the edit to the 747-300 with regards to the introduction of an FMC and IRS over the INS. I can see why it was reverted but it was a notable change as it allowed the pilot to select from a series of routes saved in the aircraft and computer and make modifications to them by deleting/adding navigation points. Also, the pilots no longer had to compensate for drift problems and they could enter more than nine waypoints into the flight management computer whereas older Inertial Navigation System could only store 9 (later 99) waypoints. The Triple-IRS stack also allowed for full CAT-III autolandings vs the older models which could not autoland in situations like crosswinds.

look just above the throttle controls for the two cockpits

747-200: http://us.airliners.net/photos/photos/5/9/1/0671195.jpg 747-300: http://us.airliners.net/photos/photos/2/8/6/0827682.jpg

74.112.123.80 22:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Four engines bad, two engines good!

Is it commercially possible to replace a B-747's 4x220kN engines with huge 2x510kN jets (such as used on the largest B-777 variants)? It could save a lot of fuel due to less drag and save huge dollar on lessened maintenance costs. Why the new A380-beating B747 version won't follow this route? There are no longer twin-engine ETOPS limitations any more, it could fly anywhere in the wrld, excepting the Antarctica, which is not yet a lucrative market! 193.226.227.153 20:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you couldnt fit two GE90s on a 747 because they would not fit! Because of the large size of a GE90 you would have to re-design the undercarriage and everything that goes with being taller aircraft. It is still nice to have four engines, if one fails you have a few spare before you are in serious trouble. MilborneOne 20:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at the height of the 777 landing gear (http://www.goodrich.com/Feature/SingleStory/0,1285,23,00.html) 84.173.231.124 19:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Yet, GE is able to get their GE90 engine on the inboard pylon of their 747 test aircraft. Maybe it's a poor fit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.156.150.146 (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
Yes, but barely...it has about 9 inches of ground clearance (image at the Mojave Virtual Museum), and I believe they've scraped it at least once in crosswinds. Akradecki 16:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC) (writing from the old GE flight test hangar)
Not true, no GE90 has ever scraped the ground while installed on N747GE.N747ge 21:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
13 inches according to this source (http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/M96SC03.pdf) 84.173.231.124 19:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
When Airbus Industrie made a similarly reasoned four-engines-good advertisement for their A340, airliners started sending Airbus executives severed horse heads, because the ad campaign scared a lot of people away from crossing the oceans on twinjets. There is no data to support that tri-engines and four engined planes are safer than twinjets. 82.131.210.162 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
"...started sending Airbus executives severed horse heads,..." Heh! I liked that.--PremKudvaTalk 04:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

ETOPS is still a nuisance, because you are required to divert to the nearest airport as soon as you get an engine failure. On a quad you can just keep going, like that BA 747 that lost an engine on climbout from LAX and continued home. I think the reason that the A380 is not a twin is because no engine is powerful enough, the GE90-115B and Trent 8115 are the limit at 115k lbst/510kN. Mgw89 (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a more realistic ideas would be swapping the RB211-524's on the 747 with Trent 560's which are considerably more efficient. Mgw89 (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Max speed and other specs

What's the source(s) for the max speeds? Boeing's web pages [4], [5] only list cruise speed. Thanks. -Fnlayson 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard that the 747 exceeded Mach 1 during testing, but I would need to nonck a reference for that. Mgw89 (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Various corrections to specs

While working on specs for the 747-400 page, I checked all values against the sources given (Boeing web site). I found and corrected several errors here.

Boeing lists the seating capacity of the 747-400ER as 416(3-class), so I have replaced the "N/A" spec with this.

The tail height of the 747-400 and 747-400ER is three inches more than the previous -100, -200, and -300 models (does anyone know why?).

The MTOW of the 747-400ER is 412,775 kg, not 413,636 kg. The pounds value (910,000 lb) appears to have been converted from lb to kg using the "rule of thumb" conversion factor of 2.2 lb/kg rather than the exact factor of 2.2046 lb/kg.

Boeing lists the maximum fuel capacity of the 747-400ER as 63,705 U.S. gallons (241,140 L) with a footnote "With two auxiliary body fuel tanks in the forward lower cargo hold". It seems a safe assumption that the planes delivered to Qantas have the extra tanks, as their reason for ordering the ER was to fly extended range (Melbourne to Los Angeles), not extra cargo. I have accordingly changed the "Max. fuel capacity", "Range fully loaded", and "Fuel cap./range fully loaded" specs to correspond to those given on the Boeing specs page.

Piperh 22:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the corrections. Note that the design is done in US customary units. If anything the metric conversions are rounded or not properly converted. I need to finish putting the US units first in the table. -Fnlayson 00:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Naive question

The second paragraph of the article refers to the 747 as a five-engine plane? In what sense is that correct, if any?

Thanks.

  • That's not correct. Must have been vandalism or something that got by us. I fixed it. Early 747s did have the capability to carry a 5th engine but it just along for the ride. This mentined in the Facts and figures section near the bottom, btw. Thanks for pointing that out. -Fnlayson 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Early 747s? I was under the impression all 747s could do this. I've seen pictures of 747-400s with the 5th pod, such as this one: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0289429/L/ Nick Moss 07:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a more or less historic way to ferry engines. Since the emergence of the civil An-124 cargo market it´s much cheaper to load the overdimensional engines than to mount them under a 747 or Tristar-Jetliners. 84.173.251.228 10:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead pic changes

The lead pic is the most important pic in the article, as it is the first one seen when the page loads. The JAL pic is a dramatic aerial view. We do not need a pic of a Qantas jet on the ground, especially when there is an airborne Quantas pic further down in the article. Please do not change the pic again, unless you can convince enough editors to go along with the change (build a consensus). Thanks for your co-operation in this matter. - BillCJ 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Section "Future of the 747" - delete or keep?

This section contains brief details of proposed 747 developments since the 747-400. IMO this material duplicates what's much more comprehensively included in the Undeveloped variants section which was recently added on April 10 2007. However, User:Fnlayson disagrees and thinks we should keep section Future of the 747 (but remove the duplicated stuff?).

Apart from the duplication issue, it seems strange to have a sub-section called Future of the 747 contained within History - it's an oxymoron! If it's really the history of the developments since the original version, why restrict it to only the post 747-400 proposals?

IMO, the history of all the development variants of the 747 is better included under the description of each variant, as is already the case with all the other variants. Future of the 747 is an anomoly and I vote it goes. Anyone else agree or disagree? --JCG33 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Fnlayson. It really would be best if major reworks were discussed prior to implemantation, as there are usually good reasons that an article is the was it is, and long-time editors appreciate the courtesy. - BillCJ 23:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Aplologes - didn't realise deleting is a faux pas in Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes) - I've only been editing for a few months. --JCG33 19:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No duh. That was a typo away from "you're". Which mean you have, right? -Fnlayson (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidents update tag

I've removed the tag as being non-specific, as I have no idea what the problem is here. Please be specific when adding such tags, using the talk page if you need to more space to explain yourself. I'm assuming you mean that there may be some incidents that are not listed. Note that the section is for notable incidents only, not every time a 747 blows a tire while landing. If you have some specific incidents in mind, then add them, or at least discuss them here so others can discuss if they are notable, and try to add info on them. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Initial military design

Does anyone know whether this design had a Galaxy-like undercarriage or any other features totally different from the civil design? 84.173.251.228 11:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Would be interesting to find out. I've not read or seen much on the other entrants in the CX contest, but wouldn't mind finding some good sources with more info on them. - BillCJ 17:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
A while back, Wings did an episode on the development of the 747, and per that and my sometimes-faulty memory, the design was essentially the same as what came out in the end, including the nose cargo door that's used on the civil freighters. One comment as to why the C-5 won was the 747's lack of an aft ramp for RORO capabilities. AKRadecki 17:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I finished Sutter's 747 book recently. He wrote that Boeing's C-5 entrant had a double decker design that was similar to their early 747 concept before they switched to a wide single deck (mostly). There may be more connections than he is giving credit for though. -Fnlayson 17:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
From Global Security.org. C-5 History page:

All three industry designs incorporated high-wing configurations with four large turbofan engines in underwing nacelles and front and rear doors with ramps for flow-through loading and unloading. The Boeing and Douglas designs had conventional tail configurations, whereas the Lockheed design incorporated a T-tail configuration. The C-5 design submitted by Boeing was found to have superior aerodynamic cruise performance in the transonic wind-tunnel tests performed at Langley. Boeing's experience with the C-5 competition coupled with Boeing management's vision of the market-ability of jumbo civil transports (and interest from Pan American Airlines) led to the development of the Boeing 747, which enabled Boeing to dominate the world market with a new product line. Although the 747 was a completely new aircraft design (low wing, passenger-carrying civil aircraft), the general configuration influence of the earlier C-5 candidate is in evidence.

Well, another TV doc get's it wrong! Surprise :( - BillCJ 18:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Air Force One

Hi. Although I don't know a lot about planes, I'm interested in them, and thought I might just say something about this article. I like it, but I think that for the reader's sake, a photo of arguably the most famous 747 in the world, the USA's Air Force One should be included somewhere. I'm willing to do it, but I wanted to know what people thought of it, because I know that a pic of AFO would be something I would like to see on this page. Best, Happyme22 23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The AF1 747 has its own article, VC-25, so I don't think omitting an AF1 image here is a big deal. However, there's room in the Gov and Military section for it if you really want to add an AF1 image. -Fnlayson 23:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, one has been there all this time! It's in the Gov and Military section right under the Japanese Gov't plane, but it was overlaying the specs table on some browsers, so it was commented out. I've uncommented it for now, and will see if the problems are solved. (It works fine on my browser.) - BillCJ 23:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Does anyone else feel that this article's Introduction section is not quite right? It consists of one or two pieces of information that would sit well in the lead, and the rest is really facts and figures that would look better in that section. Incidentally, unless I'm reading it wrong the guide to layout seems to suggest that the lead is the intro, and that there shouldn't be an Introduction section as well. What do other people think? --JCG33 21:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur. A lot of these articles were in existence before the guidelines were written, or have been edited by those not familar withthe guidelines. Remember, these are just guidelines, but in this case, it would work better to follow the guidelines, as you point out. However, some articles will be unique, where the guidelines won't be the best format, for whatever reason, though these exceptions are rare. - BillCJ 21:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The lead is really supposed to be a summary and is long enough now, imo. The 2 paragraphs could be moved to different subsections near the bottom of the Development section though. -Fnlayson 22:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I moved the size comparison paragraph to In service section since it starts with "The 747 is the second largest passenger airliner..". I'm thinking about moving the other paragraph to the beginning of 'Future of the 747' section. What about that? -Fnlayson 23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks alot better now - thanks --JCG33 20:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Evergreen Supertanker 747

Does anyone have any information on this firefighting variant?

Users

There has been a bit of confusion in the users section, so I thought I would check on Airlinerlist.com to see what they said, since it has proven to be a very reliable source. This is their top 4:

58 - Japan Airlines
57 - British Airways
47 - Korean Airlines
42 - Cathay Pacific

If you were to account for Air France and KLM together, then it would be:

58 - Japan Airlines
57 - British Airways
55 - Air France-KLM
47 - Korean Airlines

The question is, should we be counting Air France-KLM as one operator, or two? To my knowledge, their fleets are not integrated, so I think it is a bit of a stretch to group them together for this purpose. For the sake of getting correct numbers in, I have edited the list and made it JAL, BA, KAL, CP. If there is a good reason to include AF-KLM, then I have no problem with that... --Nick Moss 07:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur. -BillCJ 17:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
They Are 2 Seperate Operaters and don' generally share fleet. Djmckee1 - Talk 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
They are two seperate carriers. Djminisite - Talk | Sign 17:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclature question B-747

I have a question as to the designation of the 747. This page never uses the phrase B-747 to describe the jumbo, but it's used on other wikipedia pages, and I've seen it in aviation parlance. B-747 is simply shorthand for "Boeing 747", correct? On other articles, I've seen the phrase Boeing B-747-236B or similar. Is that an incorrect usage, and should I change such references to either Boeing 747-236B or B-747-236B? Thanks. Sacxpert 20:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • B-747 and B747 are shorthand. "Boeing Model 747" or "Boeing 747" is the manufacturer's nomenclature. Look through the Boeing 747 airport planning report and see.[6] -Fnlayson 20:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
WOuld those other articles happen to be Airbus airliner or European airline pages? It does seem to be common practice in Europe to write it as B-747. If those are the Airbuse pages (or other European-related pages), it might be best to just leave them alone, if changing them will cause controversy there. Conversely, European editors usually don't hesitate to correct designations of European aircraft. Personally, I'd change the Boeing designations to links where possible (Boeing 747-236B) when first mentioned in each article, and then follow that pattern for consistency, tho without the links. - BillCJ 23:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

747-200 SUD fact correction

I corrected a factual error. KLM was not the only customer to have converted a -200 into a -200SUD. UTA and JAL did so two (2 each). I am looking for a reference. I did see some photos on jetcensus.net or something like that. I think UTA's were F-BTDG and F-BTGH with photos showing the smaller upper deck and later SUD. Don't quote me on the registration numbers as my memory is not that good. Archtrain 15:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


water injection

I recall that early 747s used water injection during takeoff to increase thrust. I don't know the details, but perhaps someone knowledgeable could add them? Some info here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-10124.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.40.226 (talk) 08:49, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Three view

We need a three view sketch of this airplane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.110.93 (talk) 19:12, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Seatmap photo

In the B744 section, a seatmap chart comparing the A380 and 747 is given, it is supposedly free but it looks taken from the EVA Air site. [7]. Enigma3542002 03:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Boeing 747/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

"the most recognizable of all jet airliners and is the largest airliner currently in service" Facts and Trivia section is longer than the Development section, most of the article is a discussion of the subvariants. There is too little information for A-class assessment -- read the criteria. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_747/Archive_1&oldid=1146589397"