"No, I don't thank you for the fish at all" (notindetroit)
04/04/2014 at 10:33 • Filed to: Planeopnik, Boeing 747, wide body airliner
14
9|
"No, I don't thank you for the fish at all" (notindetroit)
04/04/2014 at 10:33 • Filed to: Planeopnik, Boeing 747, wide body airliner | 14
| 9 |
The Boeing 747 will probably be remembered as one of the most important and revolutionary airliner types yet flown. As the first widely adopted widebody airliner, it heralded what was at the time a new standard in comfort and efficiency. Since then, technology and airline demands shifted towards twin-engine widebody types such as the Airbus A330 and Boeing own 777, leaving many wondering if the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! Boeing isn't done with the type yet, and the 747-400 still sees wide use with the 747-8 still being assembled in Boeing's great production halls - though at a reduced pace.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
An Introduction to the 747 and its First Marks
The impact of the 747's introduction has been so great as to imbed itself into the popular culture to the point where it needs no introduction. The short story of it is that the 747 leverages a combination of Boeing's experience in developing large transport aircraft for the U.S. Air Force (whom would ultimately choose Boeing's competitor Lockheed Martin) and their own experience in building a long line of airliners, principally their first and at the time still largest airliner, the 707. With Boeing developing their own supersonic transport, the 2707, the 747 was designed to be adaptable to the cargo role should SSTs fully supplant subsonic airliners - a fortunate choice that has also lead to the type being among the world's most popular air freighters (we'll get back to that one at the end, actually). The culmination of these engineering decisions created a very fat, pork-barreled fuselage and the distinctive "hump" housing the pilot's flight deck as well as a bit of extra space behind (traditionally used for second class seating but also having seen use as a lounge or other amenities). Paradoxically, these same features (and some other aerodynamic trickery) also ensured that the 747 would be second only to the Concorde for the title of World's Fastest Airliner. Combining this with its sheer size, ownership of a 747 was a huge deal. Pan Am never got their hands on the 2707 SST (which was never built), or the Concorde or any SST for that matter, but they got onboard the 747 bandwagon quickly and set the precedent for all other airlines following suit.
The 747 spawned a large pool of early variants - from the short-bodied 747SP (also a Pan Am favorite) that dumped maximum take-off weight penalties (hence the short fuselage) for extra range non-stop to Johannesburg for example, to variants that were identical to the 747-100 on the outside but had modified internal structures braced against the extra stresses of hauling 400+ passengers over very short distances (nearly an exclusive to Japanese airlines). But we'll concentrate on the primary variants: the -100, -200, and -300. The -100, as implied by its numbering, was the initial version; the -200 introduced incremental and internal improvements but was largely externally identical to the -100. This was the most widely adopted early variant. The -200 was also available in SUD (Stretched Upper Deck) variety, where the upper deck was, well, stretched. This improved the aerodynamics of the aircraft further (nominally resulting in an even faster aircraft, but in practice meaning reduced fuel burn) and created more practical second or third class accommodations within the upper deck (unfortunately, the airlines' tendencies to see additional space as only an opportunity to cram more seats meant the disappearance of lounges and other true amenities). Freighter versions saw little practical use for the SUD modification over its weight penalty, so they kept the short "bubble top" throughout the 747's design life. The 747-300 was essentially a production-normalized version of the -200SUD, while also incorporating further subtle structural and aerodynamic advances namely to the wings and where the wings join the fuselage. The 743s ended up being a rather rare variant as Boeing quickly moved on.
Today, the vast majority of these "Classic" 747s have been retired to the boneyards. Most of the "Classics" still flying fly on the cheap for airlines that have little choice but to be stringy. That is not to say they fly with little regard for safety. For example, the 742 still remains a popular choice for charter airlines catering to Hajj pilgrimage flights to Mecca, and do so with adequate safety records. The large interior volume of these aircraft becomes readily apparent during such charter operations, with the economies of scale allowing many Muslims the ability to make their pilgrimages in an affordable manner (often, being the only means where such pilgrimages are affordable). Western users of the "Classic" 747 are far and few, though one such operator happens to fly the most recognizable of all 747s and perhaps the most recognizable aircraft on the entire planet - the United States Air Force's two VC-25As, employed to carry the President as "Air Force One" were the very last 742s to leave the production line, built alongside the first examples of the 747-400. The USAF also flies the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , based off the 741, as a flying command post linking the nation's nuclear arsenal network.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Updating the First Widebody for the Computer Age
Above image from Altair76 on Wikipedia, used under Creative Commons license
The common thread through all of the "Classic" 747 variants is the use of a flight engineer, a third guy sitting in the flight deck monitoring engine performance and other parameters to ensure that the aircraft's technical systems are operating within spec and safely. Not only did the third crewmember add weight, but so did said crewmember's seat - and the large, bulky instruments and diagnostic equipment meant to be gazed at all flight by said crewmember. On smaller aircraft the removal of such a position meant real weight savings - but on a monster like the 747, the returns on those savings were more diminishing. However, other benefits were realized once that extraneous crewmember was removed - the space could be taken up by electronic computers that can do the same job more efficiently, more safely, and still reserve most of the space and weight now vacated. In doing so, Boeing created the 747-400, by far the most popular version of the jetliner. While they were at it, they also performed the same updates to the pilot's and co-pilot's position as seen in the photo above: "steam gauge" instruments were replaced by Multi-Function Displays, or MFDs. The MFDs were also lighter, but the real benefit was in a more efficient, accurate and therefore safer presentation of flight data, especially now that much of this data was consolidated into a single source instead of having to scan through a myriad of dials. Flying wasn't just safer, it was simpler.
Combined with the usual incremental upgrades in internal structure and aerodynamics, the 744 became a new paragon of efficient long-distance travel and competed strongly against twin-engine types such as Airbus' A330 and Boeing's own 767 - two types that never were meant to operate in the same markets as the 747 anyway, though that didn't stop airlines from trying. Boeing envisioned the 767 taking over from the role the 707 settled into, flying passengers from one end of the U.S. to the other, or even just two-thirds of the way in. The range that made that possible also meant that the 767 could just as well fly across the Atlantic, though with greater safety restrictions due to its twin-engine considerations. Europe, on the other hand, with its extensive rail network and market more suitable for narrow-bodied types, had little practical use for a widebody in the A330's class - so Airbus designed it from the get-go to be able to accommodate the vast distances of the Trans-Atlantic, Austral-Asia/China and American markets. Though it failed to have the same impact in the lattermost market as Boeing's widebody types, it nonetheless managed to muscle in on what was traditionally 747 territory.
Just muscling in wasn't enough for Airbus, but matching Boeing one-for-one was met with enough trepidation to create stymied resistance. It wasn't that Airbus lacked the resources at the time - Airbus, after all, had France, Germany, Great Britain and Spain behind it, and any single one of those countries alone could field a 747-class aircraft if they wanted to (they did, after all, develop the Concorde and would later develop the A380). The real concern was market share, and whether or not two 747-class aircraft can either attract enough market share to mutually survive, or if a newcomer could steal enough market share to be sole survivor. Their concerns were based on the real performance of the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and Lockheed L-1011 as they competed for mutual market share in a market not big enough to support either - with one failing to completely cannibalize the other, they both failed (the introduction of the 767 was, at the very least, the final nail in the coffin). Airbus ultimately decided on a relatively conservative yet still novel approach: if the 747's main selling point was economy of scale, then Airbus would beat them in the raw efficiency game. They would achieve this by taking an A330 and giving it four relatively tiny engines (CFM-56 hi-bypass engines, the same type often used on Airbus' own A320 series as well as what powers every single Boeing 737 variant after the -200 series) that would be more efficient than the gargantuan CF6 hi-bypass turbofans that power a 744. Having four engines would also get around many of the safety restrictions imposed on twins at the time as well as make it look more marketable against the 747. As the A330 and this quad-powered widebody, the A340, were designed simultaneously, they would also share greater commonality than simply the basic fuselage design, making the A340 more attractive to A330 customers and vice-versa.
The A340 was a big hit with Airbus' traditional clientele, but once again failed to make a dent in the American market. In fact, while the A330 was bought by Northwest (and having had their fleet absorbed into Delta post-merger) and by USAir (which, after acquiring American Airlines, now flies in the latter's colors) and even the earlier A300 bought by American on a glorified experimental basis (nevermind the A320 being a huge hit in the North American market), not a single U.S.-flagged airline currently flies the A340. The closest was an order by Continental that was canceled when that airline entered bankruptcy. Despite this, the Airbus A340 did actually help kill off the 747 - albeit indirectly.
The End of the Line Approaches
Image from Cubbie_in_Vegas via Wikipedia; used under Creative Commons License
Meanwhile, Boeing developed new variants of the 744, including one of the very few 747s to actually be armed, the YAL-1 Airborne Laser (shown at the top of the article) based on the 744 Freighter. The 744 Freighter continued to be the default choice for long-haul and mass-volume air freighters while the 744 passenger version remained the default airline flagship. Its huge size, engines and distinctive hump gave it a ramp presence and cachet that the A340 never even pretended towards hope of matching. The 744 came just in time for !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! to really hit its stride, and airlines were no longer interested in spending willy-nilly and whatever it takes to get the best ramp presence and cachet - the bottom line now ruled everything. The A340 could quite afford to not even pretend or hope towards the big 747's ramp presence and be comfortable with it because it was born in an era that recognized the prestige of airlines like Pan Am and Braniff that catered to that sense of exclusivity now dying. It was building up good market share with long-haul European and Asian airlines, and Boeing began to see the writing on the wall.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Enter the 777: if Airbus wanted to undercut Boeing on efficiency, Boeing would teach them what real efficiency means. They would do it with the exact opposite approach - instead of a medium-sized widebody with four tiny engines, it would be a huge widebody, in fact, only very marginally narrower than the 747 itself, with equally huge engines that would at the time of its launch be the largest hi-bypass turbofan engines ever mounted on a production airliner, and it will make do with only two of them. Airbus stuck with four engines to get around safety restrictions; Boeing elected to solve this problem through the grandest of American corporate traditions, by lobbying for rules change until they finally got what they wanted. Partnering with both General Electric and Rolls-Royce, both of whom were earmarked for 777 engine options (to cater to airlines' diverse tastes in operating and brand preferences), they demonstrated to the Federal Aviation Administration and to the wider aviation safety and regulatory community that these new cutting-edge engine designs were practically fool-proof, and in the event of failure would still provide enough thrust to limp to the nearest airfield even if said airfield were hundreds of miles away. This was enough to convince the FAA and other regulatory bodies to relax the laws governing twin engine ops enough for the 777 to comfortably live within.
And in doing so, Boeing shot themselves in the foot. The 777 was, in essence, a twin-engine 747 without the hump and even better, new-from-the-ground-up technology to make it ultra-efficient; airlines quickly realized this and began supplanting their "Classic" 747s with 777s and even sent some 744s to the boneyard in favor of 777s, especially a few years after 9/11. They also began modifying 767s, A330s and even some narrow-body class 757s and the longer A320 variants to conform to the new "Extended Twin Operations" or "ETOPS" rules. Even some 737s were modified or ordered new to conform to the rule, though this has largely been confined to specialty airlines such as PrivatAir that equip their aircraft interiors with lounge seats and limit capacity to well under 100, if not 50.
This also, and naturally, meant that sales of 744s were drying up - but on the other hand, 777 sales were going up. Way up, in fact, and quickly outstripping even what the 747 could achieve at its very height. The 777's formula of ultra-efficiency through ultra-efficient technology rather than economy of scale was the winning one and the pattern nearly all future airliners have and will be based on. The big - quite literally, big - exception was Airbus' own A380, where they finally had a worthy one-on-one competitor to the 747. Unfortunately, it may be a case of too much too late as the A380 has its share of the same sales woes that now effect the 747.
One Final Shot
Above image from russavia via Wikipedia, used under Creative Common License
Building on the success of the 777, Boeing went ahead with the design of what ultimately became the 787 Dreamliner. Initially conceived as a 767 replacement and originally envisioned as an ultra-fast (yet still subsonic) airliner, the design morphed to become an even greater embodiment of the "be better efficient by just being better efficient" formula of the 777. Engine technology already made leaps and bounds compared to when the 777 was new just a few years earlier, and the 787 would be the first large commercial airliner fabricated from ultra-light carbon composite materials. Where the 747 was a new paragon in efficiency and the 777 an outright new paradigm in airliner efficiency, the 787 Dreamliner would be an outright, total and complete paradigm shift in how airliners would be designed and constructed in order to stay competitive. This paradigm shift forced Airbus to abandon the original A350, merely an upgraded A330 (and since rebranded as the A330NEO) and reconceive it as a one-for-one 787 competitor.
Meanwhile, Boeing sought to breathe new life into the 747 line. It created yet another variant of the 744 - this time, one that would be almost solely used in-house. Dragging a few relatively fresh airframes out of the boneyard, Boeing modified them into the 747 DreamLifter, a new type of freighter designed to carry "outsized" 787 components to various factories (Airbus has their own equivalent, the A300-based "Beluga" that had been in service for at least 15 years prior). More directly, Boeing incorporated 787 Dreamliner technology into the 747 frame to create the 747-8. The structural changes are at their most numerous and least subtle in the 748, including the type's first actual fuselage stretch, to both the main and upper decks on the 748-I passenger liner (the freighter version, the 748-F, still retains the short "hump"), and a completely brand-new wing leveraging on development for the 787's wing. Even the GEnx engines that power the 748 are the same that can be found under the 787's wings.
Despite the new technology, sales of the 748 are even more woeful than the A380, especially when examining the 748-I "Intercontinental." Just barely over 50 have been ordered, just under half of total 748 sales and very roughly a third of the sales made on the A380. Despite the vast efficiency gains promised on the 748, operators seem to prefer the 777, 787 and the upcoming A350 - the fuel savings realized through halving the number of engines just can't be beat, even if the plane itself has to shrink. And shrink they do, but only barely - with the 777 already in the same size class as the 747, Boeing thinks they can expand the 787 further to displace the 777, putting that aircraft in the same shoes as its older, quad-engined brother. In the end, it looks like the original intent of the 747 being primarily a freighter in an SST world may indeed come true as the airlines enter an ultra-efficient, carbon composite world. Even so, the 747 may get no respite with 777 and future 787 and A350-based freighters becoming very popular. The final swan song of the 747 may yet be bright - the 748-I is the de facto sole competitor for the USAF's Air Force One replacement program. This will ensure that the 747 will still be flying for years, carrying the most prestigious cargo of all.
ttyymmnn
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
04/04/2014 at 10:46 |
|
I'm looking forward to reading this when I get some more time today. I was fortunate to see and photograph the E-4 at Dyess AFB in Abilene, TX a couple of years ago. No idea why it was there, it may have been just passing through. I spotted it there again last year.
Bob Loblaw Made Me Make a Phoney Phone Call to Edward Rooney
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
04/04/2014 at 11:08 |
|
Wow. Very cool, but also super disappointing. I've done a decent bit of flying in my time, but I've always wanted to and never have gotten to fly in a 747. Seems as if my chances of that are rapidly diminishing.
Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
04/04/2014 at 11:25 |
|
I live in Wichita, so I've had the opportunity of seeing the ridiculous Dreamlifters landing and taking off again shuttling around fuselages built in the enormous kiln built at Spirit AeroSystems. It's something else to look up and see what looks like a skyscraper stuck sideways with wings on it coming in for a landing.
...And then there's the time one accidentally landed at a municipal airport instead of the AFB it was supposed to land at. Luckily it was empty so it was able to take off from an airport significantly shorter than it's supposed to take off from.
Jcarr
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
04/04/2014 at 13:11 |
|
Fantastic write-up. That was truly a pleasure to read! More, please!
Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
> Bob Loblaw Made Me Make a Phoney Phone Call to Edward Rooney
04/04/2014 at 16:18 |
|
I know the feeling, the time I flew on one I was too young to remember.
gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
04/11/2014 at 08:05 |
|
I have an uncle that used to work in the travel industry, a lot of the software used by the airlines for booking and planning stuff. The major issue facing the 747 is the increased hassle of getting that many people to fill up one plane.
Doug Nash
> Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
04/11/2014 at 09:58 |
|
To me, one of the coolest things I was able to see when I visited the Boeing museum up there, was the very first 747. The test model. It was horrendous shape, so I hope they have fully rehabbed it since...
|
Doug Nash
> Bob Loblaw Made Me Make a Phoney Phone Call to Edward Rooney
04/11/2014 at 10:01 |
|
Despite that fact that it IS a cool plane, with great history, I'm glad I don't fly in those any longer. In long trips to Asia (for instance) the 777 is THE plane to choose. So much quieter, and the interior space is much nicer.
|
BoulderZ
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
04/11/2014 at 13:40 |
|
Very nice article! Thanks for taking the time to write it.
I've been fortunate to travel on a 747 maybe a half dozen times. Even though it is now a bit anachronistic in terms of speed, comfort, and efficiency, there's still a thrill in seeing one at your gate. It's just plain fun getting on a plane that has a staircase, 2 or more jetways, those giant first class booths (no, I haven't ever had that upgrade), and the impressive sea of seats in coach ("Really? All this is going to fly? Awesome!").
However, having a had a quick trip (7 days, including 3 for travel) for work to/from Japan last week, out on a 747 and back on a 787, I have to give the edge to the Dreamliner. The 787 is faster and more comfortable than the 777, and they're both significantly better than the now aging 747s. I was particularly surprised how much difference the 787 makes in reducing jet lag and fatigue with it's faster travel times and higher cabin pressures. It was very noticeable. I will still miss the 747s, though.
One side effect of all the new speed, comfort, and efficiency, however, is I'm seeing a trend in employers moving to no-recovery turn-and-burn travel to reduce costs. This means get on a plane on Saturday in the US, fly economy to Asia Saturday and Sunday, work the next, say 3 days, travel back on an artificially long Thursday (mine was 30 waking hours, yay), and be back at work in the US on Friday. The justification is, "you were on a Dreamliner, you should be fine". I can do it (and did, no real complaints), and I'm sure it makes sense from a purely cost-accounting standpoint, but I'm not convinced it's smart in the bigger picture.