R I P the 747?

[Trevatanus]

Conflicting reports that the end is nigh for the 747

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/news/2017/02/07...

[fatboy b]

It had to come. We were at the plant last July, and the 747 line was very quiet. They have 4 jigs to build the section from the cockpit to the front of the plane. Only one was is use. It's also a very labour intensive plane for Boeing compared to the 777 & 787.

[djc206]

It might well be the end of production but they'll be a feature of our skies for many years to come. 50 odd years is a good innings.

[Trevatanus]

It seems that the airlines simply don't want anything that big anymore, what with the poor A380 sales too.

[ralphrj]

I wondered if they were keeping the production line slowly ticking over in the hope of ending it with the replacement Air Force One order. Trumps recent tweets suggest that might not happen now.

[Trevatanus]

ralphrj said:

I wondered if they were keeping the production line slowly ticking over in the hope of ending it with the replacement Air Force One order. Trumps recent tweets suggest that might not happen now.

The current airframes cannot go on for ever though, the oldest is 27 years old now.

[r1flyguy1]

We lose one of the three we have in April due to its end of life cycle

Its last flight will sadly be to the breakers yard, still flies beautifully it will be really sad to see her go.

[aeropilot]

RIP to the PAX version possibly, but not RIP to the production line, as in October last year, UPS placed a $5bn order for 14 brand new 747-8 cargo freighters.

[Eric Mc]

When Boeing decided on building the 747 back in 1966 they fully expected that the bulk of production would be for freighter versions. That's why they gave it a raised flight deck.

[aeropilot]

r1flyguy1 said:

Eric Mc said:

When Boeing decided on building the 747 back in 1966 they fully expected that the bulk of production would be for freighter versions. That's why they gave it a raised flight deck.

Wasn't that design incorporated to allow cargo loading through the front for those loads that are too big for the conventional doors

Yes, the massive advantage of the folding nose section on the freighter version is exactly why UPS have ordered new 747-8 Freighters.

[r1flyguy1]

Hi Aeropilot,

I deleted my post when i realised the nose loading was first introduced on the -400f variant for that specific purpose. I was unsure as there are the 100/200/300 variants beforehand, thus some refinements prior to this introduction along with the shortening of the upper deck cabin to reduce weight on the 'f' model.

Out in Asia i belive NCA are the biggest customers of the 748, european wise it must be Cargolux....

Good to hear the freighter build continues....

I've only actually seen 2 x 748 pax versions, 1 korean and the other Lufthansa

[Eric Mc]

There were a small number of Series 100 and 200 "nose loaders" built -

Cathay Pacific Series 200 -

[Talksteer]

Trevatanus said:

It seems that the airlines simply don't want anything that big anymore, what with the poor A380 sales too.

It's more that they don't need something as for engined. The 777 is as big as a 747-400 now.

[r1flyguy1]

Talksteer said:

It's more that they don't need something as for engined. The 777 is as big as a 747-400 now.

Yep, not much in it these days,
777f cargo capacity 102 tonnes
747 BCF 110 tonnes
744/erf 113 tonnes

The main issue being the new purchase cost, older converted 744's are cheaper, the new ones arent designed to sit on the ground, they need to be flying making revenue constantly

[Dr Jekyll]

A lot of 747 customers didn't really need anything that quite that big, but they needed fairly big and long range and figured they could fill the extra seats by offering dirt cheap fares to backpackers. Once they could get 777s that had the right number of seats and lower per seat costs the 747s days were numbered. The few routes that could really fill a 747 can normally fill an A380, and if not a big 777 will do.

[Evanivitch]

Eric Mc said:

When Boeing decided on building the 747 back in 1966 they fully expected that the bulk of production would be for freighter versions. That's why they gave it a raised flight deck.

It was originally designed to meet a military cargo lift requirement.

[Dr Jekyll]

Evanivitch said:

It was originally designed to meet a military cargo lift requirement.

Not really, Boeing did try for the C5 contract

and used the experience from that in the 747 design, but the 747 was a new design. (As much as Boeing ever design anything new).

Edited by Dr Jekyll on Thursday 9th February 20:58

[Eric Mc]

Correct.

Boeing teamed up with Pratt and Whitney for the C-X programme but lost out to Lockheed who had teamed with General Electric.

This is a model of what their C-5 might have looked like. You can see some 747 shapes in there. It mainly differs from the Galaxy in that it has a low set tailplane - a layout also adopted by the Antonov An-124.

[Gandahar]

In summary with the progression of technology that has allowed turbofan diameters to grow to great extent the twin jet plane now rules the roost. So the A380 and 747 have it all stacked against them.

We could argue that if Boeing and Airbus did "Neo" engines for them it might work out, but in the current passenger climate the twin engine route rules the roost and that is where all the development is going. A350 and B777X and B787. Shame as the funky wing of the B787 and its streamlined nose and the the window nose treatment on the A350 with it's zorro appearance does not match the hump of the 747 of course.

Freighter sales may do well on the 747 though compared to the A380. That 747 nose really was a forward thinking thing for freight operations all those years back.

[carreauchompeur]

It's a great shame but times really have rolled on. I have a real soft spot for the 747, a combination of elegance and sheer size which the A380 doesn't quite capture.