Landroger writes:
The 747 was a whole new concept. Everything about her was not only writ large, but pretty much different. Sure the 707 had four engines and swept, supercritical wings, but the way all that was hung together was so different. The materials, the engines (Oh Lord, the engines!), the shape and the cost were all unknown territory. Remember, Boeing almost 'bought the farm' with the 747.
I probably should have said this in my first post: The 74 was a HUGE departure from existing aircraft, both in size and in performance.
(Well, okay, not so much with the -100 and the poor Pratts that were asked to run so close to the edge in day to day operations that they didn't stand a chance of proving themselves...)
I guess I left it unsaid that the 74 was a groundbreaking, game-changing piece of kit. I hope I didn't create the wrong impression with my first post.
Fact is, there would be no A380 now if there hadn't been a 74 in the past.
Boeing *did* "bet the farm" and they succeeded.
A few airlines did the same thing, and for some of them the 74 proved to be too large for them.
The 74 did two diametrically opposed things to air travel at the same time: It brought ticket costs down in some cases and it greatly increased luxury in others.
There hasn't been an aircraft since, and most likely will never be in the future, capable of doing both.
(Let the arguments begin on this statement in 3, 2, 1... Popcorn ready!)
One of the best examples of what humans can build and use, once they set their minds to it.
Use as a water tanker to fight forest fires. Use as a transport for a very heavy, ungainly space shuttle. Use as a [potential] flying chemical-powered laser antimissle platform. Expanded and hinged in unusual ways to transport 777 and 787 parts. Trillions of passenger miles. Billions of cargo miles. Volcano-choked engines which were able to be restarted. A near-supersonic dive that removed about 60% of the tail but still left the aircraft flyable.
The list goes on.
Cheers!