Goodbye BA Jumbos

[Compton3fox]

Inevitable but still a sad day. I wonder when the A380 will be retired? I suspect it won't make 50 years.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/british-airways-to-immediately-retire-all-747-aircraft/139341.article

[Ray_Y]

Yep. While the A380 has even more issues with economic operation, the 744 is also doomed. And: Most airlines don't need its size currently. Once they do, like in 2 years, 4pod aircraft are even more in disadvantage. So the desicion to get rid of them right now.

Some might be converted to freighters. The A380 won't.

Note that 748 is currently less doubted. But BA doesn't have one.

[frieghtdog2000]

I doubt they will make freighter conversion - wrong engines.

[Count von Altibar]

Sad to see the jumbos go, they looked good in BA colours and especially some of the retro ones they had. I personally don't think their 380s will fly again even though there's mutterings that they will. Back to the main point, sad to see them go I was just thinking many pilots completed their last flights on them and didn't even realise at the time, very emotional time for all this crisis.

[GeeRam]

Didn't a BA A380 return to LHR yesterday (or Wed?) from storage in France/Spain somewhere?

[caiman27]

It's being prepared to go for heavy maintenance in Manila, replacing the one that went there a couple of months ago.

[frieghtdog2000]

748 - Ahhhhhhhh - Avro

[Herod]

Yes, fifty years. I remember the first one to land at Heathrow back in 1970. Pan-Am. A long time ago.

[ciderman]

I remember in 1971 or 1972 landing a Vulcan in Nairobi. We parked up and were doing what we had to do to put the thing to bed when this enormous thing parked next to us. A 747. Never seen anything dwarf a Vulcan like it did. The we realised that they were on a proving flight and only crew on board. Some gorgeous girls got off, obviously struggling with the Captain's luggage because he got off with a small folder under his arm and disappeared off to the hotel. Envy doesn't even get close.

[GAPU]

I have flown well over a million miles as a BA passenger, quite a lot of those in 64A or K on 747s. My favourite seats in my favourite aircraft. Had another 747 holiday trip planned but it was scuppered by COVID.

[Fareastdriver]

I wonder if it is a plot by BA management to offload all the 747 personnel at minimum cost.

[tdracer]

I doubt they will make freighter conversion - wrong engines.
It won't be the engines - Cargolux has a large fleet of RB211 powered 747-400F. In fact, about 15 years ago Cargolux wanted to buy another six 747-400Fs with Rolls engines, but Rolls had shut down the RB211 line and wasn't interested in starting it up for another 24 engines (Cargolux instead got PW4000s).
Rather, I think the BA 747s are unlikely to become freighters simply because they are already very high time - most already over 100,000 hours. Heck, IIRC, that BA 747-400 that knocked down a building in Joberg was around 108,000 hours - and that was several years ago.

[TheOddOne]

I remember the first 3 parked up in BOAC maintenance. I was working in a hut in Elgin Crescent at the time, just the other side of the blast screen. They were parked up 'cos BOAC crews refused to fly them until they were paid more money. I went past Elgin Crescent on a bus just before the restrictions this year - the hut is still there. I think those buildings will outlast the whole airport; they're just in a sweet spot that no-one wants to develop. The only difference I can see is that there are now barriers to get in to Elgin and Epsom Square, you could just drive in formerly. You could even just drive on to the airfield at the Eastchurch Road crossing.

BTW, all the roads round Heath Row had names starting with the letter pertaining to their compass orientation, quite clever really so you had an idea where abouts to go. The exception was Beacon Road, on the South Side...

TOO

[captain8]

Im guessing around 250 pilots were still operating the type. As all are very senior, will they be shifted to other fleets as needed , or simply bump off less senior folks through their choosing? ( yes unlikely in the modern BA)

Will the oldies take redundancy if offered?

I liked the 747, but its a polluting nightmare of anarchism. Those living in hounslow will breath a little deeper now . Good bye , but your time was up .

[Arfur Dent]

I wondered the same about pilots doing a routine flight not knowing it was their last on the -400.
Fabulous aircraft from a bygone era which I was lucky enough to be part of. Over 20,000 hours on Jumbos - mostly in the LHS.
I think I enjoyed every single flight in some way or other. Goodbye and thank you to the Queen of the Skies.
Sob sob……………….

[B-HKD]

It won't be the engines - Cargolux has a large fleet of RB211 powered 747-400F. In fact, about 15 years ago Cargolux wanted to buy another six 747-400Fs with Rolls engines, but Rolls had shut down the RB211 line and wasn't interested in starting it up for another 24 engines (Cargolux instead got PW4000s).
Rather, I think the BA 747s are unlikely to become freighters simply because they are already very high time - most already over 100,000 hours. Heck, IIRC, that BA 747-400 that knocked down a building in Joberg was around 108,000 hours - and that was several years ago.

tdracer, you are referring to Cathay Pacific not Cargolux. The six aircraft were in fact -400ERFs which are all still operated by Cathay today and are powered By PW4062A.

At the time CX had already purchased a half dozen -400 and -400BCF from SQ powered by PW4056 engines.

Do you happen to know if RR ever considered a higher thrust rating than their existing high thrust ~60k Lbs “H” rating RB211-525H-T-19 to power the -400ERF?


The CF6-80C2B5F and PW4062A (only -400ER/F engines delivered) produce ~62k Lbs static thrust.

On the -400 only Cargolux operates the RB211 at the higher “H” rating. BA did for a number of years and SA did as well due to the elevation at their home base.

[rolling20]

So the 747 was the fastest passenger airliner, after Concorde. It was also the biggest before the A380. The former is long gone, the latter probably not long left. The 747 flew in February 69. So where is the progress?

[ETOPS]

As all are very senior, will they be shifted to other fleets as needed

Sorry captain8 but that's not how BA operate these days.. Many crew looking at the end of their careers.........

[fatmanmedia]

So the 747 was the fastest passenger airliner, after Concorde. It was also the biggest before the A380. The former is long gone, the latter probably not long left. The 747 flew in February 69. So where is the progress?


the Convair CV-990 Coronado was faster.

[Tay Cough]

The Tu-154 doesn’t hang about either.

[Hartington]

The press reports all say 31 aircraft are being retired. Do (did) BA really have that many on the books when COOVID appeared? How many were actually operational?

[tdracer]

the Convair CV-990 Coronado was faster.
That's debatable. Wiki quotes the cruise speed for the CV-990 as Mach 0.84. Depending on the model, the 747 'normal' cruise is between Mach 0.84 and 0.86 (the target during initial design was 0.87).

[Stuart Midgley]

That's debatable. Wiki quotes the cruise speed for the CV-990 as Mach 0.84. Depending on the model, the 747 'normal' cruise is between Mach 0.84 and 0.86 (the target during initial design was 0.87).

IIRC, the -100 through -300 had a noticeably higher max cruise than the -400, due to wing changes on the -400 I think? (Please correct me, those who flew them).

I do remember watching a documentary a few years ago that covered what happened with President Bush and Air Force One (being the VC-25A/747-200) on 9/11. They spent a number of hours flying random paths around the middle of the USA to keep the President safe, at max possible cruise from what they said, and they were being escorted by groups of fighters scrambled from various bases as they moved across the country. At one point a group of escorting F-16s had to ask the VC-25A to slow down - they were only able to pace it by constantly popping in and out of first stage afterburner, with the horrendous fuel penalty that entailed. One of the F-16 pilots was on the documentary saying 'I didn't know a 747 could go that fast'.

[PAXboy]

You just knew that the aircraft would be fine and safe I have enjoyed all seating areas. I was not sad though, to see the end of those dreadful 'air-tube' headphones. Although to my 18 year old self, they and the film were a great development!

Mention of the one in Joburg that met the building in the dark, it was parted out on site. But I found it very comforting that the building was severly wrecked and, whilst the wing was buried in the building, the fuel tanks held and the wing stayed attached. Old school metal and yes I know they took a lot of go juice to haul that along - but it was worth it! That machine changed commercial aviation in ways that Boeing and PanAm could never have imagined.

[Freehills]

So the 747 was the fastest passenger airliner, after Concorde. It was also the biggest before the A380. The former is long gone, the latter probably not long left. The 747 flew in February 69. So where is the progress?

787 and 350 are much more efficient in terms of energy to take stuff a long way. That’s progress.

[tdracer]

IIRC, the -100 through -300 had a noticeably higher max cruise than the -400, due to wing changes on the -400 I think? (Please correct me, those who flew them).

The wing was basically unchanged on the -400 (aside from the added winglets - and the winglets didn't really do much) - it was the -8 that got an aerodynamically re-profiled wing. The passenger 747-400 (and -300) had slightly better cruise drag relative to the -100/200 because the longer upper deck resulted in better area ruling at higher Mach numbers. Between about Mach 0.82 and 0.87 it all boiled down to fuel burn vs. speed.
During the 747-8 flight testing, I looked at flight test data from the flutter testing at Mach 0.98+ (presumably in a shallow dive - that was SOP for high speed flutter testing). I don't remember the altitude (it wasn't relevant to what I was looking for in the data - I was just interested in very high Mach number data). I was also on a 747-8 flight test where we cruised for over an hour at 37k/Mach 0.84 with an engine shutdown (granted, we were fairly light).

[rolling20]

787 and 350 are much more efficient in terms of energy to take stuff a long way. That’s progress.
I don't see that as progress. It may be progress for the bean counters, but not for the flying public.

[Bergerie1]

I flew the 747 for 14 years, it was a truly remarkable aircraft. It was not just its size, but its remarkably good handling qualities. In contrast to the earlier types I had flown, which all had some handling vices, the 747 had none. And its system redundancy was second to none. The only handling vice that I could find (if it was a vice at all) was that the nose wheel could skate along the surface if you tried to turn when taxiing at too fast a speed.

It was very stable to fly, was an excellent instrument flying platform, yet, had sufficiently powerful enough controls to handle in a sprightly fashion like a much smaller aircraft. In fact, when seated in the snug cockpit, it was difficult to believe there was so much aircraft following along behind! I was privileged to be IRE/TRE and airworthiness air test qualified. It was during C of A air tests that one could fully appreciate its handling qualities. It stalled immaculately in all configurations, except when clean – when it wouldn’t really stall at all! The minimum speed had been defined by the point when the slow and stately buffeting was considered unacceptable.

Unlike the 707, it had no Mach tuck, even at M0.97, and unlike the VC10 it did not Dutch Roll. It was remarkably straight forward to fly, even with two engines failed on the same side, and it was approved for 3 engine ferry flights. However, those kinds of things were towards the edge of the envelope, not normally encountered in normal route flying, but it was comforting to know there were such large margins.

Areas that did require precision flying were the approach and landing – naturally; and also on departure during flap retraction when the margin between the minimum speed and the flap limiting speed for the configuration could be fairly small at high weights. I forget the exact figures, but I seem to remember something like 7 kts.

Probably the failure that was of most concern was the possibility of an engine failure close to V1, at high weight, at a high altitude airfield. Clearly, the numbers were well worked out, but stopping an aircraft weighing over 350 tonnes from somewhere around 200 mph was not something to be undertaken lightly. Fortunately I never had to do it – other than on the simulator on routine competency checks.

A really wonderful aircraft to fly. And all the more remarkable when one remembers how long ago it was designed. Joe Sutter and his team got it absolutely right.

[GS-Alpha]

The press reports all say 31 aircraft are being retired. Do (did) BA really have that many on the books when COOVID appeared? How many were actually operational?
I believe BA had 32 in service at the time the borders started closing, but one (G-CIVM) had been due to retire within a couple of months, and so was scrapped in the middle of March instead, which then took the number down to 31 at the start of the UK lockdown.

[washoutt]

In 1969, we, a group of aeronautical students of the Delft University, went to the Le Bourget airshow. Standing along the taxirunway the prototype 747 passed by. The whole crowd let out a deep sigh, it was só huge!

[Krystal n chips]

The first time I saw one was at Halton not long after it had arrived in service.....unfortunately, the "somewhat elderly " civilian instructor didn't appreciate my powers of observation ....and his metronomic incantations being disrupted when I informed the class of its presence

Never got work on them in depth only when passing through or night stopping. However, one aspect that did put the size into perspective, for me at least, was the compartment behind the rear px bulkhead..... and the size of the screw jack / box section for the horizontal stab. Took HM Customs up there a couple of times as part of their training and remember being asked if I went up there on a regular basis. I said no, but, equally, nobody would be suspicious if I or any engineers did. HMRC kindly informed me some enterprising souls at AMS ? had worked this one out and decided the box section on the stab would make a convenient storage area for the products of a certain South American country noted for its exports of such.

[GeeRam]

So the 747 was the fastest passenger airliner, after Concorde.

I think its the fastest still in service since the retirement of Concorde.

I think the VC10 was faster, and it was only just prior to Covid in Feb this year that appropiately it was a BA 747 that broke the 40 odd year old non-Concorde trans altlantic crossing record held by a VC-10 due to the jetstream from that mega storm in Feb.

[GeeRam]

BTW, all the roads round Heath Row had names starting with the letter pertaining to their compass orientation, quite clever really so you had an idea where abouts to go. The exception was Beacon Road, on the South Side...


And Vanguard Way on the East Side ;)

[slast]

Hate to break it to you but the Groundgripper Trident 1 cruised at 0.88M for a while when I was first on it..... (65-67).... gets tin hat and makes for bunker, from where his shout of "but I loved flying the Queen of the Skies too!" is drowned by chorus of boos.... !! .

[Allan Lupton]

Yes the Trident's Mc was 0.88 but as noted above, the Convair 990 with Mc=0.91 had already been there! Same nominal angle of sweep at 35º of course cf the 747's 37.5º

[ATSA1]

I still find it truly remarkable that an airliner that first flew 5 months before Neil and Buzz set foot on Tranquility Base, is still around at all!
I never got to fly in one, although I have flown in a A380, and the Dowager Queen of the Skies, the VC10!
I saw my 1st 747 in the summer of 1970, coming home from a school trip to London..it was so unmistakeable, cruising around Ockham stack..ahh happy days!

[pax britanica]

I posted a bit of a eulogy to the wonderful 74 in BA service some weeks ago and got some legit criticism for being premature, sadly I was right . From my first flight , KHR-JFK (Carnasie 13L approach thrown in) on thanksgiving day 1971 to October 2018 I spent many many hours from behind the wing to F and upstairs on Ba and other 74s so I am sad to see it go. It has of course had its time and BA were really something of an anachronism from hanging onto them . The 380 much more comfortable but with its own problems is nice but not a fan of the triple & which seems to me to wallow around a lot and I was not overly impressed with the 787 , too narrow for BAs sardine business class.

If I am honest I liked the Tri-Star best of that era but it didnt last that long and the 74 took me literally to every corner of the world and I will miss seeing and hearing them and LHR wont be quite the same

[Mikehotel152]

I flew the 747 for 14 years, it was a truly remarkable aircraft. It was not just its size, but its remarkably good handling qualities. In contrast to the earlier types I had flown, which all had some handling vices, the 747 had none. And its system redundancy was second to none. The only handling vice that I could find (if it was a vice at all) was that the nose wheel could skate along the surface if you tried to turn when taxiing at too fast a speed.

It was very stable to fly, was an excellent instrument flying platform, yet, had sufficiently powerful enough controls to handle in a sprightly fashion like a much smaller aircraft. In fact, when seated in the snug cockpit, it was difficult to believe there was so much aircraft following along behind! I was privileged to be IRE/TRE and airworthiness air test qualified. It was during C of A air tests that one could fully appreciate its handling qualities. It stalled immaculately in all configurations, except when clean – when it wouldn’t really stall at all! The minimum speed had been defined by the point when the slow and stately buffeting was considered unacceptable.

Unlike the 707, it had no Mach tuck, even at M0.97, and unlike the VC10 it did not Dutch Roll. It was remarkably straight forward to fly, even with two engines failed on the same side, and it was approved for 3 engine ferry flights. However, those kinds of things were towards the edge of the envelope, not normally encountered in normal route flying, but it was comforting to know there were such large margins.

Areas that did require precision flying were the approach and landing – naturally; and also on departure during flap retraction when the margin between the minimum speed and the flap limiting speed for the configuration could be fairly small at high weights. I forget the exact figures, but I seem to remember something like 7 kts.

Probably the failure that was of most concern was the possibility of an engine failure close to V1, at high weight, at a high altitude airfield. Clearly, the numbers were well worked out, but stopping an aircraft weighing over 350 tonnes from somewhere around 200 mph was not something to be undertaken lightly. Fortunately I never had to do it – other than on the simulator on routine competency checks.

A really wonderful aircraft to fly. And all the more remarkable when one remembers how long ago it was designed. Joe Sutter and his team got it absolutely right.

Thanks for that very interesting post.

[Fareastdriver]

In 1968 I was detached to Hong Kong and on the apron at Kai Tak was the painted outline of a 747. This was so the airport authorities could work out where to put this and that.

I thought that they were stupid; no aeroplane could be that big!

[Mike6567]

I think it important to remember the Boeing 747 had four engines

[Arfur Dent]

Bergerie1/MH
Well said. Totally agree.

[suninmyeyes]

The earlier 747-136s that BOAC bought had a max takeoff weight of 332.9 tonnes, a figure I still remember well. Incredible to think that the later Boeing 777s have a max takeoff weight of 7 tonnes more than that. When entering cloud at certain temperatures on the early 747s the flight engineer had 12 switches to turn on, 8 ignition and 4 nacelle anti-ice, the flight engineer also had to switch on fuel heaters.

[FlightlessParrot]

I flew the 747 for 14 years, it was a truly remarkable aircraft. It was not just its size, but its remarkably good handling qualities. In contrast to the earlier types I had flown, which all had some handling vices, the 747 had none.

From further back in the aeroplane: in the 1970s I was a fairly frequent, but very nervous, flyer. To dispel my anxiety, I read D.P. Davies' Handling the Big Jets. This wasn't entirely a success, as it was full of knowledgeable critique of the flight characteristics of various widely used aircraft, analysis of the bad situations a pilot could get into, and a disturbingly frequent recurrence of the phrase "There is no point in further analysis of this case."

And then we come to the newly introduced airliner: the clouds part, the sun shines through. I can't remember the exact phrase, but words to the effect of "It is a pleasure to turn to an aeroplane like this." As I recollect, the only warning was to remember how high the cockpit was when going over the threshold.

For someone like me, part of the attraction was the sea of seats. In the centre block, it was easy to ignore the fact that one was in an aluminium tube, at over 30,000 feet, in an environment profoundly hostile to human life. In those days, too, there were often empty seats. And once I bungled my bookings and had to fly across the Tasman first class (on my own money). After the enormous Qantas g+t taxiing out to the threshold, my only reaction to the light turbulence on initial climb was "I hope he doesn't spill the champagne he is pouring into my glass." A like minded fellow traveller and I then climbed the stairs to the lounge, and had more Qantas gins, with, I assume, some tonic. By the time I reached Auckland, I was quite nicely; but on less exalted occasions, I always felt good in the 747, even in economy in the back row with the smokers and other disreputables..

Indeed, the Queen of the Skies.

[admiral ackbar]

I don't see that as progress. It may be progress for the bean counters, but not for the flying public.

The progress is the price of airline tickets in constant dollar terms has plummeted meaning more people can fly, more jobs, etc. Obviously not the case today but that was the progress, the democratization of flying.

[FlightlessParrot]

A quick question on "progress": there has obviously been great progress in engines, and in electronics. Has there been great progress in aerodynamics since the 747 was designed?

[BalusKaptan]

Yes, very interesting post.
With regards to the minimal speed margin for flaps, some B742s had their max weights increased to that of the B743s, 377842Kg. This put the min clean speed at precisely the max F1 speed for the 200 when at max structual. Being a freighter, that was often. To resolve that issue the max F1 speed was increased by 5k and that therefore became the margin. At the time our fleet was mainly 300s with a couple of 200s and then the company purchased 3 200s (while waiting for the 744F to be delivered) to be used as freighters and had the weights increased on those 3 to that of the 300s.

[Arfur Dent]

“Handling the big jets” was the title of the DP Davies book. Every 747 pilot on my course in 1984 had a copy.
Essential reading. I seem to recall statement that said something like “Every 747 Captain should know his take off weight to the nearest 10 tons”(obviously tongue in cheek!)
Everything was enormous - except the cockpit!

[FlightlessParrot]

“Handling the big jets” was the title of the DP Davies book. Every 747 pilot on my course in 1984 had a copy.
Essential reading. I seem to recall statement that said something like “Every 747 Captain should know his take off weight to the nearest 10 tons”(obviously tongue in cheek!)
Everything was enormous - except the cockpit!
You are quite right about the title of the Davies book, and I'm going to correct it, and I had actually looked it up, realised my memory was inaccurate, and then got it wrong when posting.:\
I also remember Davies remarking that the cockpit was rather cramped, and thinking that strange. Was there a reason, aerodynamic or structural?

[Bergerie1]

FlightlessParrot,

I believe it was made as small as possible in order to minimise the local Mach No. in the airflow over the roof. Anyone else know about this?

[Cornish Jack]

The flight deck size was most noticeable when I was moved from Tristar to 400 tech training. The Tri was ENORMOUS! ... the 400, cosy! ...the Concorde? more akin to an MG TC!
One passing thought - what will happen to the blue disc on the outside of Cranebank main building - future users will wonder why it's there. (installed to indicate the height of the 747 'fin' top)

[TCU]

From my first flight on a BA 747 (-136, G-AWNH, London to Bermuda in June 1978) to my repatriation flight back from Cape Town to London in late May 2020 (G-CIVO), I've enjoyed 37 rides in the BA 747 fleet of various marks, but mostly -436's, with G-BNLG and G-CIVA being my most regular ride; four each. I had more than a stir that the ride on 'Victor Oscar would be my last on this type

Yes, the A380 is miles quieter, the twins save the bean counters thousands, but as a passenger at a far flung airport preparing for a long journey home, the sight of a BA747 at the gate was always reassuring and will be greatly missed.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1280x960/g_civo_cpt_27_5_20_77f88e5ddc7ba8f1b5c4239ca2b47943cbdeb6c7. jpg
G-CIVO, CPT, 27-05-20

[pax britanica]

TCU

Yes, very put about the sense of almost being at home when you saw a BA 74 at the gate . better yet if it was just 'on the ramp' with stairs but that was a rarity. Only got the same sensation in earlier decades when it was a VC10 late at night ,somewhere very hot and humid lit by those yellow sodium ramp lights

PB

[Mr Mac]

Pax Britanica / TCU
Totally agree with you, but not really bothered about it being BA, any Western European carrier was good enough for me coming out of the more obscure African countries (well maybe not AF !).
Cheers
Mr Mac

[Mr Mac]

I posted a bit of a eulogy to the wonderful 74 in BA service some weeks ago and got some legit criticism for being premature, sadly I was right . From my first flight , KHR-JFK (Carnasie 13L approach thrown in) on thanksgiving day 1971 to October 2018 I spent many many hours from behind the wing to F and upstairs on Ba and other 74s so I am sad to see it go. It has of course had its time and BA were really something of an anachronism from hanging onto them . The 380 much more comfortable but with its own problems is nice but not a fan of the triple & which seems to me to wallow around a lot and I was not overly impressed with the 787 , too narrow for BAs sardine business class.

If I am honest I liked the Tri-Star best of that era but it didnt last that long and the 74 took me literally to every corner of the world and I will miss seeing and hearing them and LHR wont be quite the same
Pax Britanica
Totally agree with you re 787, I try to avoid them having flown on some of the earlier ones with ANA. I also did quite a bit of flying on Tristars / L1011 with TWA and BA and also sometime with BCAL/JAL DC10, and I also think Tristar was the best of that bunch, but commercially not a success.
Cheers
Mr Mac

[suninmyeyes]

FlightlessParrot,

I believe it was made as small as possible in order to minimise the local Mach No. in the airflow over the roof. Anyone else know about this?

The flight deck of a 747 is small because unlike most airliners it is not at the very front of the nose section, it is in a bubble quite high up on the fuselage. It was put there as it was originally designed with military or freight options and the nose sections in some 747 freighters hinge upwards. For the passenger not familiar with the 747, at the very front of the first class section where they would expect the flight deck door to be there are two doors which when opened reveal just a cupboard. This has puzzled some passengers who were surprised to learn the flight deck was upstairs.

[Bergerie1]

suninmyeyes,

Yes, the flight deck is upstairs for the reasons you say. But it was made so tight around the pilots' heads in order to minimise the local Mach No. It could have been larger but for this. It is all to do with controlling the shock wave and minimising flow separation and thus the resulting drag.

[Meikleour]

That near sonic airflow around the flightdeck was also the reason that the flightdeck was so noisy on the 747! Hence the abundance of slightly deaf high houred ex Jumbo pilots! (self included!)

[Dave_B]

I have very happy childhood memories of watching them in the early 70s at Heathrow, as one by the airlines added them to their fleets.

One thing which did make it very distinctive (apart from the obvious hump) was that gorgeous low pitch engine drone. Can someone please tell me the engines which made that sound? I've tried looking on YouTube for 747 videos but none of them have that sound. I'd love to hear it again...

[tdracer]

Suninmyeyes - the story about the 747 being designed as a military freighter (what became the C5A) is largely a myth. While some of the people who worked the Boeing freighter proposal undoubtedly were involved in the 747 design, the 747 design was basically all new. When Boeing was developing the 747, everyone thought supersonic was the future of trans continental passenger aircraft - which would have soon made the 747 obsolete as a passenger aircraft. So the provisions to make it a freighter were designed in early on (the original 747 concept wasn't a super wide 9 or 10 across fuselage, it was a double decker with two single aisle levels).

A quick question on "progress": there has obviously been great progress in engines, and in electronics. Has there been great progress in aerodynamics since the 747 was designed?
Flightless, there have been advances in aerodynamics (particularly in the use of Computational Fluid Dynamics - CFD). But it's been more gradual and evolutionary rather revolutionary. The most significant change in aerodynamics is the ability to optimize the details, and go 'thicker' with things like wings while keeping the critical Mach down. Thicker wings mean more efficient (i.e. lighter) structure and more room for fuel, actuators, etc.

[CompassT4T5]

In the 70's ,after having taken 20 Unaccompanied minors to NBO , the following night the Cpt. allowed me into the jumpseat behind him for the take off..
High airfield, totally full B747 classic ....We started our t/o roll........and we rolled.... and rolled.....( it felt like the M1 motorway at this point ! )
Finally (3mls ? later ! ) after what felt like an eternity,

at the end of the runway , we lumbered up !
Total silence in the cockpit apart from usual commands & procedures.
In the cruise the Cpt. turned to us all and calmly stated "HIP HIP FOR ROLLS ROYCE !!

I mumbled something to the effect of " Thank you chaps , I will just pop back to the cabin now !!"

[Kiltrash]

Can anyone confirm my first experience of a BA 747. Would be no later than 1974, my 21st birthday. Did Ian Allan fly experience flights on BA 747's departing from the Maintainance area. Trip was about 2 hours?
My overriding memory was, having only then flown on Vanguards, the shear size and smoothness.


Last and most memorable 747 flight was a Beardy Branson from Las Vagas with a low (ish) pass over the Grand Canyon and the Captain got 'special permission' to fly a fig of 8 so both sides could get a view. In 2015. I estimate we were only 33% full so easier for the centre seats to move round

Many thanks 747

[PAXboy]

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/20200219_102511_resize_6dc8b8b3d0b704915f01264c486c38ca53286 b01.jpg
What turns out to be my last on a BA 744. 19th Feb this year in the circuit ex-CPT. The M25 is below. A truly fabulous machine.

[FlightlessParrot]

suninmyeyes,

Yes, the flight deck is upstairs for the reasons you say. But it was made so tight around the pilots' heads in order to minimise the local Mach No. It could have been larger but for this. It is all to do with controlling the shock wave and minimising flow separation and thus the resulting drag.

At least they didn't try the C-74 answer to a cockpit high in the fuselage.

[Fareastdriver]

I wonder how many hosties had bruises on the heads.

[dukiematic]

Some memories:

1. Jump seat out of Dhaka on a 236B. Stately doesn't begin to describe it climbing from the chaos of the city
2. Jump seat out of Mahé (Seychelles) to Nairobi a full 3 months after the incident where an unwell man entered the office and proceeded to accelerate descent by means of throwing himself at the SFO. Flight crew couldn't have been more welcoming to us. Made clear we'd have to take our seats pre descent into Nairobi. As if only it was there that mentally unwell folk could strike... crew only following procedures, of course.
3. The KLM tour around the Cape inbound to CPT. Complete with tour narration from the Captain. "And there's Table Mountain" etc.
4. Skimming through summer CB's around JFK on the inbound. Captain querulous PA as it seemed vectors into some activity "La'z n gemmun plz fasten belts ". Few slight bumps then smooth again...
5. Too many wannabee sim sessions (at own cost for birthdays etc) marvelling at the handling characteristics AND the lambswool seat covers. Were they as comfortable after 9 hours, we wondered?

And many more. She was indeed the Queen and as a failed wannabe I will miss her as pax and a dreamer. Doubt we'll see the like again....

[Jn14:6]

That near sonic airflow around the flightdeck was also the reason that the flightdeck was so noisy on the 747! Hence the abundance of slightly deaf high houred ex Jumbo pilots! (self included!)

Pardon!!!!

[Groundloop]

The flight deck size was most noticeable when I was moved from Tristar to 400 tech training. The Tri was ENORMOUS! ... the 400, cosy! ...the Concorde? more akin to an MG TC!
One passing thought - what will happen to the blue disc on the outside of Cranebank main building - future users will wonder why it's there. (installed to indicate the height of the 747 'fin' top)

When I was at Cranebank I was told the blue disk indicated the pilot's eye height on a 747.

[pax britanica]

Mr Mac, the 1011 was a really nice aircraft i thought from all rspects as a passenger, i have read a lot of good comments from the flight deck too, not the first or last aircraft to be popular with all but the finance team. My daughter who has done a lot of miles and of course from a different era , her first trip -on a 1011 LHR-BDA was aged 4 months but she still rates it as her favourite . It was very popular among the locals in BDA compared to the DC10 and always seemed to offer a much smoother flight. I flew on BA. Eastern , Air Canada , Gulf Air and Delta on most marks including the -500 all of which seemed to have that approach on rails effect although the good ol' boys , ex USN who flew ATL-Bermuda used to love the scenic approach at low level along the south shore of Bermuda followed by a tight descending turn rolling level close in to runway 31 at Kindley Field which one of them assured me was about their favourite approach on the whole DL network.

Having thread drifted badly , PAX boys great photo summed up the 744 to me , Like many I have seen some great sights from 74 windows, The Bosphorus, the junction of the Niles on a rare daytime NBO-LHR, Carnasie VOR approach at JFK in wind and rain, Sydney harbour, Mt Rainer inbound to SEA and many many times the legendary checkerboard at Kai Tak. But they all started out , unless on easterlies of course , with the view Pax Boy posted , a damp day departing LHR with two great British Icons in view the M25 ! and RR on the nacelles.

A big part of my life , and it retires just as I do

[DaveReidUK]

When I was at Cranebank I was told the blue disk indicated the pilot's eye height on a 747.

I believe there were two blue disks: one for the pilot's eye height when taxying, and the other indicating the corresponding fin height - around 9 m and 19 m, respectively.

[Innominate]

I believe there were two blue disks: one for the pilot's eye height when taxying, and the other indicating the corresponding fin height

I saw a tweet yesterday from a 747 pilot who said that the second represented the pilot's eye height in the flare.

[PAXboy]

Mention of C74 took me to seach and from some photos, it appears that their early cockpits were open???

[treadigraph]

Mention of C74 took me to seach and from some photos, it appears that ehir early cockpits were open???

No. No... Naaaaah. No? No.

C-74 is the "Chinese" aeroplane at Milan in the film "The Italian Job". Also one of two aeroplanes referred to by James Herriot in one of his later Vet autobiographies. The other crashed.

[FlightlessParrot]

Mention of C74 took me to seach and from some photos, it appears that ehir early cockpits were open???
Not quite. Bubble canopies, one left, one right. They were unpopular; even a non-pilot like me can imagine some of the reasons, and one wonders why they were adopted, but bubble canopies on large aircraft was a fashion (B-47, XB-42, even perhaps Canberra B(I). 8, though that's much less egregious). Fighter envy?

[Gin Jockey]

Here's my favourite BA jumbo story (apologies if it's boring)...

Back in the early 2000s our company leased a BA 744 for a while. I remember the UK registration had been G-BNLH only because it was temporarily re-registered as NLH, which quickly became known amongst our crews, possibly unfairly, as "Never Leaves Home" as it was (allegedly) always breaking down.

As with any aircraft from another operator there were numerous small differences. One was the crew rest area. Unlike our 744s, which had 2 separate crew rest areas (1 in the cockpit and 1 at the aft of the upper deck) they only had the one, therefore on 4 pilot ops, shared crew rest in the cockpit with 2 bunks. I was a lowly new hire second officer at the time. On this particular flight I knew the F/O quite well and we always had a laugh, but I hadn't met the captain. At one point early in the flight I went into the crew rest not long after the captain had gone in. It was the middle of the night, so was pretty dark in there. After an indeterminate time and during a bout of really annoying turbulence the Captain gets up and leaves crew rest to go back on duty. A few minutes later a dark figure appears entering the crew rest. It's still really bumpy. Assuming it was the F/O, I loudly remarked as he entered, "for f$%ks sake, could you make it any f^*king bumpier you d@*khead!". He didn't really reply, just lay down in the other bunk. I couldn't sleep so I thought I'll go see if the other S/O wants a break, so I head out of crew rest. I look up the front and see the F/O in the right seat!! The cogs start turning and my brain goes into slow-mo as realise that: a) I must have fallen asleep at some point and the F/O and captain swapped over without me realising which means that; b) I, the super new junior gumby, have just told the aircraft commander he was a d$^khead. ****ting bricks, I swap with the other S/O and relay my story to the F/O who wets himself with laughter.

One other minor difference (that I doubt many knew - I certainly didn't) was that it had no GPS unlike our fleet which were all GPS equipped. Later on in the flight, I was on deck with the captain who seemed in good spirits (I was loathe to bring up the subject - thinking at the time maybe he hadn't heard me? Turns out later he did!). We were approaching land after 10+ hours over water. I was staring emptily at the ND (as you do on a 14 hour flight when you've just accidentally called the captain a d^@khead) when the magenta line suddenly moves halfway across the ND to the right. In my half-dead-jetlag-but-thinking-I-might-get-fired haze I'm like every new jet pilot when the aircraft does something they're not expecting, "wtf is this thing doing?". The aircraft does a big turn to the right to re-intercept (we're obviously in LNAV). I look over at old mate with a "WTF" expression, he with the same expression back, moments before cracking up laughing, "map shift! It's just updated the FMS position from that VOR" he giggles. We'd never seen this as all our aircraft had GPS. Having broken the ice, we had a good laugh about the "d@*khead" incident. He said he was giggling the whole time as he knew I'd mistaken him for the F/O, but didn't want to laugh until I'd left the crew rest!

[DaveReidUK]

I saw a tweet yesterday from a 747 pilot who said that the second represented the pilot's eye height in the flare.

Here are the marks in question on the Block C offices at Cranebank:


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/612x816/cranebank_747_discs_47ad30734f77a1ad7bcdda0b57466ad0db28396b .jpg

The legend on the photo does indeed suggest that the both discs relate to pilot's eye height.

That said, a quick back-of-the envelope calculation would suggest that the greatest eye-to-wheel height achievable in the flare on a 747, just short of striking the tail, would be about 15 m, compared with the aforementioned 9 m eye-to-wheel height when taxying. But the upper disc in the photo looks to be at least twice as high above ground level as the lower one, although the parallax makes it hard to be sure (any photogrammetry experts out there?).

I believe the building in question may have now gone, so it looks like we might never get a definitive answer. :O

https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/3jhky8/747_pilot_eye_height/cuphyl3/

[Brakes to Park]

Can anyone confirm my first experience of a BA 747. Would be no later than 1974, my 21st birthday. Did Ian Allan fly experience flights on BA 747's departing from the Maintainance area. Trip was about 2 hours?
My overriding memory was, having only then flown on Vanguards, the shear size and smoothness.


Last and most memorable 747 flight was a Beardy Branson from Las Vagas with a low (ish) pass over the Grand Canyon and the Captain got 'special permission' to fly a fig of 8 so both sides could get a view. In 2015. I estimate we were only 33% full so easier for the centre seats to move round

Many thanks 747

Ian Allan did indeed do BA 747 charters. My parents treated me to one in 1972 LHR-SNN-LHR with an outing to Bunratty Castle. It was an amazing day out and a massive thrill fo experience the beast.

[champair79]

Here's my favourite BA jumbo story (apologies if it's boring)...

Back in the early 2000s our company leased a BA 744 for a while. I remember the UK registration had been G-BNLH only because it was temporarily re-registered as NLH, which quickly became known amongst our crews, possibly unfairly, as "Never Leaves Home" as it was (allegedly) always breaking down.

...

One other minor difference (that I doubt many knew - I certainly didn't) was that it had no GPS unlike our fleet which were all GPS equipped.

Great story. I believe in BA she was known as “Never Leaves Hangar” but same difference I guess. A proper hangar queen.

You’ll be pleased to know they’re all fitted with GPS now!

champ

[PetitRenard]

I have so enjoyed reading this thread as well as the others dedicated to the Queen of the Skies.
I don't work in aviation but my mum was BA ground crew at CPT during the 90s and early 00s and the 058/059 was a part of daily life in our household. My dad and I would wait in our garden in the evenings for the roar of her engines and when we heard them, we'd wave and wave up at the night's sky and I'd know that my mum would be on her way home. 15 years after retiring, my mum still stood in the garden in the evening waiting to hear the 058 go and if we happened to see her standing proudly in the sun at CPT, the tears would gather in my mum's eyes every time.

I don't know how many times I flew with her - but I know I had a life time of travel far beyond the means of most and my understanding of what a privilege it was at the time so I wish to leave some memories here:
- 1x engine failure CPT to LHR and the Cpt warning us that we may have to make an emergency landing. But on she flew and we landed safely at LHR
- too many frozen Mars bars from the lovely ladies and gents in the galley
- having a little scrapbook into which I had glued all the tails of the World Images livery and ticking them off when I spotted a new one I hadn't seen
- when I was 10 years old, flying from LHR to SYD via KUL on Christmas Eve, my parents were bumped up into the bubble leaving me flying UM style in economy with a wrapped present in my backpack under the seat in front of me that I knew was a box of chocolates. I heartily tucked into the chocolates (revenge for being left behind), and when we arrived at KUL, my parents had the embarrassing pleasure of escorting a completely drunk 10 year old off the plane for a walk about while the aircraft was being refuelled. I had consumed the entire box of cognac-filled chocolates and, while at KUL, proceeded to vomit all over myself. Without a fresh change of clothes, I sat the whole way from KUL to SYD in my vomit clothes and I haven't touched a drink since (pity the poor pax around me!)
- in Sept 2003, on my 5th day of trying unsuccessfully to get home standby from LHR to CPT after a year living in France and desperately homesick, the kindly folk at the standby desk advised that I use my coupon to go to NBO and on to JNB from there. The flight was empty, bar a familiar face from the standby desk, and as we touched down we had the most beautiful view of the champagne coloured grasses and a herd of giraffes with babies, their beautiful heads looking this way and that
- in 2007, flying QF from JNB to SYD, we were given orange ice lollies as a midnight snack. I was seated next to two Russian girls and we eagerly unwrapped the lollies and then sat for a good 15 minutes with our tongues and lips frozen solid to the lollies, laughing hysterically
- in 2008, flying QF from JNB to SYD, experiencing the worst turbulence I ever have and holding the hand of the man next to me who was crying in fear while drinks were tossed around the cabin. My mum's words came back to me then, 'they're designed for this' and on she flew landing safely
- and of course, that view of Table Mountain, on approach into CPT on a sunny morning. A view like no other

This quiet, distant farewell unbecoming of her years of service to the public and the very special place she holds in my childhood and the memories of those who spent so many hours with her is sad. If I had known, I would have been on that viewing deck that last time, the child in me, waving and waving! In the last three months, I have lost my business, any form of income and there have been many sad good byes - but this one really ached. Best of luck to all of those affected in aviation and elsewhere.

[happybiker]

BA operated an ex SAS B747-283B Reg G-BMGS in the 1980s. The aircraft was also operated in Caledonian livery. This was referred to as "Might Go Sick" by the engineers due to its reliability. Eventually operated by Beardy as G-VOYG.

[rolling20]

I once met a chap at a dinner who had been on Speedbird 9 out of Jakarta. His tale of the descent was rather worrying to say the least. One of the people at the dinner quipped, 'remind me not to get on a flight with you'
Imagine to my horror sometime later as I was sitting in Business Class, on a BA 747-4, as he brushed past me into First Class. It was an 11 hour flight, I never slept a wink!
​​​​​​

[DaveReidUK]

Great story. I believe in BA she was known as “Never Leaves Hangar” but same difference I guess. A proper hangar queen.

Strangely enough, by the time G-BNLH was retired in October 2009 it had flown more hours per day, on average, than many if not most of its fellow BA B744s.

So they must have let it out of the hangar occasionally. :O

[standbykid]

Most beautiful aircraft ever built. Crossed the pond countless times in one with various BA liveries. Farewell.

[PAXboy]

I recall the first time I crossed the Pond with only two engines (a BA 777) I felt nervous.

[treadigraph]

I recall the first time I crossed the Pond with only two engines (a BA 777) I felt nervous.

AA 767 for me, Gatwick - Miami and return. All my subsequent trips were on 747s or A340s, not because of nerves, they were just all with Virgin! Haven't been for nearly two decades now.

[GeeRam]

I recall the first time I crossed the Pond with only two engines (a BA 777) I felt nervous.

It was on a B757 for me.....Stanstead to Bangor and then Bangor to Orlando.....with short haul seat pitch.....horrible flight!
It was cheap for a reason.

[srjumbo747]

Does anyone know where and when this will be?

[DaveReidUK]

Does anyone know where and when this will be?

I'd be surprised if much planning has gone into that yet - BA has more important things to worry about at the moment.

In normal times, I would expect the retirement of a type to be marked by one or more commemorative flights, but these days I wouldn't take that for granted.

It may well be that the only remaining flights will be to wherever the airframes are going to be scrapped. That will certainly apply to the 9 aircraft currently at LHR (because BA no longer scraps aircraft in its own backyard); the five at Teruel may well be broken up there (as some have been previously); ditto some or all of the 14 at Cardiff (or possibly down the road at St Athan).

So the final BA 747 flight will likely be when the last of the 9 makes its final departure from LHR for wherever. I expect that to be a very emotional event, and I'll certainly be there to witness it.

[PAXboy]

The comparison of being in Y on the Triple was particularly painful - as my previous crossing had been on (registration) G-BOAC. :uhoh:

[FlightlessParrot]

I recall the first time I crossed the Pond with only two engines (a BA 777) I felt nervous.
Try crossing the Pacific (Auckland to Los Angeles) on two engines for the first time. Not even going close to Hawaii, as far as I could tell.

[Alty7x7]

The wing was basically unchanged on the -400 (aside from the added winglets - and the winglets didn't really do much) - it was the -8 that got an aerodynamically re-profiled wing. The passenger 747-400 (and -300) had slightly better cruise drag relative to the -100/200 because the longer upper deck resulted in better area ruling at higher Mach numbers. Between about Mach 0.82 and 0.87 it all boiled down to fuel burn vs. speed.
During the 747-8 flight testing, I looked at flight test data from the flutter testing at Mach 0.98+ (presumably in a shallow dive - that was SOP for high speed flutter testing). I don't remember the altitude (it wasn't relevant to what I was looking for in the data - I was just interested in very high Mach number data). I was also on a 747-8 flight test where we cruised for over an hour at 37k/Mach 0.84 with an engine shutdown (granted, we were fairly light).

The -400 had a combination of wing extensions plus the winglets, versus the -300. It was a 0.85 airplane, and could get up to 0.92 cruise above 40k.

[Bergerie1]

One of my old mates when asked why he had always flown four engine aircraft, repiled, "Because no one has built one with five engines."

[dixi188]

One of my old mates when asked why he had always flown four engine aircraft, repiled, "Because no one has built one with five engines."
Wasn't that quote credited to one of the Rolls Royce bosses?

[CompassT4T5]

In the late 70's, I flew on a BA B747 LAX-LHR , after t/o we had an engine fire.
The Cpt. explained all & advised it was now out and we could still continue direct to LHR.

An hour later , he announced we would divert to JFK , as maintainance there would be in a good position to change the engine.
We landed safely & smoothly there, and were hoping for a min. 6h delay..........
This proved too ambitious , so ground customer services staff efficiently arranged overnight accommodation for all.

We received a memo under the hotel room door, stating that at 8am-9am approx there would be a quick buffet breakfast available,
and then would we all please proceed to the awaiting buses for the by then fixed a/c 's continuation to LHR
As expected, huge queues for the buffet !
I just made myself a coffee, grabbed a doughnut & looked for somewhere to sit .
I minute later I was approached by a lovely BA customer service agent , who said " Sir , are you ready to go, because a bus is going now ? "
I said " yes , eh , sure " ...I was directed to the BA check in desks with my LAX-LHR boarding card stub - and given my new boarding card ON CONCORDE !!

A great result - but I must say , after having flown in the B747 ( all versions incl. SP - excluding freighter ) 3m+ miles since 1971 , I have never felt safer in the air.
She will be truly missed

[flash8]

Wasn't that quote credited to one of the Rolls Royce bosses?
Could have been Bergerie1's old mate of course )

[Compton3fox]

Well apart from the Trident..

[Compton3fox]

One of my old mates when asked why he had always flown four engine aircraft, repiled, "Because no one has built one with five engines."
Well apart from thr Trident!

[dixi188]

The 145 has 5 APUs.

[DaveReidUK]

The 145 has 5 APUs.

Embraer or Eurocopter ?

[tdracer]

The -400 had a combination of wing extensions plus the winglets, versus the -300. It was a 0.85 airplane, and could get up to 0.92 cruise above 40k.

The extensions and winglets didn't do much for cruise speed - the higher aspect wing helped overall drag but the winglets were close to worthless. Although the winglets had looked good in the wind tunnel, the real world performance was so disappointing that there was a serious proposal from the aero types to simply get rid of them. However Boeing liked the 'look' and how the winglets distinguished the -400 from the earlier 747s (and while the winglets didn't help much, they didn't hurt). So they decided to keep the winglets.
There was a meaningful improvement in cruise drag due to the stretched upper deck and it's area ruling improvement. When they retrofit a few -200s with stretched upper decks they actually got enough fuel burn improvement to more than offset the additional weight. Apparently the improvement in cruise drag with the stretched upper deck was a bit of pleasant surprise - they hadn't looked at it that closely during the development of the -300, but it made it a no-brainer to include it on the -400...

[treadigraph]

Although the winglets had looked good in the wind tunnel, the real world performance was so disappointing that there was a serious proposal from the aero types to simply get rid of them.

I seem to recall damaged winglets have occasionally been removed before a revenue flight and the aircraft flown home?

Apparently the improvement in cruise drag with the stretched upper deck was a bit of pleasant surprise - they hadn't looked at it that closely during the development of the -300, but it made it a no-brainer to include it on the -400...

Why did the production 747-400 and 800 freighters not have the stretched upper deck? Keep airframe weight down a bit to improve loads carried on the main deck?

[tdracer]

I seem to recall damaged winglets have occasionally been removed before a revenue flight and the aircraft flown home?
The winglets were on the MEL/CDL/DDG - dispatch was allowed for (I think) 10 days - I don't recall if it was for one or both missing... The short range -400 didn't get winglets (IIRC JAL did something where they used 747-400s for short range service until they got up to a certain number of cycles, then converted them to long range aircraft to get the hours out of the airframe - rather clever).

Why did the production 747-400 and 800 freighters not have the stretched upper deck? Keep airframe weight down a bit to improve loads carried on the main deck?
Yes, I believe it was airframe weight - they couldn't use the additional space and the extra airframe weight meant less cargo. Also, the cargo operators are less concerned about cruise speed - apparently cruising around at 0.80 to 0.82 is pretty common for a 747F while passenger aircraft seldom go that slow - and the area ruling benefit comes into play at about 0.84.

[treadigraph]

Cheers! Occasionally wondered about the freighters...

[Meikleour]

tdracer: Do you have any knowledge of the "pod nod" applied to the R-R engined B747-2/300? I was told that although the airframe was optimised for M.86 cruise it was more commomly cruised slightly slower with a commensurate higher cruise pitch attitude. The "pod- nod" applied a slight droop to the pods giving a better alignment for the slower cruise speed and hence a slight fuel burn improvement.

[wub]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x1002/p1020080_a10a1d0084ea1044c7df1f7fdbcdac577503acc6.jpg
My favourite cabin in the sky
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/601x800/p1010660_0d0156a0cb76f1f75c3fcc6bb94e6dcb5f006a8d.jpg
Taken from the window in the rearmost door. I'll always remember this because unknown to me, a lady was standing behind me waiting for a look and as I stood up to leave I smacked her nose hard with the back of my head.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x1002/p1050948_fb43636cfa665be594e784cf116a8d7e7a75c7a1.jpg
My last BA 747 trip in 2015, thereafter the routes I fly were operated by A380s and 777s

[vctenderness]

Pre 9/11 I carried Paul McCartney on a 747-400. I told the captain he was on board and he asked me to invite him to the FD.

I took him up the stairs and on reaching the top he exclaimed “wow this is really nice it’s like a private jet”. I realised that, of course, he had only ever flown in First Class in the nose and had never seen the lovely Club Upper Deck!

I had to persuade him he was better off spending his dosh on First Class travel.

[srjumbo747]

The winglets were on the MEL/CDL/DDG - dispatch was allowed for (I think) 10 days - I don't recall if it was for one or both missing... The short range -400 didn't get winglets (IIRC JAL did something where they used 747-400s for short range service until they got up to a certain number of cycles, then converted them to long range aircraft to get the hours out of the airframe - rather clever).


Yes, I believe it was airframe weight - they couldn't use the additional space and the extra airframe weight meant less cargo. Also, the cargo operators are less concerned about cruise speed - apparently cruising around at 0.80 to 0.82 is pretty common for a 747F while passenger aircraft seldom go that slow - and the area ruling benefit comes into play at about 0.84.
The MEL stated that you could fly with one off but not both! Go figure!!!
Also, getting the winglet off was a difficult task and if you were down route when it happened you had to watch the duty hours.

[tdracer]

tdracer: Do you have any knowledge of the "pod nod" applied to the R-R engined B747-2/300? I was told that although the airframe was optimised for M.86 cruise it was more commomly cruised slightly slower with a commensurate higher cruise pitch attitude. The "pod- nod" applied a slight droop to the pods giving a better alignment for the slower cruise speed and hence a slight fuel burn improvement.
No, sorry. I didn't start working the 747 until the mid 1980's. We did some work on inlet droop on the Pratt powered 767 in the mid 80's but it never amounted to anything.
The only 'pod nod' I'm familiar with was actually "pod nodding" - also known as "orbiting engine". There was an instability in the fuel control of the early CF6-80C2 engines that could couple with the natural frequency of the strut and cause the inlet to move in a little orbit that could be seen and felt from the cabin - rather disturbing but fortunately it turned out to be an easy fix...

[Fris B. Fairing]

The MEL stated that you could fly with one off but not both! Go figure!!!

There was speculation that it might be related to the nav lights but these are not on the winglet. An alternative explanation was that Boeing never anticipated a requirement to remove both winglets so they never tested it and therefore it was never incorporated in the manuals.

[gas path]

The flight deck size was most noticeable when I was moved from Tristar to 400 tech training. The Tri was ENORMOUS! ... the 400, cosy! ...the Concorde? more akin to an MG TC!
One passing thought - what will happen to the blue disc on the outside of Cranebank main building - future users will wonder why it's there. (installed to indicate the height of the 747 'fin' top)
There's two discs on that wall! I remember being told the lower one was the flt deck height when on the ground. The upper one (very faded) was the height above the concrete after main wheel touch down.

[DaveReidUK]

There's two discs on that wall! I remember being told the lower one was the flt deck height when on the ground. The upper one (very faded) was the height above the concrete after main wheel touch down.

See discussion earlier in the thread about the relative heights of the discs, and the 747 geometry.

[gas path]

tdracer: Do you have any knowledge of the "pod nod" applied to the R-R engined B747-2/300? I was told that although the airframe was optimised for M.86 cruise it was more commomly cruised slightly slower with a commensurate higher cruise pitch attitude. The "pod- nod" applied a slight droop to the pods giving a better alignment for the slower cruise speed and hence a slight fuel burn improvement.
The last of BA's -200's BDXP had different (basically -400) pylons, they had a noticeable droop to them ( 5deg?? IIRC), That was there as stated to improve airflow into the engine especially during rotation. There was one other of the fleet and the reg. I cant remember had a no.4 pylon only to the same standard as we replaced it due to overheat damage.

[Self loading bear]

Here are the marks in question on the Block C offices at Cranebank:


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/612x816/cranebank_747_discs_47ad30734f77a1ad7bcdda0b57466ad0db28396b .jpg

The legend on the photo does indeed suggest that the both discs relate to pilot's eye height.

That said, a quick back-of-the envelope calculation would suggest that the greatest eye-to-wheel height achievable in the flare on a 747, just short of striking the tail, would be about 15 m, compared with the aforementioned 9 m eye-to-wheel height when taxying. But the upper disc in the photo looks to be at least twice as high above ground level as the lower one, although the parallax makes it hard to be sure (any photogrammetry experts out there?).

I believe the building in question may have now gone, so it looks like we might never get a definitive answer. :O

https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/3jhky8/747_pilot_eye_height/cuphyl3/

Photgrammatery is not required. Counting building levels will do.
from Boeing 747-800:
eye height cockpit 8,71m (lowest plate looks corresponding at 2.5 floors)
A flare of 10 deg and 34m distance between main gear and cockpit adds 6m (so indeed not doubling the height)
tail height 19.6m (highest plate look corresponding with 5+2/3 Floors)

[rog747]

BA have replied to us stating they have no interest in organising any 747 farewell flights - sorry folks

my thanks for assistance to pal David Skillicorn
(Previous MD of Bath Travel/Palmair Holidays)
Cant say we didn't try....We were looking to work maybe 3 or 4 rotations, retro a/c if poss, - Def would have sold out & filled them all up.
Hey ho...

[GS-Alpha]

BA have replied to us stating they have no interest in organising any 747 farewell flights - sorry folks

my thanks for assistance to pal David Skillicorn
(Previous MD of Bath Travel/Palmair Holidays)
Cant say we didn't try....We were looking to work maybe 3 or 4 rotations, retro a/c if poss, - Def would have sold out & filled them all up.
Hey ho...
Sadly they have got far more pressing matters to be dealing with, than worrying about putting on a couple of farewell commercial flights for the 747. It is tantamount to asking a bus driver to take you just a couple more miles up the road, whilst he/she is slumped at the wheel having a heart attack.

[Fareastdriver]

Should you not be able to fly in a British Airways 747 there are plenty of other airlines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_747_operators

[tdracer]

Should you not be able to fly in a British Airways 747 there are plenty of other airlines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_747_operators
Lufthansa, Korean, and China Air bought significant numbers of 747-8 passenger aircraft.
At least Lufthansa has indicated they intend to keep their 747-8s in service once traffic returns past pandemic.

[ExSp33db1rd]

One of my old mates when asked why he had always flown four engine aircraft, replied, "Because no one has built one with five engines."

Was once told that no airline Captain would be satisfied until the F/Eng. could say " We've lost No 8, Sir ( never forgetting the Sir ! ) " and the Captain could reply, " Which side ? "