Adios, Queen of the Sky!
Yeah, I too, love this lovely lady.
I did over 35 years and 22K hours in all seats on all variants - 100, 200, 300, 400 & SP.
A delight to fly and very superior engineering. My time as FEO allowed me to discover the depth of thought and planning in the design.
We got into a few bad holes with her over the years and she came good every time. Several changes of undies required but no serious hurt.
Thank you Joe Sutter.
I did over 35 years and 22K hours in all seats on all variants - 100, 200, 300, 400 & SP.
A delight to fly and very superior engineering. My time as FEO allowed me to discover the depth of thought and planning in the design.
We got into a few bad holes with her over the years and she came good every time. Several changes of undies required but no serious hurt.
Thank you Joe Sutter.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Austin, QC
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No the Air Force already has 2 747-8's in refurb now. They were 2 that were supposed to go to a Russian airline and never did. They are still a few years away from coming online though.
Will a fleet of two be enough? How about one operational spare plus one spare for heavy mainentance or modification?
They've been getting along just fine with two 747-200 based AF1 aircraft for the last 30 years...
Before that they got by with just two 707 based aircraft.
Before that they got by with just two 707 based aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-...ralia/12482338
The name Longreach always makes me smile. A good choice after the previous name fortunately got dumped just prior to implementation.
The name Longreach always makes me smile. A good choice after the previous name fortunately got dumped just prior to implementation.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The previous name?
Stretched Upper Deck was proposed and publicity material went into production,
That was halted when a kind person informed them that SUD is a totally unsuitable label for an aircraft.
The medical profession definitions:-
Sudden Unexpected Death - This was the reason I was given.
or Stress Ulcer Disease
or Substance Use Disorder Physiology
Longreach was a great choice.
That was halted when a kind person informed them that SUD is a totally unsuitable label for an aircraft.
The medical profession definitions:-
Sudden Unexpected Death - This was the reason I was given.
or Stress Ulcer Disease
or Substance Use Disorder Physiology
Longreach was a great choice.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But to the 747 and the Stratocaster, you could add the Gibson Les Paul, the DC3 and the Connie as wonderful examples of the excellence which was the hallmark of the American aircraft industry, although I don't think it made geetars.
Paxing All Over The World
After SUD, the other marketing name that was tried was 'Megatop' by SIA. It did not catch on and they dropped it. I can't post with Copyright issue but search for SIA Megatop and you will see the word written above the upper deck windows.
IIRC, "Megatop" was applied to all the Singapore 747-400s. I never noticed that they got rid of it, but then again I don't think I flew Singapore after the early 'naughts'.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-...ralia/12482338
The name Longreach always makes me smile. A good choice after the previous name fortunately got dumped just prior to implementation.
The name Longreach always makes me smile. A good choice after the previous name fortunately got dumped just prior to implementation.
My understanding is that the Longreach titles were applied to the -400s. In 1989 Qantas flew a -400 "City of Canberra" direct from Heathrow to Sydney hence the Longreach title. As 172driver points out it is also a town in Queensland that has a significant connection to the beginnings of Qantas(thats what the Q stands for and why you dont spell Qantas with a U) It is also the home of the Qantas Founders museum. The SUD was dropped from the -300 early in its commercial service and became the EUD. By the time the -400 came around the bigger upper deck was just accepted and not a big deal.
Did Qantas do anything to differentiate the later (910k lb.) 747-400ERs from the rest of their 747-400 fleet? My recollection is that the 910k option was created specifically for Qantas so they could run some of their longer routes.
Norman Foster (architect) article in the London "Times"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f...lown-b82gts6c5
"Farewell to the Boeing 747, the greatest building ever flown.
The world was a very different place when Boeing mooted the idea of an aircraft 2½ times the size of the 737. Fuel was cheap and seemingly limitless. Society, and American society in particular, appeared to be on a never-ending upward curve of prosperity and technologically-driven ease.
The design of the 747 exudes confidence, style, technology and friendliness. And it is without doubt fixed in the second half of the 20th century.
Many years ago I was asked by a BBC documentary to name my favourite building. I had no hesitation. With about 3,000 sq ft of floor space, 15 lavatories, three kitchens and room for 367 guests, the 747 is surely a building. It has grandeur and an extraordinary presence. The tail is the height of a six-storey building. It’s also pure sculpture. It could be in a museum. The 747 is genuinely architectural both in its design and in its thinking. And, what’s more, it flies.
Inside there are many parallels with modern buildings. Like many offices the aircraft is a fixed shell and a movable interior. It does not have a great deal of character and is rather bland in many ways. It is in the international hotel style, which I suppose is appropriate — people come and go, and it could be almost anywhere.
The flight deck — ruthlessly functional and surprisingly tiny — is a twinkling beauty, and the overall layout is ergonomically efficient. The lavatories in business class are admirably space-efficient and finely detailed pieces of industrial architecture. Elsewhere there are elegant touches, such as the recessed snag-free handles on all the doors. The galleys have a marvellous American diner style, all stainless steel and black plastic. Safety regulations turn some parts into pure art, and it is this exuberance of technology-as-art that uplifts the assembly of parts.
When I say the 747 is stylish, I mean that it has metaphoric elements associated with cultural ideas of speed, efficiency, power, strength and dependability. And yet it is genuinely beautiful. I believe that all modern architecture is capable of this intrinsic style and beauty without compromising its function. The Boeing 747 is a monumental achievement. Awe-inspiring in flight, beautiful closer up, and exquisitely detailed.
The longevity of the 747 strengthens my admiration. It was designed in an era when many buildings had a planned life-cycle of only 50 years. Think how many buildings — commercial ones in particular — have come and gone in that time. Many were not lamented, but masterpieces such as the Dunlop rubber factory in Brynmawr (1951-2001) certainly were.
The 747 endured. Inside, it was flexible enough to be adapted to accommodate new technology and passenger comforts; in the cockpit there was a seamless transition from analogue to digital instrumentation, with elements of fly-by-wire; and all the while it remained fundamentally unaltered in exterior form. There is a lot to learn from it. You could say it was the ultimate technological building.
Of all the things learnt during its 50 years the most important has been the severity of the climate crisis. Passenger aircraft fuel consumption and engine noise have been halved. In the future alternative fuels and electric and hybrid-electric propulsion will revolutionise air travel. The technology is still immature, but innovative companies around the world are making the first steps along a path towards zero-emission flight.
For now, though, a fond farewell to the 747. I suspect it is one of those icons of the late 20th century that future generations will look on in wonder. It has the head-turning quality of the best designs of the 1960s — such as the Concorde and the E-type Jaguar — something sadly lacking from many current cars and aircraft, which seem to be mere lookalikes.
The 1,600 or so Boeing 747s emerged from the world’s largest building (by volume), its factory in Everett, in Washington state. I hope there is a museum somewhere grandiose enough to accommodate an example so that future generations can come and admire it.
Norman Foster is founder and executive chairman of Foster + Partners"
"Farewell to the Boeing 747, the greatest building ever flown.
The plane is retiring from service at British Airways. Modern architecture could learn a lot from its beauty and endurance.
British Airways’ announcement that it is retiring its fleet of 747s marks the end of an era. It is not the longest-serving passenger aircraft — that honour belongs to the 737 — and it is not linked to great political events as the DC-3 was to the Berlin airlift. But since its maiden flight for Pan Am 50 years ago, the 747 has been an icon of the democratisation of air travel.The world was a very different place when Boeing mooted the idea of an aircraft 2½ times the size of the 737. Fuel was cheap and seemingly limitless. Society, and American society in particular, appeared to be on a never-ending upward curve of prosperity and technologically-driven ease.
The design of the 747 exudes confidence, style, technology and friendliness. And it is without doubt fixed in the second half of the 20th century.
Many years ago I was asked by a BBC documentary to name my favourite building. I had no hesitation. With about 3,000 sq ft of floor space, 15 lavatories, three kitchens and room for 367 guests, the 747 is surely a building. It has grandeur and an extraordinary presence. The tail is the height of a six-storey building. It’s also pure sculpture. It could be in a museum. The 747 is genuinely architectural both in its design and in its thinking. And, what’s more, it flies.
Inside there are many parallels with modern buildings. Like many offices the aircraft is a fixed shell and a movable interior. It does not have a great deal of character and is rather bland in many ways. It is in the international hotel style, which I suppose is appropriate — people come and go, and it could be almost anywhere.
The flight deck — ruthlessly functional and surprisingly tiny — is a twinkling beauty, and the overall layout is ergonomically efficient. The lavatories in business class are admirably space-efficient and finely detailed pieces of industrial architecture. Elsewhere there are elegant touches, such as the recessed snag-free handles on all the doors. The galleys have a marvellous American diner style, all stainless steel and black plastic. Safety regulations turn some parts into pure art, and it is this exuberance of technology-as-art that uplifts the assembly of parts.
When I say the 747 is stylish, I mean that it has metaphoric elements associated with cultural ideas of speed, efficiency, power, strength and dependability. And yet it is genuinely beautiful. I believe that all modern architecture is capable of this intrinsic style and beauty without compromising its function. The Boeing 747 is a monumental achievement. Awe-inspiring in flight, beautiful closer up, and exquisitely detailed.
The longevity of the 747 strengthens my admiration. It was designed in an era when many buildings had a planned life-cycle of only 50 years. Think how many buildings — commercial ones in particular — have come and gone in that time. Many were not lamented, but masterpieces such as the Dunlop rubber factory in Brynmawr (1951-2001) certainly were.
The 747 endured. Inside, it was flexible enough to be adapted to accommodate new technology and passenger comforts; in the cockpit there was a seamless transition from analogue to digital instrumentation, with elements of fly-by-wire; and all the while it remained fundamentally unaltered in exterior form. There is a lot to learn from it. You could say it was the ultimate technological building.
Of all the things learnt during its 50 years the most important has been the severity of the climate crisis. Passenger aircraft fuel consumption and engine noise have been halved. In the future alternative fuels and electric and hybrid-electric propulsion will revolutionise air travel. The technology is still immature, but innovative companies around the world are making the first steps along a path towards zero-emission flight.
For now, though, a fond farewell to the 747. I suspect it is one of those icons of the late 20th century that future generations will look on in wonder. It has the head-turning quality of the best designs of the 1960s — such as the Concorde and the E-type Jaguar — something sadly lacking from many current cars and aircraft, which seem to be mere lookalikes.
The 1,600 or so Boeing 747s emerged from the world’s largest building (by volume), its factory in Everett, in Washington state. I hope there is a museum somewhere grandiose enough to accommodate an example so that future generations can come and admire it.
Norman Foster is founder and executive chairman of Foster + Partners"
As I understand it, there was an internal competition to name the B744 fleet.
One of our Cpt, Len K came up with it.
Brilliant piece of thinking when you look at what her tasks were, long range.
One of our Cpt, Len K came up with it.
Brilliant piece of thinking when you look at what her tasks were, long range.
Did Qantas do anything to differentiate the later (910k lb.) 747-400ERs from the rest of their 747-400 fleet
