THe Majestic 747 - the original Jumbo of the Sky

[PAXboy]

As long as journos STOP referring to the A380 as [any word] Jumbo. There is only one Jumbo and long may she fly over us.

[parabellum]

Now too noisy

Only on the inside and the level of comfort depends on where you sit!

I think you will find that the B747 still meets all the noise requirements of even the most noise sensitive airports.

[PAXboy]

I'm on a VS 744 in March and the return on on there 343 (or346) so I'll let you know!

[Wildpilot]

YouTube - African Skies ... a Boeing 747 Pilot's playground

I have not read any of this thread so sorry if you have seen this but I loved it and so will you if you like the old classic 747.

[Tolsti]

I popped up from Phuket to Bangkok the week before last for a city break and was delighted to see the equipment listed as 744 and upon arrival at HKT there was one on the ramp just spooling down having just arrived.

Unfortunately it was not to be as it departed before us and I travelled on an A300-600 instead. As I hadn't flown on a Jumbo for nigh on 35 years I was quite disappointed.

However the return trip provided the expected thrill as, after a long bus ride around Swampy, we drew up alongside an air bridge connected to a 744-400.

Very comfortable, plenty of room but definitely showing her age.

Unfortunately the flight only takes an hour but I left the airport with a smile.

[Joao da Silva]

Parabellum

I did not say the 747 400 was not stage III compliant, as said it was too noisy.

Let's look at some figures, for they tell their own story.

(EPNdB)
Manufacturer Model MTOW* TO APP Stage

Airbus A380-842 1245 95.1 98.0 4
Airbus A340-541 871 96.9 99.5 3
Boeing 747-400 875 97.4 102.1 3
Boeing 777-300 675 94.2 100.4 3

I took four large aircraft (the A340-600 was not in the table I accessed) and compared them for noise levels.

In doing this, I took the highest figures I could find for the Airbusses and the 777 and the lowest for the 747-400.

Stage 3 compliant, yes, but relatively far noisier than the others, not a good neighbour. Remember than dB is a logarithmic scale.

It will be interesting to see the figures for the 747-8, when released, maybe she will be stage 4 and a better neighbour.

As much as we pax may like the 747 (and I do find them very comfortable), taking a broader view, few tears will be shed by people under the flightpath, when they are turned into Bud cans.

Apologies for the crunched up numbers, I don't know how to tabulate them.

* x 1,000 lbs

Source: Aircraft Noise Levels

[TSR2]

Have flown on the B742, B743 and the B744 many times and agree that they are magnificent planes.

However, in respect of comfort, like all other aircraft it depends on the particular airline and the class that you travel. I have had many excellent flights but also some pretty uncomfortable long haul flights on the 747.

They have served the aviation industry well for over 30 years but alas, time is running out.

[PAXboy]

JdS the simple way to (pseudo) tabulate is to enter the figures, then select them, then choose the font COURIER NEW as it is a fixed length for each character, you can simply add spaces to separate the columns more easily. I have taken the liberty:

Airbus A380-842 1245 95.1 98.0 4
Airbus A340-541 871 96.9 99.5 3
Boeing 747-400 875 97.4 102.1 3
Boeing 777-300 675 94.2 100.4 3

Whilst I accept all the detail about the 747s that is being relayed here - I shall ignore it all! My first love was the VC-10 and I still miss her elegant shape. The 74 remains the MOST fabulous machine and if my trip in March finds her a little the worse for wear - I shall turn a blind eye.

[TSR2]

PAXboy

if my trip in March finds her a little the worse for wear - I shall turn a blind eye

I assume you will be travelling Business Class or higher, if not you may have to turn a numb cheek

[parabellum]

Stage 3 compliant, yes, but relatively far noisier than the others, not a good neighbour. Remember than dB is a logarithmic scale.

Without wishing to sound too inconsiderate of others JdS, as long as the B747 remains within the requirements of stage 3 and can still turn a buck for the operators then she will, I think, continue to fly. The people in the flight path have long since sold their souls for cheap houses, triple glazing and sound proofing etc. etc. in the days of Trident, BAC1-11, B707, VC10, DC8 and so on.

On another tack, take the inclusive tour market, no requirement to give a reasonable spread of flights through the day, just get them there, to Palma, Malaga or where ever. Which will be cheaper, one B747-400 with a value written down to a few million, carrying 450-500 passengers, incurring one landing fee, one navigation charge, no overseas refelling, (unless it is cheaper, then there is a huge capacity to tank in cheap fuel), one Tech Crew, one ATC slot, one set of ground movement and handling charges etc. etc. or three B737/A320 aircraft? (I have deliberately left any maintainence costs out but doubt if they would be deal breakers).

Even on the longer distances to, say Egypt, Cyprus etc. the B747-400 will be very light and operating in a very fuel efficient envelope, incurring only two pressurisation cycles instead of six. Additionally, as it will be quite light, if it uses a Reduced Thrust take-off, it will be quiet too!

Oh yes, I totally agree with PAXboy too, there only ever was, or ever will be, one Jumbo, that is the B747.
The A380 would be more appropriatly named the Dugong, (or White Elephant!).

[mutt]

I did not say the 747 400 was not stage III compliant, as said it was too noisy.

Too noisy by who's standards? Have you compared the -400 with a -300 or -200? Or even a Stage 3 B727? If you do, please make sure that you have a very sharp pencil.

Regardless of the stage 3 certification, some airports operate more stringent noise limits, such as Stage 3 - 10dBA, or the QC system in Heathrow. So if you seriously believe that the -400 isnt a nice neighbour, then take it up with you local authorities and have them change the limits.

The -8 will be Stage 4 compliant, EVEN THOUGH IT ISN'T A REQUIREMENT

Mutt

[Joao da Silva]

Mutt

You asked

Have you compared the -400 with a -300 or -200? Or even a Stage 3 B727?

I have now and the numbers speak for themselves.

Aircraft MTOW* TO APP Stage
Boeing 747-400 875 97.4 102.1 3
Boeing 727-200** 203 94.3 99.3 3

**ROHR STC SA4363NM

Parabellum, you said

On another tack, take the inclusive tour market, no requirement to give a reasonable spread of flights through the day, just get them there, to Palma, Malaga or where ever. Which will be cheaper, one B747-400 with a value written down to a few million, carrying 450-500 passengers, incurring one landing fee, one navigation charge, no overseas refelling, (unless it is cheaper, then there is a huge capacity to tank in cheap fuel), one Tech Crew, one ATC slot, one set of ground movement and handling charges etc. etc. or three B737/A320 aircraft? (I have deliberately left any maintainence costs out but doubt if they would be deal breakers).

I could not find any data for Palma or Malaga, but did find some movements by aircraft type for Bristol (UK) 2009, a regional airport that does offer IT flights to such destinations.

The number of 747 movements in 2009 was a big round number, 0.

I think this shows your argument is fine in theory, but does not happen in practice.

Aircraft Movements
Airbus A319 22082
Boeing 757-200 2801
Airbus A320 2120
Boeing 757-300 17
Airbus A321 113
Boeing 767-300 104
BAe Avro RJ-100 356
Cessna Citation 2
BAe Avro RJ-85 677
Embraer ERJ-145 3
BAe146-200 593
Embraer ERJ-190 14
BAe146-300 372
Fokker 70 1508
Boeing 737-300 154
Fokker 100 665
Boeing 737-500 9
Boeing MD80 3
Boeing 737-700 1693
Boeing MD83 1
Boeing 737-800 9462
DC-9 2

Let's just face it, the 747 was a magnificent aircraft and created 40 years of competitive advantage for Boeing, but it is now in it's declining phase, where over a period of many years, the 742, 743 and 744 fleet sizes will decrease as it is replaced by newer and more efficient fleets.

The 747-8 appears to a good future in the parcel business and so will carry the torch into the future.

But as a widely seen passenger aircraft, the clock is ticking.

Paxboy, many thanks for your kind instruction!!

[parabellum]

I could not find any data for Palma or Malaga, but did find some movements by aircraft type for Bristol (UK) 2009, a regional airport that does offer IT flights to such destinations.

UK airports that fly a lot of inclusive tour flights are:

London-Gatwick.
Manchester.
Birmingham.
East Midlands
Luton
Cardiff
Leeds,
Glasgow
Newcastle
Teesside
Liverpool
Etc.

and I was talking about future uses for the B747-400 when it is superceded in scheduled airline service.

[Joao da Silva]

UK airports that fly a lot of inclusive tour flights are

Couldn't find any data for those, BTW, Bristol was the only movements by aircraft type that popped up.

and I was talking about future uses for the B747-400 when it is superceded in scheduled airline service.

To make this viable, I think you would need to change the way that IT flights operate and consolidate traffic from several operators.

Also, the reliability of older aircraft might raise a question.

But logically, I can see what you are getting at.

[Wannabe Flyer]

I flew the A 340-500 recently and even though it is a newer aircraft with all bells and whistles...........still did not have the shoulder space of a 747!

Does anyone know if the 747-8 has been ordered by any carrier for PAX service?

[parabellum]

I think, but I am not certain, that Lufthansa have ordered a PAX version.

[ZKSUJ]

Lufthansa has ordered the 747-8 Pax version, and Korean as well if I'm not mistaken. Hopefully a few more airlines to come

[Joao da Silva]

Wannabe Flyer

747-8I http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...tTimeout=20000

747-8F http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...tTimeout=20000

Regarding the 340-500, it depends which airline you fly with.

Were you in Y on EK? They put 8 across for ultra long flights, whereas SQ run all business class, with 4 across, so it depends on how the airline chooses to cram you in.

I recently had the very unpleasant experience of being the middle of 5 on a 777, fortunately on a 1 hour domestic flight, but the memory makes me cringe, even now ;-)

[Wannabe Flyer]

@Joao

Yes it was EK. 2 4 2 configuration. 3 Hour flight. The TG 747 was a 3 4 3 configuration but just seemed bigger.

On a side note the EK 330 has probably the most uncomfortable seats in Y. They even beat the cardboard CX seats!

[Joao da Silva]

On a side note the EK 330 has probably the most uncomfortable seats in Y.

I agree with that. Took a 2 hour flight last year, so didn't book business class for a short hop and really wished I had

On interiors, it is interesting to note

747 = 6.1m , less estimated 2m for aisles = 4.1m divided by 10 seats = .41 m available per seat

330/340 = 5.3m. less estimated 2m for aisles, divided by 8 seats = .41m available per seat

Having said that, the 747 has virtually straight cabin walls (downstairs), whilst the Airbus has noticeable curved walls (that could add to the perception of space) and I guess the types of seat will have an impact, too.

Even though the EK seats were awful, I found the aisle seat of the pair by the window to feel quite open and airy.