Boeing lets fly with a jumbo sales pitch (Qantas ... 747-8 efficiency statistics)

The Australian ^ | 24 March 2006 | Steve Creedy

[Prophet in the wilderness]

I read in a book about the 747 that the 747 was in it's conception to be stretched in the future and they designed it to be stretched, but, Boeing never really found justification to stretch it until now with the new engine ( GEnx ).
Boeing also within the last few year ( why they have not found out until a few years ago is beyond me ) discovered that when they stretched the 747 ( up to a certain point ) that the 747 airframe actually becomes more structurally efficient.
The 747 design was heavily influenced by Juan Tripp and that it's shape was influenced by it becoming a freighter ( that is why it has the famed 747 hump ) and for it's nose to be opened up for freight loads.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Here is a link for a full discussion on ( Airliners.net ) this very subject.

( http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2676362/)

[Paleo Conservative]

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2676362/

[Prophet in the wilderness]

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2669068/

[Petronski]

BOEING is pitching the new version of its legendary jumbo jet to Qantas, arguing it will beat Airbus's double decker A380 on costs per seat as well as for a total trip.

Not only that, but your origin and destination won't need to repave and refit just to accommodate you.

[phantomworker]

Interesting.

[Petronski]

I think it's likely that both British Airways and Japan Airlines--already large 747-400 operators...

I get to fly a BA 747-400 in June (first time) and I'm as excited as a little school boy.

[phantomworker]

Boeing usually over engineer their planes and are conservative in their promised performance numbers before the actual plane is either in testing or actual service.

Probably because it has to go through just rigorous testing and type certification by the FAA?

[Prophet in the wilderness]

That could possibly be, or Boeing being just Boeing building the worlds best airplanes.

[Petronski]

Holy cow, look at this:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/photos/popup.asp?SubID=1342&page=4&GTitle=Boeing%20747%2D8%20interior&css=gtitle%2Ecss&pubdate=12/14/05

Sleeping berths in the hump above coach!?! Each slide shows a space bigger than my apartment in law school!

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Try to get a first class or business seat if you can afford it, economy class is horrible in any large airplane no matter what company builds it.
I flew in 7 747's and I loved it, but, the seats bothered my back and behind, so try to get a comfortable seat if you can.
It was so neat to watch the wing's flaps in operation, and when your on the ground the wing is straight, but, in cruising altitude the wing bends up , don't worry, it's normal, and planes are engineered and tested beyond what the FAA requires for wing flex, ever see Boeing test wing flex ? it's so cool to watch the wing snap when flexed way beyond it's normal complicity.

[Paleo Conservative]

I get to fly a BA 747-400 in June (first time) and I'm as excited as a little school boy.

Is there any difference between the experience of flying a 747-400 as a passenger compared to a 747-100 or 747-200? What I thought was strange about the 747 classics was how much the wings bend up and down during flight. It's a little unnerving the first time you see it. I never got to fly on a 747SP, but I did see one at HNL in 1978.

[Petronski]

We're probably going to try to sit as far aft as possible (honeymooners, you know) . . . so I'll keep an eye out for that wingflex.

I should point out that I've never flown any 747 configuration, just some 737s and a pair of 767s.

[connectthedots]

The disgraced former CEO who had an affair with a subordinate liked living in Chicago over Seattle. Not the reason they claimed, but likely the real one.

[Central Scrutiniser]

The 747SP is a rocket! I changed a whole vacation around just to ride on one! I had a ticket from Johannesburg to Miami, and I asked them if I could exchange it for Johannesbug to Frankfurt. My only flight on the SP.

As for the 100, I think I only flew it once on TWA, and we had 4 -200's. Only did the 300 once LA to Amsterdam round trip.

The 400 is great, I've been on combis and regular. Been upper deck in coach and all over the plane, its like a big flying house.

400 has better TV and audio and all that. Lots of 200's are gone, damn few flying. Wings do flex, that is what they are supposed to do.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

That never really bothered me on my first flight on a airplane, the wing flex didn't bother me, nor did the turbulence bother me, the only thing that bothered me was the uncomfortable economy seats.
Sitting 14 hours straight really puts a strain on your back and behind.

[Petronski]

Yes, I've seen simulations of the wing flex on PBS/Discovery/NatlGeographic, but never in reality. I am going to insist on a window seat and we will hopefully be far aft.

Sorry for us, we have to fly coach. More's the pity, we have a layover at LHR before getting on a ScareBus something or other.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

The 757 was a great plane that I got to ride on.
Comfortable seats, and when it took off from the runway, it took off like a rocket , the angle of attack was steep, and the engines had plenty of thrust to get it going.
The 787 is suppose to replace the 757 and 767.

[Petronski]

The two worst aspects of transatlantic flight are the noise and the dehydration. This time, I am prepared!

[Petronski]

All I remember was how friggin' huge the engines were. I remember looking out that window and thinking "I could park my car inside one of those!"

And I drive the Crown Vic.