Anyone interested should read Joe Sutter's book, 747. Sutter was the lead engineer for the development of the 747 and he has some awesome stories.
One interesting story is that Juan Trippe (CEO of PanAm) wanted Boeing to create a double-decker airplane. He was enamored with the idea of "ocean liners" cruising the sky. But Sutter (and other engineers) knew that it would be impossible to create what he wanted, so instead they proposed a wide-body aircraft (10 seats across). Nevertheless, Trippe insisted on a double-decker design.
The engineers then created two cabin mockups. One for a double decker, which was basically two narrow-body cabins stacked on top of each other. The other was the wide-body of the 747. Once Trippe saw the trade off, he realized that the spacious cabin of the 747 was the way to go.
But even then, when he saw the second level where the pilots go, he insisted on putting passengers up there too.
I've had the good fortune to fly on the top deck of the 747. I highly recommend it.
This seems like an odd version of the story. My understanding is Boeing designed lots of military aircraft, not all reached production. The 747 is the result of some of that design work.
One thing I remember from his book is that the 747 was initially of secondary importance within Boeing, behind the SST. This wasn't Boeing's flagship, so to speak, until SST was canceled.
It’s such a beautiful plane. Despite having worked for Airbus, the 747 triggers emotions for me that the A380 simply doesn’t. It represents an era of aerospace engineering that will not come back (in many cases probably for the better - but still!)
As an aside, if anyone is going to Southern Germany, it's worth going to Technik Museum Speyer, where you can really go into the guts of the 747. They also have a Russian Buran space shuttle.
The next day you could go to Technik Museum Sinnsheim, which is about half an hour from Speyer, and has both a Concorde and a Tupolev Tu-144 (both of which you can go inside).
It’s beautiful because Boeing started, not with the smallest, but with the largest plane possible. Meanwhile Airbus started with Concorde, a completely orthogonal project to round up everyone’s identical patriotism, and both projects were absolutely beautiful in their own way!
Oh gracious no, Airbus started with the utilitarian A300 widebody twin[1].
Concorde was Sud Aviation and BAC joint venture, nothing to do with Airbus which didn't even exist at that time.
[1]The original A300A might have been interesting, having a fuselage as wide as the much later 777, but Airbus got cold feet and scaled it down to the dull and worthy A300B. Every Airbus widebody until the A380 was constrained by that decision.
> The jet was perhaps the pinnacle of American engineering excellence. Its retirement signals an end to an era of American culture—and ambition.
End of American ambition? SpaceX landing is rockets… today! That’s apples to apples also, both aerospace. In other fields we have literally taught computers how to talk.
The Atlantic writes for its owners as well as its readership, both of whom consider it unsavoury to compliment their homeland without adding multiple caveats.
I find the whole thing a little odd. The 747 seems to be a great aircraft. It's also a quad jet and the change in regulations for ETOPS makes twinjets a no brainer for reducing cost. There's no reason to hurry and up and get rid of them, many will continue in cargo service for many years. But there isn't any reason to build big quad jets any longer
I agree with you, and I would have expected Ian Bogost to take a more holistic view.
Talking about why, for example, Boeing never build a larger passenger airplane, or why the Concorde is no longer flying, would actually make for an interesting analysis of technology and business.
Why did the progression from the Wright brothers to the 747 not continue for the next fifty years? The answer has to do with physics and economics rather than lack of American ambition or excellence.
It is very tiring. I get why Europeans might enjoy taking shots at us (though at one point I'd have said it was more of a good natured ribbing, given that Europe's history is also many Americans' history), and I fully understand the armies of bots spreading invective ... but the constant dogging on America by our own citizens is sad. I'm sure a lot of this outcome is intentional, but nobody fights back.
America is many things, has done many things. Some great, some not so much. Americans themselves should at least be honest about seeing the good parts even if nobody else will admit it. And if we're going to keep progressing forward we need people to be on board in good faith.
But really, it was just about four-engine planes becoming too expensive to run. Two-engine planes won. 777 burns 30% less fuel per passenger and has almost the same cabin width. And top level became a flop because it's too narrow for a first class cabin by today's standards and all other uses for them make no sense. Top floor existed at all because it was Boeing's entry for a heavy cargo plane competition in which C-5 Galaxy won: it was meant to be a cargo plane with a small - top floor - passenger cabin.
> Top floor existed at all because it was Boeing's entry for a heavy cargo plane competition
Yes, but it turns out the hump is great for area ruling (aerodynamic drag reduction at transonic speeds), as observed by the 747-300's extended hump giving lower drag (but higher weight, of course) than the short-hump versions.
I'd guess they'll continue in cargo service for many more years, just as the DC10 and MD11 did (despite the grounding after the Louisville crash, I expect they will fly again before finally being retired).
I think the top floor is there because the crew cabin has to be high so the nose can swing up. The cables and wiring from the cabin can't be easily disconnected to allow such access. You will notice other large cargo variants of airliners load cargo only through the side of the fuselage.
Yes and no. The C5 has an upper level too. The whole setup solves a lot of problems at once. Opening nose makes for faster cargo operations which the military cares about for a bunch of reasons. There are usually people associated with military cargo so might as well seat them up there.
I understand that for the 747, they initially just had a cockpit bulge atop the fuselage. However, this created too much drag, which they reduced by extending the bulge aft. They didn't need this space for flight operations, so it was naturally then used for additional passenger space.
Any large cargo aircraft has primary loading inline with centerline, side doors just aren't efficient. It's either via front, via rear or both.
Me321/323 was I think first heavy cargo with nose clamshell doors, but after that everyone settled on nose rising up, clamshell rear. It also had the top deck.
Engines became reliable enough for regulators to allow two engine planes to cross large bodies of water. (ETOPS) That's what really killed 4 engine planes.
This is such an absurd statement. What US aerospace has created post 1969 is nothing short of remarkable in comparison. (And we can be proud of the Apollo era too.)
> What US aerospace has created post 1969 is nothing short of remarkable in comparison. (And we can be proud of the Apollo era too.)
What are you referring to?
If you want to chart progress over time, consider this: In 1919, people were still flying biplanes and civilian aviation barely existed. Fifty years later, in 1969, you've got the 747 -- consider the progress made over those fifty years! Fifty years from then, in 2019, you've still got the 747 -- alongside, as the article notes, smaller and less remarkable aircraft "that are more efficient, but far less majestic and memorable."
The efficiency and the safety. Modern planes are disgustingly safe to the point that hull loss is almost unheard of. For 50 years the industry has optimized for safety and fuel efficiency. And the modern machines are marvels in that.
True, but still incremental improvements over proven designs - maybe a sign of very strict safety standards making new designs and differentiation more expensive than just the development.
Lufthansa still has a number of 747-8 and 747-400 in active operation - while there's evidence that the routes are scaling back, there's at least a few more years to fly one. They're even refurbishing the interiors to have a more competitive long-haul business class offering.
Korean Airlines has a handful of 747-8 in active operation but they're making moves to retire them especially post Asiana merger.
Air China also operates a handful of 747-8 and 747-400 on both international and domestic routes.
I flew 747 last month with Lufthansa and asked one of the crew how long they will keep it in operation. «I retire in two years so I don’t care» a very German response but at least they hadn’t made any announcement that he seem to be aware of.
Always fun to be on the second floor despite the seat configuration being a bit dated.
I got what was probably my last 747 trip a few years ago on a BA flight from DC to Heathrow.
But I probably missed my chance for an A380. Maybe a Lufthansa flight will pop up that’s affordable. The other airlines mostly operate in the ME or Asia, and no plans for either right now.
Somehow I only managed to end up on one of these gorgeous birds once. In seat 64K, NRT-DTW (or was it NRT-MSP?). The main cabin is... nothing to write home about. I was in no hurry to book another 744 leg. Upper deck, perhaps a different story.
No, it is much nicer than the 737/A320 class. Just thinking of the curve of a 737 makes my neck knot up. Bigger planes like the 747/757/767/777 are much more comfortable as well as modern planes like the A220/E195. 737 class planes are so ubiquitous that many passengers have no idea another experience is possible.
The 767 2-3-2 layout is my favorite, with only 1 middle seat per row, yet still two aisles so you can use one while the other is blocked, or walk little loops if it's not.
On the A380 you get to enjoy the higher ceiling also in economy. It does make quite a difference for how cramped you feel, even though the leg room might be the same.
And both B747 and A380 fly much calmer than the smaller, lighter widebodies, which is equally nice for passengers on all classes.
I had a long haul flight from DFW-SYD that had plenty of empty seats to the point they offered an upgrade to guarantee you'd be the only person in the row. Best spent $100 ever related to airfare.
I only ever flew on the upper deck in coach configuration, and the last time I did that was about twenty five years ago on SAA. It wasn't anything special, but it was a little quieter.
I've flown upper deck on a 747 in Business (BA Club World).
It felt like a private jet up there, very cool. And that's even with the awful club world seats where you had to step over your neighbour to get to the aisle.
Back in the olden days (2015-ish?) KLM was having a really, really cheap business fare sale JFK-AMS; I snagged it with Delta miles (if I recall correctly) - and flew there and back in their 747 in the upper deck (just to take the flight; didn't have anything to do in AMS). It was really quite nice; it was the first and apparently last time I've taken the 744. I'm really glad I was able to do it.
They are beautiful things, but the last few I rode on with BA were absolutely starting to show their age inside prior to BA retiring them in 2020. I think the last passenger models were produced in 2011 and most of BA's 747 fleet was from the mid-90s. The experience was probably better on other carriers towards the end.
If this is truly on your bucket list, you should be able to pull it off.
I just asked my favorite stochastic parrot to find the cheapest flight from SFO on a 747 to anywhere. It found a one-way flight on Lufthansa for $500. If you can, I'd encourage you to spring for a business class flight on the top deck (probably $4000 one-way).
I don't know, having more color doesn't seem that much more expensive? I guess the fabrics are expensive and stain relatively easily, but if public transport can keep them clean so can airlines IMO. Some fabric seats are over 3 decades old and they're still in a really good shape.
I will miss the 747. Modern planes with less engines feel less safe. I hate all the justifications used to fly long distances across oceans with only 2 engines, or only 1 engine.
More people have died due to one engine falling off a 747 and knocking off the other engine on the same wing than have died due to dual engine failure on an ETOPS certified aircraft
I'm curious about this--wouldn't one expect more engines to be safer?
Unless having more engines increases the chance of certain kinds of accidents? Like maybe the chance of an engine failure damaging the hull goes up with more engines?
Not questioning the justification--I do believe it--I'm just curious about the details.
All else being equal, potentially - although as I mentioned there have been cases where one engine falling off a 4 engine aircraft hit another in the process. But ETOPS certification is based on it being demonstrated that engines are sufficiently reliable that the probability of an independent failure is incredibly unlikely, and also requires that operators have a stricter maintenance process. The only dual engine failures on modern two-engine aircraft I can think of off-hand have been fuel exhaustion (either actually being out of fuel, or ice blocking fuel filters in the case of BA38), and would have affected 4-engine aircraft just as badly.
The funniest thing is that he's not going to continue using it after office. They plan to hang it in that hotel being called a library when it gets built
You just seem to have a fetish for aircraft with fully or partially rear-mounted engines. I prefer 747 over all of the above, although 757 is my favorite.
IL-62 I particularly dislike. Sitting next to those big engines would suck, especially after reading on multiple accidents where they exploded and killed or nearly killed everyone onboard.
> "You just seem to have a fetish for aircraft with fully or partially rear-mounted engines."
Hey, what can I say? I'm more of an ass man.
> "Sitting next to those big engines would suck, especially after reading on multiple accidents where they exploded and killed or nearly killed everyone onboard."
I fail to see what this has to do with visual aesthetics, but the safety record of the 747 was not so hot; already excluding the malaise brought on by the fetishes of terrorists and the Evil Empire, of course.
> "Of course, none of the airplanes you listed are still flying passengers today."
The Il-62 and the Tu-154 are still in limited service, for example. Not that it does your pseudoargument any favors anyway, as service history plays obviously absolutely no role in evaluating a design purely on its visual accumen.
Maybe the Concord and Comet. For the rest of the list I think you'd spend a very long time finding people to agree with you. The soviet ones are even more complicated, the Tu-144 is basically an Ugly Concord.
So or so, Bogost's statement is akin to calling the Amiga 500 the only home computer to be called beautiful. And that's obviously ridiculous. As for your statement, nah, I won't have to search very long for people agreeing with me on many of the aircraft listed; whole coffee table tomes have been published specifically dealing with the subject of Soviet, French and British classic, especially narrow-body, airliners.
I'm reading through the comments here before reading the actual Atlantic story, so I didn't see the author's name until you mention it:
> Bogost's statement is akin to calling the Amiga 500 the only home computer to be called beautiful.
Oh! That's Ian Bogost, who is a great writer of how our relationship with technology can evoke truth and beauty. The canonical work is his deep dive on the Atari 2600 and the early 1980s revolution "Racing the Beam":
Bogost wrote a number of books while working with MIT, arguing that video games were a new medium of communication back when that was a controversial point of view.
(I will need to re-subscribe to The Atlantic at some point. It seems churlish, but it's been an expensive year...)
One interesting story is that Juan Trippe (CEO of PanAm) wanted Boeing to create a double-decker airplane. He was enamored with the idea of "ocean liners" cruising the sky. But Sutter (and other engineers) knew that it would be impossible to create what he wanted, so instead they proposed a wide-body aircraft (10 seats across). Nevertheless, Trippe insisted on a double-decker design.
The engineers then created two cabin mockups. One for a double decker, which was basically two narrow-body cabins stacked on top of each other. The other was the wide-body of the 747. Once Trippe saw the trade off, he realized that the spacious cabin of the 747 was the way to go.
But even then, when he saw the second level where the pilots go, he insisted on putting passengers up there too.
I've had the good fortune to fly on the top deck of the 747. I highly recommend it.
The next day you could go to Technik Museum Sinnsheim, which is about half an hour from Speyer, and has both a Concorde and a Tupolev Tu-144 (both of which you can go inside).
All truly marvels of engineering.
Oh gracious no, Airbus started with the utilitarian A300 widebody twin[1].
Concorde was Sud Aviation and BAC joint venture, nothing to do with Airbus which didn't even exist at that time.
[1]The original A300A might have been interesting, having a fuselage as wide as the much later 777, but Airbus got cold feet and scaled it down to the dull and worthy A300B. Every Airbus widebody until the A380 was constrained by that decision.
> The jet was perhaps the pinnacle of American engineering excellence. Its retirement signals an end to an era of American culture—and ambition.
End of American ambition? SpaceX landing is rockets… today! That’s apples to apples also, both aerospace. In other fields we have literally taught computers how to talk.
Talking about why, for example, Boeing never build a larger passenger airplane, or why the Concorde is no longer flying, would actually make for an interesting analysis of technology and business.
Why did the progression from the Wright brothers to the 747 not continue for the next fifty years? The answer has to do with physics and economics rather than lack of American ambition or excellence.
America is many things, has done many things. Some great, some not so much. Americans themselves should at least be honest about seeing the good parts even if nobody else will admit it. And if we're going to keep progressing forward we need people to be on board in good faith.
/soapbox rant over
Yes, but it turns out the hump is great for area ruling (aerodynamic drag reduction at transonic speeds), as observed by the 747-300's extended hump giving lower drag (but higher weight, of course) than the short-hump versions.
Me321/323 was I think first heavy cargo with nose clamshell doors, but after that everyone settled on nose rising up, clamshell rear. It also had the top deck.
Oh come on, it's hardly "absurd."
> What US aerospace has created post 1969 is nothing short of remarkable in comparison. (And we can be proud of the Apollo era too.)
What are you referring to?
If you want to chart progress over time, consider this: In 1919, people were still flying biplanes and civilian aviation barely existed. Fifty years later, in 1969, you've got the 747 -- consider the progress made over those fifty years! Fifty years from then, in 2019, you've still got the 747 -- alongside, as the article notes, smaller and less remarkable aircraft "that are more efficient, but far less majestic and memorable."
So what, pray tell, is so remarkable?
Not by introducing clean sheet unproven designs but by taking what works and improving any deficiencies over and over again.
Korean Airlines has a handful of 747-8 in active operation but they're making moves to retire them especially post Asiana merger.
Air China also operates a handful of 747-8 and 747-400 on both international and domestic routes.
FlightsFrom is a great resource to find routes for specific aircraft: https://www.flightsfrom.com/explorer/FRA?aircrafts=747 https://www.flightsfrom.com/explorer/ICN?aircrafts=747
Always fun to be on the second floor despite the seat configuration being a bit dated.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48710175
But I probably missed my chance for an A380. Maybe a Lufthansa flight will pop up that’s affordable. The other airlines mostly operate in the ME or Asia, and no plans for either right now.
Great seat number though.
What’s even the point of flying if you can’t look at the world from up high?
And both B747 and A380 fly much calmer than the smaller, lighter widebodies, which is equally nice for passengers on all classes.
I only ever flew on the upper deck in coach configuration, and the last time I did that was about twenty five years ago on SAA. It wasn't anything special, but it was a little quieter.
It felt like a private jet up there, very cool. And that's even with the awful club world seats where you had to step over your neighbour to get to the aisle.
There's still a few of these in passenger service, so you can easily get it done if it's important to you.
Otherwise, you'll need to figure out how to get on a cargo flight.
I just asked my favorite stochastic parrot to find the cheapest flight from SFO on a 747 to anywhere. It found a one-way flight on Lufthansa for $500. If you can, I'd encourage you to spring for a business class flight on the top deck (probably $4000 one-way).
Unless having more engines increases the chance of certain kinds of accidents? Like maybe the chance of an engine failure damaging the hull goes up with more engines?
Not questioning the justification--I do believe it--I'm just curious about the details.
well as long as Congress doesn't let him keep it, hopefully
BILLION dollars stolen from nuclear missile maintenance program to refurbish it
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_VC-25B_Bridge
Pathetic drivel. There's legion of commercial airliners that are more beautiful than the 747.
IL-62 I particularly dislike. Sitting next to those big engines would suck, especially after reading on multiple accidents where they exploded and killed or nearly killed everyone onboard.
Hey, what can I say? I'm more of an ass man.
> "Sitting next to those big engines would suck, especially after reading on multiple accidents where they exploded and killed or nearly killed everyone onboard."
I fail to see what this has to do with visual aesthetics, but the safety record of the 747 was not so hot; already excluding the malaise brought on by the fetishes of terrorists and the Evil Empire, of course.
The Il-62 and the Tu-154 are still in limited service, for example. Not that it does your pseudoargument any favors anyway, as service history plays obviously absolutely no role in evaluating a design purely on its visual accumen.
I'm just sharing my love of the 747, since that's what the article is about.
Someday, when they write a glowing retrospective of the Il-62, I promise not to post about how it's one of the ugliest jets I've seen.
> Bogost's statement is akin to calling the Amiga 500 the only home computer to be called beautiful.
Oh! That's Ian Bogost, who is a great writer of how our relationship with technology can evoke truth and beauty. The canonical work is his deep dive on the Atari 2600 and the early 1980s revolution "Racing the Beam":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racing_the_Beam
Bogost wrote a number of books while working with MIT, arguing that video games were a new medium of communication back when that was a controversial point of view.
(I will need to re-subscribe to The Atlantic at some point. It seems churlish, but it's been an expensive year...)