Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 378 posts

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#141

Post by dcrazy »

mathgeek wrote: post #125
dcrazy wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the right gets away with saying liberals hate America. Because as long as there is anything to criticize about America (which there always will be), some people simply cannot make a single truly positive statement about America, or even things that happened in or came from America. Slate is even worse than The Atlantic in this regard.

> This is why the right gets away with saying liberals hate America. This is a form of victim blaming. The right side of American politics gets away with it not because the left complains, but because the right doesn’t get punished at the polls for doing it.

They don’t get punished at the polls because people accept, or are at least willing to entertain the implication, that the left wing dislikes America. And what sense does it make to vote for an unpatriotic politician? Would you want to work for a CEO who publicly disdains the company? (Gil Amelio’s infamous quote about steering the sinking Apple ship comes to mind.)

As long as the Democratic base insists on caveating every American achievement with the Omnicause, it will keep playing into the Gingrichian rhetoric.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#142

Post by nradov »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #96
moojacob wrote: post #31

Didn’t read the full article but it starts with > 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.

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

We might still reach a point in a few decades where capacity constraints at major airports make larger quadjets economically viable again. That was the thesis behind the Airbus A380, and it didn't work. But is it possible that they weren't so much wrong as just too early?

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#143

Post by WalterBright »

GMoromisato wrote: post #124
sidewndr46 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You should read the book, if you're interested. From the book (p.84): "Time and time again there appears in print the logical but false assumption that Boeing took its losing military C-5 bid and revamped it as the commercial 747. In fact, the 747 would be an entirely original design that owes nothing to the C-5." That said, in the same chapter he talks about how GE developed a high-bypass turbofan engine for the C-5…

The engines drive the design.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#144

Post by WalterBright »

Animats wrote: post #107
sidewndr46 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That was also said about the B-707, which was supposed to have some parts commonality with their KC-135 Stratotanker built for the USAF. But as development progressed, the airliner and the tanker diverged. The B-747 went through a similar process. Boeing was proposing a big cargo aircraft to the USAF (the CX-HLS), but that was never built. Lockheed got the C-5 contract instead, which satisfied the USAF's need for a r…

The 707 was redesigned with a wider fuselage to carry the number of passengers the airlines wanted.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#145

Post by WalterBright »

WillAdams wrote: post #134
thesumofall wrote: post #9

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!)

It was the last aircraft designed using a slide rule and conventional drafting --- the conventional wisdom is that if one printed up a compleat set of blueprints and loaded it on the plane it would be too heavy to take off, though of course, the anticipation was that it would soon be replaced by supersonic passenger aircraft, so it was designed to be easily converted to cargo. Amazing aircraft, well-deserving of the…

My lead engineer at Boeing, Burt Berlin, showed me his (paper) design notebook for the 747. All done with a slide rule. He was an engineer's engineer, and a super nice guy.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#146

Post by WalterBright »

GMoromisato wrote: post #91
moojacob wrote: post #31

Didn’t read the full article but it starts with > 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.

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 e…

> Boeing never build a larger passenger airplane

1. there wasn't demand for one - airliner designs are driven by the customers

2. the airport terminals would have to be rebuilt

3. the runways would have to be redone to support the weight

> why the Concorde is no longer flying

It lost prodigious amounts of money on every flight. The Concorde was a prestige project, not a practical one.

> Why did the progression from the Wright brothers to the 747 not continue for the next fifty years?

The 747 is far more technologically primitive than today's airliners. Take a good close look at the wing shape of the two, for starters.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#147

Post by intexpress »

GMoromisato wrote: post #87
stouset wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the justification that they are, in fact, just as safe?

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.

> Wouldn't one expect more engines to be safer?

Right, the more engines the better…

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#148

Post by WalterBright »

jquery wrote: post #114
moojacob wrote: post #31

Didn’t read the full article but it starts with > 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 most interesting thing about SpaceX is how it convinced a lot of otherwise sober people that data centers in space was a $50 septillion addressable market. You might laugh and think I’m joking but a lot of people seriously fell for the nonsense in the public filing, which should’ve been a one way ticket to SEC jail.

When the first transcontinental railroad was proposed and being built, it was beset with controversy and skepticism.

But when it opened, it exceeded the wildest expectations of its most optimistic boosters. It transformed the country overnight.

A similar thing happened with the first transatlantic cable.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#149

Post by WalterBright »

GMoromisato wrote: post #128
grosswait wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s revisit this comment in 5 years. I’m not convinced HN critics know more about this than SpaceX does.

What I find silly is the certainty that critics have that SpaceX will fail. No one can predict the future, and it's absolutely possible that orbital datacenters will fail (either for technology or business reasons). But: 1. Without a time machine, we cannot be certain. 2. If forced to choose, I would rather root for their success and be wrong than root for their failure and be right.

What I find silly is the certainty that critics have that SpaceX will fail.

When I started my own business, everyone thought it was doomed to failure. Friends, enemies, acquaintances, all of them.

Except my dad. He believed in me, though he had no idea what I was doing.

Musk is in good company with the crazy people who build the first tunnel under the Thames, the nuts who laid the first transatlantic people, the morons who dug the Panama Canal, and the fools who built the first transcontinental railroad.

Me, I bought me some SPCX.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#150

Post by WalterBright »

anovikov wrote: post #2

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-…

> it was just about four-engine planes becoming too expensive to run

Four engines are also less safe than twin engines. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but Boeing did the math and made the case.

Post reply on HN