Live data from Hacker News

The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

theatlantic.com

151–160 of 378 posts

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#151
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-…

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.

Twin engines are actually safer than four.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#152
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.

Engine failure is very dangerous. 4 engines are twice as likely to have a major failure than 2.

(despite having "fuses" so an engine can depart without taking much of the wing with it, there are many cases of single engine failure bringing down the airplane)

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#153
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hated the top deck when flying east from NY to London. The rising sun poured in every time a crew member opened the cockpit door, waking me up. Best seat for me was the single one in the lower deck at the very nose of the aircraft. The 747 was a great aircraft to fly in though. The tower of power effect on take-off really reassured you that you were going to get where you were going.

What do you mean by this tower of power effect? Was it just that the 747 had a more powerful take-off or something due to 4 engines?

There was quite a kick when the engines spooled up. I flew mainly SFO/LAX to SYD and the few minutes of full thrust you just kind of sat back in your seat and didn't try to do anything.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#154
This article is but one example of a tiresome genre: the paean to the supposed glory days of aviation. Passengers dressed up, dined on caviar, and smoked cigarettes. Stewardesses were sexy, and liquor flowed in the expansive 747 lounge.

These pieces then bemoan today’s bus of the sky, with the unwashed masses donning sweatpants and dragging screaming toddlers who leave orange Goldfish crumbs in the seat cracks.

I am a beneficiary of the modern age of aviation. I don’t fly routes that would ever have been profitable for the 747, I don’t imbibe in the sky, I’ve never eaten the cheese varieties that the Pan Am stewardesses were trained to serve, and caviar just doesn’t interest me.

But I do ride narrow-body jets on nonstop routes that would never have seen 747 service, the experience is perfectly acceptable, and that’s my toddler chomping on the Goldfish. That narrow-body airplane is much cheaper to operate than a 747 ever was, which is fantastic because my toddler doesn’t have an expense account.

Some folks find a fuel-guzzling huge machine romantic. That would be fine if they wrote pieces about their love of big old planes. But instead they often start rambling about how this giant old plane was a pinnacle of engineering and of some grand social order. They forget what aviation truly was in those days and neglect the benefits of what it is now. One might think this is elitist or worse. But I shrug. I just find it tiresome.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

And that's my point: Your answers are far more interesting than Ian Bogost's throwaway assertion that America just wasn't ambitious enough and that aircraft engineering peaked with the 747.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#156
I know less about the airframe differences across the -400 and -8, but I can say the 747-8 represented a major upgrade in Flight Management Software.

I re-wrote the Central Maintenance System (portion inside the FMS) in C from scratch because no one had the original detailed design documents. The original -400 code was written in Pascal if I'm remembering correctly. I gleamed what I could from the source and relied on unit tests to get the rest of the way there based on what I knew of the protocol itself.

The entire FMS software was completely re-written in C++ and using modern object oriented patterns (at the time). Probably the most fun I've had over my now 20'ish year career. Of course Boeing was pissed with the delays this caused because the airframe wasn't a major change. I'll quote a Boeing (from MD originally) executive as saying "Meeting this project deadline is more important than your child dying."

Sadly this was also the time I remember Boeing's engineering ranks began to thin out. Personal opinion, this was a large part of what led to the MAX situation.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#157

This article is but one example of a tiresome genre: the paean to the supposed glory days of aviation. Passengers dressed up, dined on caviar, and smoked cigarettes. Stewardesses were sexy, and liquor flowed in the expansive 747 lounge. These pieces then bemoan today’s bus of the sky, with the unwashed masses donning sweatpants and dragging screaming toddlers who leave orange Goldfish crumbs in the seat cracks. I am…

[dead]

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#158
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dislike for widebody airliners is that the odds of getting a window seat are much smaller. What’s even the point of flying if you can’t look at the world from up high?

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.

Wife and I just flew on an A330 in a 2-4-2 economy layout. With both of the outboard seats on one side, it was not bad.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#159
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hated the top deck when flying east from NY to London. The rising sun poured in every time a crew member opened the cockpit door, waking me up. Best seat for me was the single one in the lower deck at the very nose of the aircraft. The 747 was a great aircraft to fly in though. The tower of power effect on take-off really reassured you that you were going to get where you were going.

What do you mean by this tower of power effect? Was it just that the 747 had a more powerful take-off or something due to 4 engines?

More or less. I remember the first time I flew in a tri-jet (after a 747), I was a bit worried on take-off about how we were still on the ground as the end of the runway approached.

To clarify slightly, I first heard "tower of power" used to describe the Saturn V. So two icons of the late 60s.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve flown on a wide variety of planes, and never found any difference in comfort from the plane itself. It’s all about the seats.

The 737 is noticeably louder than other planes on the ground and in the passenger cabin and especially for the pilot. 787/A350 and the A220 have a higher cabin pressure and better air quality that helps you feel better. It could be that most of my wide body experience was going over the Atlantic on 747s in the 1990s and a few times circa 2012 flying 767s on the JFK-LAX route which felt luxurious. As I see it, I’d rat…

I’d take first in anything, even crappy fake “first,” over coach in anything. Additional personal room trumps everything else for me. I don’t really care how big the fuselage is, I care how hard my knees are crammed into the seat in front of me.
Post reply on HN