Talk:Boeing 747

WP:URFA/2020

There are considerable layout issues and MOS:SANDWICHing caused by too many images; some could be moved, some could be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

There are also several bare urls, half of "Aircraft on display" is unsourced, and several of the bullet points in "Government, military, and other variants" are unsourced. Also several stubby sentences in "Other uses". RetiredDuke (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Cites provided for most of the uncited data in the "Government, military, and other variants" section.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Entries that I couldn't cite in "Aircraft on Display" removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Qantas 747 became the first airline in the ??? to have an all 747 fleet

Mistake on the page, I think the missing word is "world" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.152.180 (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

If you wanted to request access for a specific change, please specify what edit you would like to be made.

I want to add links 174.69.255.107 (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You'll need to be more specific about your request. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Currently your page has "On September 30, 1968, the first 747 was rolled out of the custom-built Everett Plant, the largest building in the world by volume" I want to add a link so it has "On September 30, 1968, the first 747 was rolled out of the custom-built Everett Plant, the largest building in the world by volume." But for some reason the page is locked so I must request the edit, now can I make the edit or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.255.107 (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Request done. However, unless you have an WP:Autoconfirmed account you will not be able to edit the page as it is protected due to vandalism and it will expire until July. You can, either, list the changes you want to make like the one above or create an account, perform 10 edits and wait 4 days to get it autoconfirmed and perform them by yourself until then. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Typical seats in 747-8

Chaosdruid: "Citation needed" is the wrong tag here. That tag is for when there is no source. "Failed verification" would be wrong too, that's for when there is a source but it contradicts what's in the article. If you've got another source that gives a different number, you could cite that source, and put something like "410 or 467" in the table. What you can't do is simply add maintenance tags to the text when there is no problem. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The citation provided in the cells above the seat number, as far as I can see, says 515 ... that's on page 8 of the document, and page 14 of the pdf.
I am requesting a cite for that specific number, 467, as it is NOT supported by the ref provided --- so it IS the correct tl
So the only one cited gives a figure of 515, NOT 467, and the website said 410 ... unless you can see it somewhere else, in which case it still needs amending.
Fnlayson provides an interesting document, it's just NOT the one cited.
We need verifiable data Chaosdruid (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Not true, see ref# 287 (747-8 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning report) in the specs table now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I was looking at page 13 of the cited source, which is page 19 of the pdf. It says 467. I don't know what you mean by "the website" so I can't comment on that. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Including conversion of nautical miles to statute miles

@Marc Lacoste and I are having a bit of a disagreement about the including the conversion of nautical miles to statute miles in addition to kilometers.

Example of how I would like show the conversions: 4,620 nautical miles (5,320 mi; 8,560 km)

Example of how Marc prefers the conversions to be shown: 4,620 nautical miles (8,560 km)

Here's the way I see it...

• Most English speakers understand (statute) miles or kilometers. Nautical miles is a little known term outside of the aviation and marine industry. It's a just a few more characters to include (statute) miles and positively impacts understanding for readers, especially those in the US.
• This page has included nautical miles as the primary unit of measure while offering conversion to statute miles and kilometers for 15 years, including when the article reached featured status.

Marc pointed me to a prior conversation at Talk:Airbus A350#Units where a similar, but not identical discussion took place. In that case, there was a discussion if nautical miles or kilometers should be the primary unit. I fully agree that nautical miles is the proper primary unit. There was a secondary discussion if the double conversion should be included. After reading over that discussion, in my opinion, most of the users disagreed with Marc's assertion that including (statute) miles was overly exhaustive and impacted readability.

-- RickyCourtney (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Statute miles per hour are really only used in one country anymore, the rest of the world uses metric for all common everyday uses, like driving, biking, etc. The whole world uses nautical measures for flying, though, such as feet for altitude and knots for speed, with the exceptions of Russia and China, which use metres and km/h. The use of km/h gives non-aviators a measure to compare aircraft speeds to common methods of transportation. I can't see adding mph as clutter to the article, unless a strong case can be made that it is somehow really needed. - Ahunt (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Only used in one country? Were you thinking of UK or US? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

US. Unless I am mistaken, the UK is all metric for land speed and nautical for aviation use. Here in Canada we are pretty typical of most western countries, all land use speeds are in km/h, while marine and aviation are in knots. No one under 40 even knows what a "mph" is. We did away with mph 50 years ago for any use. No longer use furlongs or leagues for distance, either. - Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are mistaken for land distances and speeds, for which the UK still uses statute miles and mph; there are even current post-Brexit proposals to reinstate the official use of many other imperial units. Notwithstanding, aviation uses nautical miles and there's no need to add statute miles to aviation articles. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Everyone. Thanks RickyCourtney for bringing this in talk. The point here is not determining which unit is the most suitable, they are all fundamentally abstract, we could pick any variation and it would still be valid, but to make an editorial choice about Wikipedia's presentation. I don't remember any usage of a triple conversion in literature and having two different miles side-by-side seems confusing. So a mile, nautical or land, have to be chosen. As often, I think the best practice is to follow the usage of our references. Most trade press use nmi/km units, while mass media outlets may use the local land unit. I think Wikipedia should follow the specialist literature, not the generalist kind. Note that Boeing itself uses only nautical miles and km.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC) My preference would be both units abbreviated, btw!

Another observation... when you use nmi with Template:Convert the default output is km mi.

So for example, {{Convert|4640|nmi}} → 4,640 nautical miles (8,590 km; 5,340 mi)

To me, that suggests the format we should be using. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That's Wikipedia's default, useful for ground transport. The fact that it's not a mandatory conversion is a hint to adapt it to the context.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m confused, how would a nmi to km mi be useful for ground transport, but not here. Ground transportation rarely uses nmi. RickyCourtney (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion so far, but the responses here are also not addressing one of my other main points:

The double conversions were in place when this article passed FA review. This is Wikipedia’s most rigorous article review process with every part of the page nitpicked by experienced editors. There were plenty of discussions about how to display units on the page, but no exceptions to displaying a double conversion of nmi to km and mi.

The fact is, the mi conversion was removed later… and we are overriding the default setting on the conversion template to eliminate the mi conversion. RickyCourtney (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand Ahunt's position is favourable to nmi+km units, like myself, and Rosbif73 is no need to add statute miles to aviation articles. So far, you're the only one to support nmi+mi+km conversions. I'm not sure another people want to continue this discussion, which is long enough already for a minor subject. I'm not sure the FA review has a guideline for aviation units conversions, it's very specific, and the default output of the convert template is not a guideline either.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

User:RickyCourtney: Your argument implies that FA is a perfect process that results in flawless articles that can never be improved upon, which is clearly not the case. The fact that the use of conversions is debatable at this point in time, as shown by this debate, illustrates that the article can still be improved over time. FA does not result in immutable articles that are the pinnacle of perfection, so citing FA is a bit of a red herring.

To clarify for User:Marc Lacoste, yes I am in favour of just using nmi+km and not mph. I also agree that we are getting into WP:DEADHORSE territory here. This debate has pretty much run out and a consensus has been reached. - Ahunt (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

One more thing...

When using Template:Aircraft specs, when you input a value into the "range nmi" parameter, the default output is both km and mi.

Sorry, I know this is approaching "beating a dead horse territory" -- but as I keep looking at different templates, I keep discovering different details. If I knew these details at the start, I would have included it in the original message.

I also feel at this point, when you consider that both Template:Convert and Template:Aircraft specs default to double output... if everyone feels strongly that's wrong... it needs to be a wider discussion than on just this talk page. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I mainly edit modern airliner articles, where the units are nmi+km. I understand WWII aircraft specs were often in land miles, thus the template include all three units. It seems subpar, maybe it could be reduced to two units.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Where in the instructions for Template:Aircraft specs does it say that it is intended only for WWII aircraft or that it’s not intended modern airliners?--RickyCourtney (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if it's stated in the template. It's usual.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Reading this thread made me cringe. The various arguments made for providing only one conversion instead of two are not valid. There is no need to make an editorial choice about Wikipedia's presentation. Having two different miles side-by-side isn't confusing. When degrees Fahrenheit are converted to degrees Celsius, we're not confused by two degrees side by side, are we? Likewise, experience with editing modern airliner articles and the units Boeing uses are irrelevant. The required consideration should be for the user of Wikipedia. To that end, it was noted that the conversion to km/h gives non-aviators a measure to compare aircraft speeds to common methods of transportation, but the conversion to mph and its inclusion was disparaged as "clutter." The barely disguised snobbish disdain in this thread for that segment of the world's population that still uses statute miles seems to be driving the inappropriate editorial overreach that Wikipedia has become renowned for.

The irony is that aviation DOES use statute miles… for horizontal visibility distance, as stated in METAR reports and included in ATIS and AWOS broadcasts. Please convert units to the appropriate other units in significant use worldwide, as hinted by the effort the developers made to include the code in your conversion tools. Pete.pereira (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Boeing 747-206b.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

747SR production number errors

The article currently says the following about the 747SR variants: "The -100SR entered service with JAL, the type's sole customer, on October 7, 1973.... Seven -100SRs were built between 1973 and 1975...."

"Following the -100SR, Boeing produced the -100BSR, a 747SR variant with increased takeoff weight capability. Debuting in 1978...a related standard -100B model debuted in 1979. The -100BSR first flew on November 3, 1978, with first delivery to All Nippon Airways (ANA) on December 21, 1978. A total of 20 -100BSRs were produced for ANA and JAL."

"In 1986, two -100BSR SUD models, featuring the stretched upper deck (SUD) of the -300, were produced for JAL.... While only two -100BSR SUDs were produced, in theory, standard -100Bs can be modified to the SUD certification."

That's incorrect. The SR (it's generally not called the -100SR) was built for both JAL (7, as the 747SR-46) and ANA (17, as the 747SR-81). The 747SR-100B was only produced for JAL, who ordered only three (3, as the 747-146B SR), plus the two (2) 747SR-146B SUD models. This can be confirmed with two different sources. First, Planespotters lists the 747-100 product line with the model numbers I just described.[1]

Second, and absolutely authoritative, is the 747's Type Certificate, as issued by the United States Federal Aviation Administration. This is the document that permits Boeing to operate the 747 in its home country's airspace. It is so specific that it lists individual airplanes' serial numbers for each aircraft sub-type. It states the following:[2]

'V. 747SR (Approved September 26,1973) Transport Aircraft'

Model / Eligible Serial Numbers [pg. 6]

747SR-46 / 20781-20784 [4], 20923, 21032, 21033 [7 total]

747SR-81 / 21604-21606 [3], 21922-21925 [4], 22291-22294 [4], 22594, 22595, 22709-22712 [4] [17 total]

'VII. 747-100B (Approved August 1, 1979) Transport Aircraft'

Model / Eligible Serial Numbers [pg. 7]

747-146B / 22066, 22067, 23150 [3 total, although it does not name them specifically as 747-146B SR]

'IX. 747-100B SUD (Approved March 24, 1986) Transport Aircraft'

Model / Eligible Serial Numbers [pg. 8]

747-146B SUD / 23390, 23637 [2 total, although it does not name them specifically as 747-146B SR]

So, the SR section needs some rewriting. Sacxpert (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead section

The most recent edit to this article is to add a sentence at the end of the lead section which compares the number of deaths on this model with the number of people flown on it. I think at least the bolding is unnecessary and doesn't go with the style of the wiki. Bolding is reserved for specific circumstances, not just to add emphasis to a point (Per MOS:NOBOLD). Patr2016 (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been fixed. Patr2016 (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Last Plane - 2022 or 2023?

Wiki currently states (citing facebook -not an ideal source in my opinion) that the last plane went out in 2022.

However in todays new york times it states the last plane is being handed to customers today, 2023/01/31. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/business/last-boeing-747-plane.html

Should we adjust this, or is the last production date based on some assembly step, rather than delivery? 67.185.97.54 (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This has been revised/clarified by User:RickyCourtney minutes ago. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it needed more clarity. Boeing doesn’t remove it from the order book until the operator takes possession of the plane (which is also when Boeing gets paid) and that’s generally been how we account for these things. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The infobox field is "produced", not "delivered".--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You’re splitting hairs, Marc. Even though the plane rolled off the manufacturing line in 2022, it was not yet a finished product ready for delivery, therefore I think it’s still appropriate to say it was in production. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Splitting hairs is wikipedia editors main pastime! But it's a broader problem than for the 747: the "produced" field is often imprecise. Perhaps changing it to "delivered" may be less subject to interpretation?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Aircraft that are completed but kept by the manufacturer would mess up the aircraft count up a bit. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It's also the other way around, at the beginning: many interpret "production" like "first metal cut" (or 1st prepeg layed nowadays?) but for consistency, it should be whenever production of the first example is finished.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Do we still agree that the end of production is 2023? The date was changed to 2022 in the infobox (but not the rest of the article) a few weeks ago. Not sure if the change went un-noticed or if we think 2022 is the right date.--McSly (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The "produced" definition is still lacking. I proposed a change to "delivered", but it would need a wide change.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It's all Boeing's fault for delivering after year-end. "Produced" generally means playable aircraft, delivered or not. But we also report what reliable sources state. Have we checked recent sources? BilCat (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The ref used is New York Times' The Last Boeing 747 Leaves the Factory (January 31, 2023). The most relevant quote would be On Tuesday, Boeing handed over the last 747. Not "produced" but "handed over", or delivered.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

One could argue, that a plane, that flew in december must have been produced by then. ;-)--Anidaat (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. A plane is not "complete" or "produced" until after all the required test flights are completed and all the noted defects found have been rectified, so it has to be flown before it is "produced" and also before it is "delivered". - Ahunt (talk)

This may apply for a prototype, but not for a production item. Many technical products get checked before delivery but this is not production. Boeing themselves stated in december, that the last item has left the factory. Factory commonly means production site.

"Production of the 747 (...) began in 1967 and spanned 54 years" is the other hint.--Anidaat (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I worked as a factory acceptance test pilot, so I do have some insight into how these things are organized and function. Each individual aircraft built has to be test-flown, all the various parameters flight tested and adjusted, such as the engines and the pressurization system, which cannot be done on the ground. Once the test flying is complete then the aircraft is signed off by the factory and is delivered to the customer. In the press release you linked to, the PR folks are being a bit evasive. They don't say it was "produced", they say it left the factory. It has to "leave the factory" to go through its test flying process, because test flying is done outdoors, but it is not "produced" until all the paperwork is signed off and it has its airworthiness certificate. Test flying is typically done under a temporary flight permit. The key is that it was not turned over to the customer until January, so it was not completed and signed off until then ("produced"). - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I know the paperwork. It accompanies every aircraft for its whole life. Regarding it this way "production" ends when the aircraft is being scrapped - as all the papers and certificates are actually temporary. As you said yourself; it does have a certificate which you call a temporary flight permit. This is the first of many temporary certificates.

Delivery on the other hand cannot be the end of production - by definition.

You cannot ignore what is being written. Andreas Späth mentions 54 years as well, Bloomberg which is good enough in the article wrote ending production as Spaeth did long in advance. It is about sources and cannot be pushed aside as "PR folks".

So we agree it has quit the assembly line(BBC)/factory(many) early December and flew on the 18th. The rest is personal belief, as one may ask why there was an event if nothing changed at all on december 6th?--Anidaat (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

There is another solution that we haven't mentioned here before: We include both years, as we have reliable sources for both, either in the infobox, or the other year as a footnote. That way were not straying into OR based on personal experience or other synthesis. As I did state before, it's unfortunate for us that Boeing didn't deliver the aircraft in the same year that it left the factory. I think we should put "2022" in the infobox, but explain that the aircraft was delivered in 2023, but we could do the reverse too. We could also put "2022/23" in the infobox, and explain it in a footnote. BilCat (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I would support that, since there is no real standard definition of "produced". We could simply indicate when it was "rolled out" of the factory for flight test and when it was actually delivered to the customer. - Ahunt (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. BilCat (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

to keep it simple, proposal Infobox: "2022 (last delivery 1/2023)". Argument: 1574 airframes multiplied by say 10 production steps were done by 2022 and probably one step out of those 15740 was completed in 2023. ;-)

I tried a minute to find out when the last one was started. In June they still told press of two months for an aircraft (spokesperson). It was clear that delivery was about 3 months late in the end. The two months I doubted very much - obviously the spokesperson meant pure assembly: Around the same press invitation: '"'final assembly of the last new Boeing 747 reportedly is near at the company’s factory (...) The left wing for the freighter... has been staged on the production line, according to an Aviation Week report".--Anidaat (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Gallery

What no gallery of pictures of the inside of a 747. No pictures of rare designs of 747s. 116.68.21.216 (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

We can only use photos that have been licensed and donated. Also we don't put galleries of photos in articles as per WP:GALLERY, they are kept on Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Boeing_747 - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

New photo

I personally think a photo of a Pan Am plane is worse, I like the Iberia one better. Change it! Jayiscool1999 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Production of the 747

I'm pretty sure that the 747 production ended in December, 2022 but in the page it says, "...manufactured by Boeing Commercial Airplanes in the United States between 1968 and 2023" in the first paragraph. It also says it in the chart. Produced: 1968-2023. We should change it to 2022. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Aircraft are not fully completed until they are delivered; the last 747 was delivered in January 2023 to Atlas Air. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Changed the infobox image

Please do not undo Mybirthday647 (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss why you think the infobox image should be changed. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

747s first crash

Lufthansa Flight 540 was the first fatal crash of a 747. On November 20, 1974, it stalled and crashed moments after taking off from Nairobi, with 59 deaths and 98 survivors. The cause was an error by the flight engineer in combination with a lack of a sufficient warning system.

174.27.73.201 (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)