Talk:Boeing 747
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing 747 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
![]() | Boeing 747 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 9, 2008. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Aviation: Aircraft FA‑class | |||||||||
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Boeing 747. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Boeing 747 at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 9, 2016, February 9, 2017, and January 22, 2018. |
Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2017
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chapter Display:
The cockpit section of B-747-338, former Qantas VH-EBW, is under transformation to an public flight simulator in the Flieger-Flab-Museum in Duebendorf, Switzerland. (Source: www.airforcecenter.ch, me as technical project leader). B727PeterK (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- We would not normally include this type of information as it has no encyclopedic value when complete aircraft are on display. MilborneOne (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Specifications Table: Cruise speed
The speeds given jump all over as to which measurements are used: miles/hour, kilometers/hour, knots, or mach. Should probably list it converted to all of those (in the same order) for each entry, so that people can compare them. Also, there seems to be an error in the figures given for the 747SP & the 747-400 disagree: Mach goes from .86 down to .855, but the mi/hr speed goes up from 568 to 580? (And the next row, Airspeed, should be shown in the measurement(s) as this row. T bonham (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- More coherent now. SP cruise was at higher FL than -400/-8 thus different conversion (see convert templates in history). I removed it as I didn't found it in the ref and it was indeed hard to comprehend. Max airspeed is different from cruise speed.Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
747SP range
Just pointing out a problem for which I have no solution. The 747SP range listed in the specifications table here is inconsistent with the table entry in the 747SP article, but more importantly, grossly inconsistent with the whole concept of the SP as a longer-range version of the 747-200, since both this article and the SP article show the SP as having a much shorter range than the 747-200. Also the published data about the 747SP delivery flights from Everett, WA to Cape Town, SA says those flights covered a distance of 10,215 miles with two hours of reserves. They carried extra fuel, but it amounted to only a few percent. All this leads me to the conclusion that the SP's actual range must be considerably in excess of what is stated here... but I haven't found a reliable source that would justify any changes. Maybe someone else will have better luck. 76.22.118.146 (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- The SP (700,000lb mtow) is a -100 (735,000lb mtow) shrink, not a -200 (833,000lb mtow) derivative, so it's longer range than the -100 but was dropped since the -200 was better. The 747SP was wrong, it's updated from the obviously reliable Boeing source with both : Boeing 2007. Delivery flights are without payload (and PAE-CPT benefits from tailwinds: 511 knots average for 17h22), so it could reach further (see the PL/range chart in the ref, perhaps 8000nm ESAD with aux tanks). --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- You're right about the -100 point; I should have said "alternative to" rather than "version of." But Boeing continued to represent the SP as the longest-range 747 variant long after the -200B became available, and airlines continued to buy it for that reason. See Flight 1975 for example where the SP's range is shown as 5,700 nm vs. 5,280 nm for the -200B. Maybe we need something more than the raw data to resolve or at least explain the apparent contradiction. 76.22.118.146 (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- In this 1975 Flight article, the SP taxi gross weight is 663,000lb vs 778,000lb for the -200, which explains why the -200 ended up having a similar range later at 833,000lb mtow as showed in the recent 2007 Boeing ref.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- A little more information. A document titled "SAA 747 SP delivery flight special instructions" at the Harl V. Brackin Library at the Museum of Flight in Seattle (online catalog record at [1] ) gives the following figures for the fuel capacity of the first 747SP delivered from Everett, WA, USA to Cape Town, South Africa: Total fuel loaded, 398,371 pounds. Fuel at takeoff: 396,063 pounds, broken down as 269,156 pounds in the wing tanks, 112,691 pounds in the center tank, 13,399 pounds in the "pillow" tanks in the cargo bays, and 817 pounds in the fuel manifolds and lines. According to separate press coverage, the fuel used was PhilJet A-130, a high-energy fuel, but I can't find the density or other specifications of that fuel, so I can't calculate the volumetric fuel capacity of this particular 747SP from the fuel weight. The wing and center tank figures add to 381,847 pounds, however, and if the weight of A-130 is somewhere between Jet A and Jet A-1, the volume of the fuel would be somewhere between 55,945 and 57,029 US gallons, well above than the capacity stated in that Boeing document you cite above (50,259 US gallons). Since it's well known that Boeing offered customers more customization options than it described publicly, it's quite possible that the SAA aircraft were equipped to hold more fuel and therefore had more range than the reference aircraft described in the Boeing document. 76.22.118.146 (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
hull losses and total fatalities in the lede?
The lede should provide summary information that's useful. A large plane with a long history will show a large number of fatalities which, without context, is useless information. How about "fatalities per passenger mile" or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.11.48 (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Its not something we would usual do in the lead unless it was a well reported issue like the F-104, it is in this case mentioned in the accidents and incidents section. MilborneOne (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's certainly not useless since it's the main point on the subject. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise the sections and the sentence adequately summarise Boeing_747#Accidents_and_incidents. Fatalities per RPK is a higher level concept which isn't even present in the section, and for which we should have a WP:reliable source. There is Boeing's Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents showing the Hull loss with/without fatalities accident rate per million departures though.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
main pic
As discussed in Talk:Boeing_737#Infobox_picture, a 747-100/200/300 pic would be more opportune here as it exists the SP, -400 and -8 articles with their own version main pic. Of course vintage pics will have vintage liveries and grainy film photos, but they convey also the era of the aircraft.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Current -400
Extended content
|
---|
|
As I went trough classic 747 pics, it struck me the most obvious would be a Pan Am, as the airline was so influential in its design. Here are the 3/4 views I picked:
The fourth (Clipper Unity) looks good.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would support a change to Clipper Unity. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Pan Am 747 would have historical value. May I suggest the following, which is very similar to the Clipper Unity photo (although that one is good)? This one (Clipper Storm King) is a bit less grainy. Oh and as a side note it's N732PA, which is the 3rd 747 built and was part of the 747 test fleet! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed Storm King is even better--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for suggesting these photos. I think several years back a PA 747 photo was considered, but at the time the selection to choose from on Wiki was more limited. Photo going up shortly. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed Storm King is even better--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Boeing 747. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214134934/http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/C_5.html to http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/C_5.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214134934/http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/C_5.html to http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/C_5.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217151126/http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/cf6/history.html to http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/cf6/history.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226032720/http://www.memagazine.org/supparch/flight03/jetsfans/jetsfans.html to http://www.memagazine.org/supparch/flight03/jetsfans/jetsfans.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220020946/http://www2.mst.dk/common/Udgivramme/Frame.asp?pg=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.mst.dk%2Fudgiv%2FPublications%2F2003%2F87-7972-489-2%2Fhtml%2Fkap09_eng.htm to http://www2.mst.dk/common/Udgivramme/Frame.asp?pg=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.mst.dk%2Fudgiv%2FPublications%2F2003%2F87-7972-489-2%2Fhtml%2Fkap09_eng.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211082459/http://www.businessday.co.nz/world/4842143 to http://www.businessday.co.nz/world/4842143
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Squeezing in another image?
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Thai_Airways_International_Boeing_747-4D7_HS-TGP_MUC_2015_03.jpg/220px-Thai_Airways_International_Boeing_747-4D7_HS-TGP_MUC_2015_03.jpg)
I just came across this image, which is featured on Commons, and it occurred to me that we don't currently have a single FP of the queen of the skies here on enwiki, despite the multitude of photos that exist of it. I think this one has a fair chance: it's technically good and illustrates the takeoff well, showing the undercarriage, flaps and exhaust, with the control tower and terminal in the background providing context. Question is how to squeeze it into an already well illustrated article? --Paul_012 (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- That's a 747-400. That image could replace one of images in the 747-400 variant section. If this does not work out here then check Boeing 747-400. --Finlayson (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2017
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request you review "hull loss" information. A hull loss is an aviation accident that damages the aircraft beyond economical repair, resulting in a write-off. The source (Aviation Safety Network) counts all damage to aircraft, not just those that fit the above definition, but also those that were repaired and returned to service. The correct number of 747 hull losses is probably 29. The source is Wikipedia article "List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft". Eugene.neiman (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- The total listed in the Aviation-safety.net page is actually hull losses and accidents. I updated the numbers in the article section and corrected the wording to match. So I think this is resolved now. Note that other wiki pages are not reliable references on Wikipedia (see WP:RELIABLE). --Finlayson (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: Marking as answered. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Boeing 747. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611140416/http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/cf6/cf6_20020325.html to http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/cf6/cf6_20020325.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Retirement?
It's probably useless putting this here as it's obviously going to be eventually added but a section should be written on the retirement or decline of the 747s since the last Boeing 747 used in US airlines has been retired. Maybe until airlines outside of the US start dropping it this topic shouldn't become a section but instead part of a section of the page. MyNameIsKeegan (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC) MyNameIsKeegan January 4, 2018
- there is a Retirement_and_economic_value section for the -400, but the -8 is nearly brand new and is far away from retirement.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hardly of note with over 550 747s still in active service. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2018
Delta was not the last US airline to retire 747s from passenger service (in January 2018, not December 2017, by the way). Atlas Air still has B747-400 flights between Houston and Luanda:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n263sg
Since May 2017, this service is open for booking to the general public (was a closed charter before):
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/55558-angolas-sonair-opens-houston-express-up-to-public — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.244.148 (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
What does this actually mean?
I hate when people use statistics like this:
"The engine technology was thought to be capable of delivering double the power of the earlier turbojets while consuming a third less fuel. "
Are you literally saying that an engine now produces 50,000lbs instead of 25,000lbs of thrust while at the same time only burning 66,000lbs of fuel (for example) per hour instead of 100,000lbs? Or, as seems more likely, it produces twice the thrust with only 2/3rds the specific fuel consumption? I.e. 4lbs fuel/1lb thrust/hour = 25,000lbs thrust/100,000lbs fuel/hour --> 50,000lbs thrust/130,000lbs fuel/hr (4lbs vs 2.6lbs fuel/1lb thrust/hour)? It's kind of an important distinction. AnnaGoFast (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- FA-Class aviation articles
- FA-Class aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Selected anniversaries (February 2016)
- Selected anniversaries (February 2017)
- Selected anniversaries (January 2018)