Talk:Boeing 747-400/Archive 1

Archive 1

Primary users

If I am going to update the Primary users list in the top info box, does that include all versions, or just the passenger versions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:200:F9A:6950:D19E:6C0:C645 (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

fly-by-wire

Is the Boeing 747 a fly-by-wire aircraft or does the pilot still control the plane independent of an electronic/computer aided control system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.123.80 (talk • contribs)

The 747-400 is still hydraulic, but the 747-8 is partially FBW (varying by which flight surface we're talking about.) —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

ah. thanks for the little bit of info. i was just wondering since the 744 was introduced in an era when fbw was starting to become the standard (a320 and onwards, boeing 777 etc.). what control surfaces of the 747-8 will be computer aided (pitch, roll, yaw). thanks for the answer.74.112.123.80 06:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Variants?

I don't think the 747-8 should be refered to as a variant of the -400, it's the new model. --203.122.209.151 09:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the 747-8 does use the 747-400 as a starting point. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Current operators

The way "Current operators" for a product like the 747-400 is formatted is impractical. It needs to be revised or split. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking, why is it on this page, in one form, and then an extended list here?

Surely the duplication isnt needed? Reedy Boy 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Great point. user:mnw2000 00:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:070112a 2 lg.jpg

Image:070112a 2 lg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Converted Freighter nose door

Is it technically impossible or economically disadvantageous to install a nose door? 84.173.231.124 18:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Probably some of both. It'd take a big rebuild of the area to the get the structure to allow for a nose door. Boeing may not approve that also. -Fnlayson 19:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Weight-to-fuel ratio?

The article cites an "incredibly high dry weight to fuel volume ratio" for the -ER version. Isn't a low weight/fuel ratio the desirable one? A solid brick has a higher weight/fuel ratio than a milk jug.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.100.179 (talk • contribs)

The LCF is *really* fast!

The article currently says: "Compared to marine shipping, delivery times for the parts built in Italy will be reduced from around 45 days to four hours with the 747 LCF." I suspect it takes more than four hours to fly from Italy. While it's a lot faster than 45 days, can someone find a more accurate flight time? I just don't know, or I'd fix it myself. Davidlwilliamson (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• I looked in the LCF article and changed to that text and reference. Boeing states it can reduce delivery times from 30 days to as low a 1 day. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Corsairfly2.jpg

Image:Corsairfly2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Northwest listed as a current operator

Why is NWA and DL listed as a current operators? Shouldn't NWA be removed since it is no longer a certified operating airline. I know the statistics state are from 2008 but they really need to update it. Snoozlepet (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I believe the Boeing C-33 article should be moved into this one, seeing as the C-33 never moved beyond the paper-project stage, and its page is only a little more than a stub. - The Bushranger (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree the C-33 article is unlikely to grow and most of the info is already in this article under variants. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I now believe we have consensus to merge. Airplaneman ✈ 18:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Merging now. - The Bushranger (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Outdated information in the Operators section

The information available in the operators section is outdated (as if the date didn't give it off :P) and some of the airlines listed (e.g. JAL, South African Airways) have retired their fleets of 747s and other airlines have picked up or leased 747-400s from other airlines. If you can, please find out the new operators, remove old operators and find out the new total in service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadunit404 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the current list is based on commercial operators data from Flight International, which only publishes the data once a year, in August. Or use data from some self-published web site.. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like that information will be dated until Flight International publishes the latest information. Considering how fast this year has been going (feels like it began only yesterday to me) four months shouldn't be TOO long. --Quadunit404 (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

-400 and -400ER

The Design and Development section has the following statement:

Qantas uses the aircraft on its Melbourne-Los Angeles and Sydney-San Francisco flights, which are too long to operate using a standard 747-400.

The last bit is demonstrably false, because United Airlines does not have 747-400ERs and yet operates a daily non-stop SYD-SFO route. Before I delete it, I'll wait to see if there is a good reason not to do so. Darcyj (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Editor Darcyj (talk) is correct. UAL did not have any ER versions of that plane. I flew UAL's 747-400 from SFO to SYD several times, nonstop. Only once, did I have to make an enroute refueling stop at Nouméa. We planned that particular flight for a RF stop, because we had so much profitable cargo to carry -- in addition to a full passenger load -- that we could not board a full fuel load at SFO. (lb. for lb., cargo pays considerably more than passengers) EditorASC (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

SynergyStar beat me

I was trying to find the right time to work on the article as I am busy with my sandbox, but SynergyStar pipped me :P I'll go over the article during the next few days, anyone fancy of joining? Syn, keep out of Boeing 747SP, or I'll self-explode. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is greatly improved either did it. Thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Changed primary user list

I removed Korean Air because it has 16 744s and added KLM because it has 22 744s. I also put Lufthansa second and Cathay Pacific fourth to organize the order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.35.142 (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Split Tail Fin Fault

A fault in the drive mechanism for the important tail fin of a 747-400 rendered that plane almost out of control, as seen on Foxtel Cable TV.

Fortunately, the design of the plane split the tail fin into two parts, and "only" the lower fin was affected by the fault.

The flight (North West Airlines) NW85 diverted to Anchorage, [[Alaska

The dual part tailfin is an example of Redundancy (engineering). Tabletop (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The term "tail fin," is rarely used when discussing the control surfaces of jet aircraft. When someone does use that term, it usually is a reference to the vertical stabilizer, NOT the rudder, which is attached at the rear of the vertical stabilizer. This is the first time that I have heard the rudder described as the "tail fin." The phrase "tail fin" is not mentioned at all in this Wikipedia article about flight control surfaces: [[1]]. Nor is it mentioned in the article you mentioned above. [[2]] EditorASC (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Boeing 747-400/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==January 2008== Added B-class checklist. Operators section needs attention to referencing. Wexcan (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

747-400 vs 747−400

Is there a case for using endash throughout the text, instead of hyphen, when the article title uses hyphen? If so, what is it? Put differently, if endash is preferred, why not move the article to Boeing 747−400? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. I now see that -400 outnumbers −400 196 to 20, so I'll just fix the 20. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hyphens have always been used in aircraft designations. MilborneOne (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Except for those 20. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Current operators (2020)

About an hour ago, British Airways announced that it is retiring its entire B744 fleet. https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/british-airways-to-immediately-retire-all-747-aircraft/139341.article

As such, I am moving British Airways to (historical) on the main page. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

New image suggested as lead

Hi there. Since sadly BA dropped its 747 fleet recently, leaving Lufthansa as the current largest operator of passenger 747s, I'm recommending that this image

• 
  current
• 
  proposed

be used as the lead image for the article, as it reflects the current largest passenger operator. Raphael.concorde (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The point of the main picture is to show the airliner configuration: a low-wing, quadjet airliner with a distinctive front upper deck; the airline livery does not matter. The proposed LH picture is better at showing the 744 configuration, not hiding the tail behind the wing, and is better at showing the fuselage.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

IAI Converted Freighter

There is a section for the 400BCF which were conversions done by Boeing. This program seems to have ceased. However, IAI still maintains their conversion program, and they seem to have orders on the book for the conversion.

I think the variants section should include the 747-400BDSF which is what IAI calls their converted freighter.

https://www.iai.co.il/p/b747-400bdsf https://cargofacts.com/allposts/conversions/iai-expects-continued-747-400-conversions/ 100.14.84.144 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

777-9X vs 747-400

Should we add the 777-9 in the see also section alongside the A340-600, 777-300ER, A380 and A350-1000. According to Boeing and other sources the 777-9 will seat the same amount of seats as the 747-400. Being comparable in size should we add the 777-9 as well? 98.35.228.94 (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The 747-400 was first flown in 1988 and the 777-9 had its first flight in 2020, so these are not "Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era". They are 32 years apart, so they are no where near comparable eras.- Ahunt (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If the 777-9 and 747-400 are 32 years apart then why is the A350-1000 listed? 98.35.228.94 (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

You are quite right, the A350-1000 is 25 years later and does not belong either. I have removed it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

"See also" sections seem to attract too many personal opinions, a "referenced-only" policy could be instated.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This has been a longstanding issue, especially in aircraft type article "see also" sections, where people use it as a place to support their favs. It has been so subject to abuse in the past, is of so little value to readers and takes up so much time, like this discussion right here, that some editors have proposed just banning "see also" sections on aircraft articles. Given all that, I agree. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm about to the point of supporting a ban on "Comparable aircraft" sections too. They're generally the most problematic aspect of our aircraft See also template. We've removed them before from certain articles, notably on the HAL Tejas article, where the section became yet another front in the ongoing India vs. Pakistan conflict. BilCat (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we need to go there on this article. I would support that. - Ahunt (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

For now, it's apparently just one user, though on different IP ranges. If they keep being disruptive about it, requesting semi-protection for the targeted aircraft articles would probably be a better first step. BilCat (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say the "see also" list can be useful too, that's why I proposed having it referenced.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Resale value

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all, My recent edit regarding resale value of two B747-400ER freighters in 2017 was reverted by @Ahunt . I believe it is a mis-application of WP:NOPRICES. According to the policy: "Wikipedia is not a directory", regarding "price", the policy only mentions the following: "Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products or a single product from different vendors." and "the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées.". I do not see my edit is, in any way, in contravene of the above WP. Thanks. ~~ Now wiki (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

You cherry-picked the wrong part of that Wikipedia policy WP:NOPRICES. The critical part that applies to your addition is An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. The key thing is that there is no "encyclopedic significance". Your addition of In 2017, two of the youngest freighters (2008 and 2009 respectively) were sold for $50 million (320 million yuan). does not show that there is any encyclopedic significance to the prices paid. - Ahunt (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

My edit complements what is in the article: "A 2008 747-400F value new was $101 million, a 2003 aircraft was leased $400,000 per month in 2019 for a $29 million value while a B747-400BCF was priced at around $10 million" and it is sourced from "an independent source". ~~ Now wiki (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out, they were not in compliance with the above policy either, so I have removed them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. not a sales guide. - Ahunt (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not a sales guide but having approximate values are useful for any reader interested in the economic performance of an industry! In any case, no wikipedia reader will sign an order form for a $100 million aircraft not produced anymore :) Anecdotal values are't that useful, but I reinstated the big picture.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I removed those because they do not comply with the Wikipedia policy WP:NOPRICES. They are just prices with no commentary or context: An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. - Ahunt (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand the policy as to avoid wikipedia transforming into a catalog, but values are interesting for such special assets to better understand their utility. It boils down to: does it have any encyclopedic interest, or not? I think so, don't you have any interest in such data?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

As the policy requires, prices "may" be of encyclopedic value provided that there is an independent source showing what the significance is. Right now, of the two sets of prices I removed, the first is sourced to Boeing and the second to a "bluebook" type publication. While the first ref is WP:PRIMARY, the second one is not, but neither gives any significance to the pricing at all. The bare minimum for "significance" would be a ref stating something like "making it the least expensive aircraft in its class" or "half the price on a per seat basis compared to the Boeing 737" or something similar. As it stands the prices you reinstated are contravening the Wikipedia policy. We would need to have a very good reason to break a policy, even under WP:IAR. I am not seeing one in this case, in fact the way it is presented now, with no context, it is basically trivia. Do you have a reason, other than "its interesting". - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

"its interesting" is already a pretty good reason! The price of an economic asset isn't trivia, it is an important parameter, like physical dimensions, capacity or performance, which don't need a reference to justify their inclusion (but a reference for the figure of course). It's an editorial decision, to be taken by us editors. There are multiple sources discussing the importance of airliner price, like this Harvard Business School Working Paper on Airbus vs. Boeing in Superjumbos. It's so engrained that we don't see how it's a defining feature.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Unlike other parameters, the cost of an aircraft changes constantly based upon time and place but also based on the number ordered and who is buying it. No two airlines pay the same price, and, in fact, no one at all has likely paid the prices quoted, or even close to them. This is exactly why the policy WP:NOPRICES says: An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Unless you can provide a third party ref that shows why the pricing on this aircraft at that time and place is notable, as opposed to just a dollar figure, than we have to comply with the policy and remove it. In particular we need commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. We can't just ignore Wikipedia policies. If you think you have refs that show why those particular prices are notable, then please do add them. - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Note: To gain a better consensus, I have asked for additional points of view from more editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Discussion on aircraft prices included in article text. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Listing the prices for different years can show how the aircraft value has changed over time with changes in the market, etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Ahunt. The policy is clear that encyclopedic significance must be verifiable directly via reliable source/s. Our editors arguing that "some readers find it useful" does not constitute a reliable source. As a hypothetical example, an RS stating that "They bought the Mk I at $1.3 bn because the Mk II asking price was $1.6 bn and they could not justify the extra cost" would be acceptable, but a source giving those prices in some other context would not establish their significance for the article in question. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Also agreeing with Ahunt. WP:NOPRICES says no and it's exceptions are not being met here. Resale values of second-hand large aircraft is highly variable at the best of times - depends on how desperate the seller is to sell, how desperate the buyer is to buy, the aircraft's age/usage/maintenance, package deals (eg 1 vs 5) and how many spare parts come with it. The resale value would be appropriate in an article on aircraft economics but not in individual aircraft articles. As a comparison, articles on cars generally do not list second hand prices.  Stepho  talk  00:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay with no further comments added for a week I think we can close this as a consensus was achieved that WP:NOPRICES applies to this article: An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. - Ahunt (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.