[sriramr9]

Originally Posted by cooldude1988765

In 1996 a 747-100 exploded mid air due to a short circuit in the fuel tank, apparently boeing took more than 12 years to fix it.

If you had more details on the above request to please share it here.

Our National Flag Carrier Air India were very loyal Boeing Customers and were among-st the first few customers who ordered 747-237's and named them to the likes of Emporer Ashoka, Vikramaditya, Kanishka, Krishnadevaraya etc.

Air India took delivery of it's 1st 747-237 in April 1971 and a proud moment when it landed in Bombay and subsequent change in livery and design of Rajasthan arch style window designs.

To sum it up, Air India has lot of 747 history connected to it. Key Air India associated folks like Sean Mendis and Anil Singh hanse are not present in this forum who can provide far more insights and rare photographs of the carrier and its fleet.

[cooldude1988765]

Originally Posted by sriramr9

If you had more details on the above request to please share it here.

I posted it based on my memory from watching air crash investigations recently.
Here is a wiki link to the crash and the subsequent investigation.

[Sinner666]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Not sure if the the 747-8 is the latest production version, or at least I was under the impression the 747-4 was still produced as well. The 747-8 is also the first 747 with Fly by wire.

The white house recently announced purchasing several of these 747-8s replacing the current fleet of presidential jumbo's (i think those are still 747-2's?).

Time moves on, but i have always been hugely impressed with the 747. I remember the first one arriving at Schiphol, now Amsterdam airport. It drew huge crowds. My dad took me and all my friends to go and see.

Im still heavily into the 747-400. Have been studying the design, maintenance and operations for decades now! Still learning.

Jeroen

Yes, and the Indian Govt. has ordered for the 777ERs as the replacement for the 747-400s that currently serve as the Air India One. They were deliberating between this and the new 747. I was hoping they would go in for the stately 747, but practicality won I guess.

Nothing can beat the magnificence projected by the 747. A recent image taken during Narendra Modi's three nation tour.


Reliability is an issue I suppose, as they had to fly a standby aircraft to Berlin, as the original one developed some snag.

Off topic, But Air India One also flew to Airbus Industrie in Toulouse.

[sriramr9]

747 - 200's, Those were days where only the affluent and super rich could afford flying on these birds.

Unfortunately both the aircrafts mentioned here were destroyed due to pilot error and bombing.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by sriramr9

747 - 200's, Those were days where only the affluent and super rich could afford flying on these birds.
.

The introduction of the Jumbo 747 also heralds the start of mass-air-travel. There were other factors as well, obviously, but the 747 could shift 500+ economy passengers in one go from continent to continent. It really puts a different perspective on what had been the norm till then.

With the new Jumbo came additional requirements to upgrade airport terminals, gates, taxiways and lugage handling and other fascilities to handle these large influx of arriving/departing passenger. I don't think any other plane drove airport authorities to rethink and reconstruct their terminals and fascilities untill the Airbus 380 made it's debut. The 380 for one thing was larger in size, then the 747, so the airport taxiway, aprons etc needed replanning in many cases just to allow for its size.

Jeroen

[udainxs]

Originally Posted by rrsteer

Does that mean Boeing's strategy worked out much better than Airbus'?

As far as I remember Boeing had invested on a strategy which banked on smaller planes to be used on shorter routes (Dreamliner 787).

While Airbus put its money on large planes - A380 - and the future of aviation deviating towards larger planes and longer routes.

Airbus has also developed the A350 XWB, in response to the 787. The planes have a similar range and capacity.

It is still in testing phase with the first flight having been conducted a few months back

[WAM-4]

Is the failure to sell A-380s due to a fair number of niggles ailing the aircraft as well, apart from the reasons mentioned (economical and practical feasibility)?

One incident concerning the A-380 that created quite a ripple in the aviation industry in this regard was the oil pipe failure of one of the Rolls-Royce engine (1st left engine if I'm not wrong) of the aircraft (Quantas Q-32 flight).. Extraordinary piece of flying by the crew (including an inspector pilot who chipped in with his expertise) saved the day at that time..

Quantas grounded its fleet of A-380s pending investigation and root-cause analysis of the incident..

[RohanDheman]

Originally Posted by udainxs

Airbus has also developed the A350 XWB, in response to the 787. The planes have a similar range and capacity.

It is still in testing phase with the first flight having been conducted a few months back

Nope, the A350 is not in testing phase anymore. Qatar Aiways, being the launch customer, took delivery in Jan this year and the bird is in commerical service as on date. Google for A7-ALA and you will know all about it!

Rohan

[carmayogi]

Originally Posted by sriramr9

If you had more details on the above request to please share it here.

For those who aren't bothered, the 1996 incident was flight TWA 800 that had an empty center fuel tank and an electrical short circuit that ignited the vapours in the empty tank. Catastrophic and instant explosion, the front separated, the mid & rear flew vertically up without a nose and then the whole thing fell into the sea. Amazing accident investigation, they managed to re-assemble a huge amount of the plane to find out what happened.

Of course there are many conspiracy theories such as missile attack, etc which make this story even more compelling.

[amit]

I guess we all have our special 747 memories and have loved flying it in our lives.

Talking about the A-380, I flew for the first time to Singapore on the A-380 last month and keeping the financials & returns of the project aside, the plane is really comfortable to fly in. The take off was easily the smoothest I have experienced. Landing in Singapore was damn hard for some reason but the Mumbai landing went smooth. Overall, I loved the A-380 expereince, it's much better then flying in the smaller A-320's & 330's. I love the feeling of space in there.

[PratikPatel]

The B747 will always remain close to my heart. In 1979, my first international trip was on a British Airways B747-100.

35 years later I once again got to fly a British Airways B747, this time a -400. As a boy, I was always fascinated by the infamous hump. This time I got a seat on the upper deck, fulfilling a childhood dream.

As I stepped off at the end flight I couldn't help but wonder if this would be my last encounter with this gentle giant that helped define air travel for me and hundreds of thousands like me.

[globemaster]

The Boeing 747, in my opinion the most majestic of all the birds that take to the air. It has power, is huge, and has beautiful curves (all in one complete package). The Triple 7 or the Dreamliner are much more advanced, but they are not as imposing as the 747. The A380, on the other hand is outright huge, but is no better than a ugly duckling in looks.
The 747 might not be the biggest or the fastest or the most fuel efficient or the most technologically advanced. But one thing it has tons of is Class and finesse.
I would happily call it the 1967 Shelby GT500 of airplanes.
The 747-800 is the newest baby of the shelf and I hope this will be here till at least another 15 years.
I will be sure to miss these beauties once they are phased out.

[Stratos]

Interesting and informative thread. The 747, like many of you, is very close to my heart as well. It was the first wide-body that I ever flew in (VT-EVJ to be precise ).

According to me the main demise of the 747 is the slow death of the quad-jets in general. Heck, even tri-jets are almost done. Apart from presidential transports and some airports which are located in a hot and high environment, the aviation industry slowly regards quad-jets as necessary. Today's twin-jets are extremely capable to carry similar amounts of weight just as their 4-engined counterparts but at the same time be much more fuel efficient. There is almost no place on earth that one of the following cannot fly from any other point: Boeing 777-200LR, 777-300ER, 787-8, 787-9 and the upcoming A350.

From my limited plane-spotting experience from around the world, I have observed that the 747 has to be one of the most versatile aircraft to have ever taken to the skies. Jumbos that were yesterday serving first world passengers get converted into cargo and are used and abused by freight companies from developing and third world countries. It is always a pleasant sight to see an ex-passenger 747 take shape of a freighter, thus increasing its lifespan by almost a decade.

Unfortunately, the 747-8i and -8f could never do what their predecessor, the 747-400 did. The increased wingspan being one of the problems. Whereas the 747 can almost land and depart at most major airports of the world, the 747-8 requires Code-F runways and taxiways that can accommodate its big wingspan. The A380 faces similar problems too. This can be a major hurdle as most airports are not willing to invest in modifying their taxiways or runways just for the sake of one of two models of quads.

Aviation as I see it, is strictly going to be ruled by twin-engine giants in the near future. What would really replace the loads of currently operating 747 freighters is the question!

Originally Posted by Sinner666

Yes, and the Indian Govt. has ordered for the 777ERs as the replacement for the 747-400s that currently serve as the Air India One.

I don't think that they have ordered 777-300ERs. They are going to use two birds (I think) that are currently in the Air India fleet.

[nkishore_007]

Originally Posted by sagarpadaki

The latest version of 777 ER(Triple Seven as its popularly called) has the same range as the 747-8 , burns 40% less fuel and carries just 15% less passengers than the 747. This is a huge saving for any airline. So its not a difficult business decision for an airline to choose 777 over 747.

.

Are you sure about this? If a new wide body aircraft provides 40% savings than another relatively similar one in the aviation industry, Boeing would have killed their own product the day it was released.
This figure of yours caught my eye, and I started checking online only to find that the cost per seat per nautical mile is marginally high in 747-8 (link).




Nevertheless,
747-200 production ended in 1991.
747- 400 took over from -300, and the last passenger version was delivered in 2005.
Courtesy: Wiki
Hence, 747-8 is what the aviation industry "could" look forward to, if they want to replace their aging -400 with an advanced version of it's own. Some kind of trade off ? I don't know how that works in Aviation industry.

Of course, an airlines can go in for this kind of setup (458 seats in a 777ER). OMG was my first reaction when I read this. They should put up a disclaimer to have all 468 passengers who are ~5 ft or less to board the flight.
Don't they have some regulations to counter such money making measures? FAA has jurisdiction only in USA. Darn!

[cooldude1988765]

My first international flight was in a 747-400 owned and operated by Air India.
That one flight made me decide never to fly in a 747 ever again.
Absolutely dismal leg room in economy. My knees were literally at my chin when the passenger in front of me reclined their seat.