Just how white elephant was 747?

Airliners.net turns out to have been wrong.

DC-8, from
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/dc8sec3.pdf

has, on page 7, a diagram for DC-8-62.

With 189 passengers and baggage, 38 745 pounds, the plane is fuel volume limited at 24 275 gallons, and has a range of about 5200 nm, fitting the 5210 nm quoted by airliners.net.

But this is not the max payload. At max. payload of 51 745 pounds, the range is about 4500 nm.

Regarding Boeing 747-100, from
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7471sec3.pdf

page 3, the diagram shows the range with 385 passengers and baggage as about 4800 nm. Matching what airliners.net has to say. 189 passengers and baggage, plus 358 000 pounds OEW, should come at a bit under 400 000 pound ZFW. Also roughly 5200 nm.

Result: no extra range. A half empty 747-100 should have roughly the same range as a full DC-8-62 with the same passenger count.

Now, the diagram uses fuel burn… but there are various assumptions about reserves included.

Boeing predicted the B747 to be an interim solution and primarily a freighter.
And Boeing knew it was gambling quite hard, basically betting the shop.
I think Boeing was surprised by its success.

I would say for many airlines the B747-100 & -200 delivered in the early years of production were indeed white elephants: too big, too expensive. But prestigious. A typical example, Lufthansa flight 540 which crashed in 1974:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_540
140 passengers and 17 crew members.
Load factor somewhere close to 40% maybe.
Really, take a look at the incidents and accidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_hull_losses
You’ll find plenty examples with substantially less than 200 people on board.

Like I said, the 747 being flown half empty for its first decade in service is not news. And not something I will even attempt to deny.
The fact that it was too big for some airlines is not the aircraft’s fault. Airlines were not held at gun point to order them.

I don’t see your problem here.

The question was how much of a white elephant the 747 was.
Figures clearly show it wasn’t.
What could have happened is not the question. The 747 had hiccups, every aircraft does.
Boeing had predicted the need for something the size of the 747, they were then asked to build it by their biggest customers. So they bet the house on it and won. It’s not a matter of favouritism, it’s a matter of Fact.

Boeing predicted the B747 to be an interim solution and primarily a freighter.
And Boeing knew it was gambling quite hard, basically betting the shop.
I think Boeing was surprised by its success.

I would say for many airlines the B747-100 & -200 delivered in the early years of production were indeed white elephants: too big, too expensive. But prestigious. A typical example, Lufthansa flight 540 which crashed in 1974:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_540
140 passengers and 17 crew members.
Load factor somewhere close to 40% maybe.
Really, take a look at the incidents and accidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_hull_losses
You’ll find plenty examples with substantially less than 200 people on board.

At the time of its first flight and EIS (1969,1970) the B747 was oversized. nearly 20 years later (1988) the world passenger market had quadrupled. The B747 was the aircraft for the late 1980ies and 1990ies, but when first came out of the hangar in 1969, it wasn’t destined for success. Don’t get fooled by some numbers, most early B747 flew half empty through the skies, something operators of A380 cannot afford these days.

The DC-10 also suffered from bad publicity, partly justified, and from the fact that it had a competitor. Add DC-10 and L1011, and you’ll see equal sales.

Your enthusiasm for the B747 is in strong contrast to your skepticism towards the A380, which makes me wonder if you look at the underlying reasons at all or rather stick to simple and comfortable legends.

I don’t see your problem here.

The question was how much of a white elephant the 747 was.
Figures clearly show it wasn’t.
What could have happened is not the question. The 747 had hiccups, every aircraft does.
Boeing had predicted the need for something the size of the 747, they were then asked to build it by their biggest customers. So they bet the house on it and won. It’s not a matter of favouritism, it’s a matter of Fact.

I’m not disputing that 747s roamed the skies half empty untill the oil crisis. The industry was different back then.
But with the introduction of the widebody came ticket prices that the masses could afford.

The 747 being the first widebody produced and put into service stands alongside the DC-10 and the L1011 in bringing air travel to the masses.

White elephant? No.
Success? Yes.

Your enthusiasm for the B747 is in strong contrast to your skepticism towards the A380, which makes me wonder if you look at the underlying reasons at all or rather stick to simple and comfortable legends.

Or whether he just hates Airbus. :diablo:

Paul

Do yourself a favor and check the payload-range diagrams from the Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning. You’ll get them at Boeing for download. Then you can stop making claims like above, which are – with all due respect – pretty much non-sense.

That assumes he can read a payload-range chart! I doubt it! :diablo:

Sounds that 747-100 was not the longest range plane around then. Its only advantage was the large passenger capacity…

And?????? It was designed for high volume markets, which in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, were primarily transatlantic, so the range was MORE than adequate.

JFK-LHR 5538km
JFK-CDG 5830km
ORD-FRA 6969km
LAX-LHR 8757km

I’m not sure what your point is??? Later 747 models were developed to meet growing needs and demands, inluding scale growth in the Asian markets. In truth, until the late 1970’s/early 1980’s, many route to/from Asian, which required the range of the -200 (and more importantly the -400) did not justify the use of a large aircraft!

You’re talking non-sense again!

If you have a look at:
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=194

then the range of DC-8-62 is quoted as 9620 km with maximum payload.

Whereas at
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=97

the range of 747-100 with 385 passengers and reserves (that is, less than maximum payload) is quoted as 9045 km.

Sounds that 747-100 was not the longest range plane around then. Its only advantage was the large passenger capacity…

Do yourself a favor and check the payload-range diagrams from the Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning. You’ll get them at Boeing for download. Then you can stop making claims like above, which are – with all due respect – pretty much non-sense.

Sorry, but your reasonings sound out of whack.

If the DC-10 was the smarter choice, why did the 747 do so much better?
Production of the DC-10 ended in 1989 with 386 delivered (Wiki).
By that time 663 747s had been delivered (Boeing). That’s almost twice as many.

So the 747 created a market? Then the DC-10 failed to in that same reasoning, judging by its low sales compared to the 747.

At the time of its first flight and EIS (1969,1970) the B747 was oversized. nearly 20 years later (1988) the world passenger market had quadrupled. The B747 was the aircraft for the late 1980ies and 1990ies, but when first came out of the hangar in 1969, it wasn’t destined for success. Don’t get fooled by some numbers, most early B747 flew half empty through the skies, something operators of A380 cannot afford these days.

The DC-10 also suffered from bad publicity, partly justified, and from the fact that it had a competitor. Add DC-10 and L1011, and you’ll see equal sales.

Your enthusiasm for the B747 is in strong contrast to your skepticism towards the A380, which makes me wonder if you look at the underlying reasons at all or rather stick to simple and comfortable legends.

If you have a look at:
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=194

then the range of DC-8-62 is quoted as 9620 km with maximum payload.

Whereas at
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=97

the range of 747-100 with 385 passengers and reserves (that is, less than maximum payload) is quoted as 9045 km.

Sounds that 747-100 was not the longest range plane around then. Its only advantage was the large passenger capacity…

Without the special features of that time, the B747 would have been a commercial disaster for Boeing, as the DC-10 was the smarter solution and offered equally low seat mile costs while being smaller.
A typical example how an aircraft created a market which actually wasn’t there before, and the success could not be anticipated. The same effect the A380 is relying on (while not as hard as the B747).
Most B747 were sold after 1985, so over 15 years after its introduction. So, let’s see what the sales figures for the A380 are after 2020.

Sorry, but your reasonings sound out of whack.

If the DC-10 was the smarter choice, why did the 747 do so much better?
Production of the DC-10 ended in 1989 with 386 delivered (Wiki).
By that time 663 747s had been delivered (Boeing). That’s almost twice as many.

So the 747 created a market? Then the DC-10 failed to in that same reasoning, judging by its low sales compared to the 747.

Of course he’s heard of google…usually his ‘questions’ are a string of random numerical and statistical facts (rather than questions) obtained from there, and infact this post is pretty much the same.

A pointless topic as the 747, in all it’s forms was never a white elephant, they improved on a base aircraft, but even without that, 747-100s sucessfully ploughed the routes they were designed for for their whole design life…those being the transatlantic high volume markets.

The aircraftmdelivered lower seat/mile costs than anything else at that time and made air travel accessible to those for whom ticket prices had been too high previously.

I do not see why you could even ask how much the 747 was a white elephant, even with reference just to the -100 series.

Pointless pointless pointless!

Without the special features of that time, the B747 would have been a commercial disaster for Boeing, as the DC-10 was the smarter solution and offered equally low seat mile costs while being smaller.
A typical example how an aircraft created a market which actually wasn’t there before, and the success could not be anticipated. The same effect the A380 is relying on (while not as hard as the B747).
Most B747 were sold after 1985, so over 15 years after its introduction. So, let’s see what the sales figures for the A380 are after 2020.

747’s are huge?! Man, and I thought the one I see every week is just really, really far away

I do not see why you could even ask how much the 747 was a white elephant, even with reference just to the -100 series.

Pointless pointless pointless!

I want a thumbs up smiley at this point!

Paul

Have you never heard of Google, chornedsnorkack?

I’m sure you could have found this information for yourself in less time than it took to post the questions in here.

Of course he’s heard of google…usually his ‘questions’ are a string of random numerical and statistical facts (rather than questions) obtained from there, and infact this post is pretty much the same.

A pointless topic as the 747, in all it’s forms was never a white elephant, they improved on a base aircraft, but even without that, 747-100s sucessfully ploughed the routes they were designed for for their whole design life…those being the transatlantic high volume markets.

The aircraftmdelivered lower seat/mile costs than anything else at that time and made air travel accessible to those for whom ticket prices had been too high previously.

I do not see why you could even ask how much the 747 was a white elephant, even with reference just to the -100 series.

Pointless pointless pointless!

In 1970, 92 747-s were delivered. And then, in 1972, the number fell to 30, and in 1975 to 21. In spite of the availability of 747-200 by then.

747 orderbook at EIS stood at 1978. Then 20 in 1970, 7 in 1971, 18 in 1972, 29 in 1973, 27 in 1974.

Good example that making a straight line through orders and deliveries at any given moment will give you crap. There are so many things that can affect the attractiveness of an aircraft model that any predictions come with a big warning.
The B747 profited from the Asian markets to a good extent.

It is well possible that we see a time of very limited orders the next couple of years. It is actually quite possible, as some new models aren’t available yet (A350, B787, which are both sold out through 2015 at least, the B787 actually until 2018), and available models aren’t attractive enough (B777, A330, B767).

How did the range of DC-8-62 compare with 747-100? And how did the trip costs compare?

How did the range of DC-10-30 compare against DC-8-62? Or B747-100?

Have you never heard of Google, chornedsnorkack?

I’m sure you could have found this information for yourself in less time than it took to post the questions in here.

Ever heard of the big Oil crisis?
Look at the total number ordered and delivered.

In 1970, 92 747-s were delivered. And then, in 1972, the number fell to 30, and in 1975 to 21. In spite of the availability of 747-200 by then.

747 orderbook at EIS stood at 1978. Then 20 in 1970, 7 in 1971, 18 in 1972, 29 in 1973, 27 in 1974.

You can twist and bend statistics any way you want.

Orders are orders. Regardless who orders.