747-100 had a lot of problems. It is huge. It had engines that deform under their own weight and seize. It reacted badly to turbulence. And it did not have a range close to the later 747-200.
The biggest long-haul planes before 747 were DC-8-62 and DC-8-63.
How did the range of DC-8-62 compare with 747-100? And how did the trip costs compare?
What could possibly give you the idea the 747 was a white elephant? Is it the fact that to date nearly 1400 have been delivered? Or the fact that in its second year 92 where delivered (1970, wiki). Or the fact that it is still in production and being developed further whereas the DC-8 has long since gone, including the manufacturer of the DC-8 if I may add.
The 747 definately had teething problems. But not of all if was Boeing’s fault.
1) Engines deforming under their own weight is not the fault of the airframer. It is the fault of the engine maker, and was corrected.
2) It did not have the range of the 747-200. Well, that’s why the 747-200 is a further development of the existing model! Was the A320-100 a white-elephant because only a handfull where made? Of course not! It was the springboard to what became one of the most succesful and most important airliners in the world, same as the 747-100.
3) The economics of the 747 where much better. However, one does need to be able to fill the plane. And there is a lot of plane indeed! Many operators where unable to fill the plane and ran at a loss. Is that the fault of the plane? Of course not! The airlines knew what they where getting themselves into! It´s not as though it was a surprise the 747 was 3 times larger then anything else around.
Feel free to call the Dassault Mercure or the Boeing 2707 a whilte elephant. Heck, even the Concorde if you want. But the 747 is far from a white elephant.
Sign In
