Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Big Of A Shock Was The 747 To The World?  
User currently online747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3432 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12427 times:

Not too long ago, I was driving by NAS Chainbers Feild on the way to the base, and there a Southern Air Boeing 747 300 or 200 (SUD) and a DHL DC-8 73 or 71 parked near the air strip. I saw how large a 747 was compaired to a DC-8, and seeing that the DC-8 60 series were the largest airliners in the world until the 747 came into the picture, I have want to ask, how big of a shock was the 747 to the world?

64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMacsog6 From Singapore, joined Jan 2010, 525 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 11900 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

After seeing the C-5, not that much of a shock. The RFP for what became the C-5 was sent out in 1964 and the C-5 was rolled out in 1968. (Wonder what changed then and our present tanker situation?)

The 747-100 had it's first commercial flight in 1970.



Sixty Plus Years of Flying! "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Saint Ex
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7505 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 11785 times:

I was stationed at NAS Agana Guam when I saw my first 747.

Frankly it looked on landing and takeoff like it was going to fall out of the sky. Something so big, traveling so slowly. Friends of mine on the crash crew had the same impression. That there was something wrong with the flight. We were all unprepared for the size of the aircraft and it's visual impact.

We had all seen C-5's land at GUM before on occasion, and we had all seen them and B-52s at Andersen, but the 747 was something new.


User currently offlineEagleboy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1791 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 11653 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Macsog6 (Reply 1):
After seeing the C-5, not that much of a shock.

For a military person perhaps.
But how many people around the world in 1970 had never seen a huge military transport? (or even knew they existed?)


User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2414 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 11607 times:

The introduction of the 747 had much more of an impact on the non-aviation public compared to the recent introduction of the Airbus 380. The 747 was in all the press and most everyone followed the progress. It was truly revolutionary and so much bigger than anyone had seen before. Also, it was introduced by US carriers, which Amercians could identify with, compared to the foreign carriers on the A-380. There was much discussion on which airports the 747 would fit in. Also, the 747 was before the internet, cable TV, cell phones. The 747 communication channels was by TV news, newspapers, airline marketing and magazines.


Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7968 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 11499 times:

When the 747 was reaching definition stage, it was a shock to airports around the world because the 747 needed wider and longer runways than before. That's why from the middle 1960's on many major airports around the world lengthened and widened their runways. I remember seeing the construction of lengthening the Kai Tak Airport runway in Hong Kong during the late 1960's specifically to accommodate the 747.

(I believe runway widening was a more critical issue, since runway lengths were increased in the late 1950's to middle 1960's to accommodate the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 (remember, the early models of these planes used turbojet engines and had pretty long runway requirements until the JT3D turbofans became widely available by the early 1960's).


User currently offlineAirCalSNA From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 326 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 11454 times:

I was a kid, but I remember it being a major phenomenon that everyone seemed to know about. I can still remember spotting my first one at LAX--I couldn't see the fuselage because it was blocked by a terminal building, but the height of the tail was very striking. My family, who were not into airliners, were even interested.

User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24967 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 11344 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CitationJet (Reply 4):
The introduction of the 747 had much more of an impact on the non-aviation public compared to the recent introduction of the Airbus 380.

  

It is hard to explain the amazing effect of it.

We simply had not seen its like before - because of the size - but also because we had a sense of what it might achieve, distant, exotic places becoming more available to us.

The world was opening up, the jet age in civil aviation had started to change the traveling world, but the 747 was - then - the crowning glory of it.

Double decker aircraft had existed before - the Stratocruiser - but it wasn't so freakin' big. Pan Am helped - they did an ad campaign with a photo of the 747 and the slogan (something like) "Great Big Beautiful Baby."

But it was also a different time - we were used to the aspirational then, we were excited by it and we expected it. People were doing all sorts of amazing things, like going to the moon.

We didn't have much satellite television - these days news reports zip around the world, but then it was cumbersome and only happened on special occasions, like the first flight of Concorde, when the BBC did simultaneous split screen showing the joint maiden flights in the UK and France.

Anything seemed possible.

The oil price shock of 1973 hadn't happened, everyone was caught up in the Culture Wars, not the War on Terrorism. Security at airports was minimal. The Sixties made places like India very desirable for the young - young people wanted what the Beatles were getting in India - LOL - and the 747 seemed to make that accessible.

I'm not saying things were "better" then - but they were surely very different. and the effect of the 747 was a hard, perhaps impossible, act to follow.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinesimairlinenet From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 910 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 11291 times:

I'd like to add two pieces.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 5):
When the 747 was reaching definition stage, it was a shock to airports around the world because the 747 needed wider and longer runways than before. That's why from the middle 1960's on many major airports around the world lengthened and widened their runways. I remember seeing the construction of lengthening the Kai Tak Airport runway in Hong Kong during the late 1960's specifically to accommodate the 747.

Not only the airport movement areas, but new equipment as well. Widebody containers and their loaders were invented, for instance. It added tons of stress to have an aircraft 150% bigger than anything to that point.

Second, keep in mind the suddenness of development. 707s and DC-8s began in the late 50s, and the 747 development was announced half a decade later. In comparison, A380 (or other manufacturers' concepts) had been around since the early-1990s.


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24655 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 11239 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 5):
I believe runway widening was a more critical issue, since runway lengths were increased in the late 1950's to middle 1960's to accommodate the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8

I don't think runway width was a significant issue for the 747. Most major airport runways were 150 ft. wide then, and still are, and the A380 also uses 150 ft. runways without problem. The A380s problem at some airports usually involves taxiways, not taxiways. Some countries had even fewer problems handling 747s and other widebodies. For example, most major (and many less major) airport runway sin Canada have long been 200 ft wide.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7505 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 11012 times:

There was a big impact on runways. Weight limits standards. A lot of airports which wanted the B747 have runways plenty long and wide enough, just not built to handle those weights regularly. Three quarter million pound aircraft just were not in their design plans.

Length and width are usually less of an issue than weight when a new leap forward in aircraft size and capacity occur.

This is somewhat the issue with the A380 when the weight goes from 875,000 lbs to 1,200,000 lbs - an approx 137% increase in weight that the runways, taxiways and ramps have to be able to support.

Most major airport runways can handle those weights occasionally. It is the airports expecting the aircraft on a regular basis which have to rebuild runways, taxiways and ramp areas.

The C-5 was much heavier than the B747, but it did not operate often from civilian airports until they have been upgraded to B747 weight standards. Many military runways were of course built for very heavy aircraft, so the C-5 was not such a big deal for them.


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24655 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 10967 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9):
The A380s problem at some airports usually involves taxiways, not taxiways.

Too late to edit. Should read "..."usually involves taxiways, not runways."


User currently offlineAirport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10877 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 7):
It is hard to explain the amazing effect of it.

We simply had not seen its like before - because of the size - but also because we had a sense of what it might achieve, distant, exotic places becoming more available to us.

The world was opening up, the jet age in civil aviation had started to change the traveling world, but the 747 was - then - the crowning glory of it.

Double decker aircraft had existed before - the Stratocruiser - but it wasn't so freakin' big. Pan Am helped - they did an ad campaign with a photo of the 747 and the slogan (something like) "Great Big Beautiful Baby."

But it was also a different time - we were used to the aspirational then, we were excited by it and we expected it. People were doing all sorts of amazing things, like going to the moon.

We didn't have much satellite television - these days news reports zip around the world, but then it was cumbersome and only happened on special occasions, like the first flight of Concorde, when the BBC did simultaneous split screen showing the joint maiden flights in the UK and France.

Anything seemed possible.

The oil price shock of 1973 hadn't happened, everyone was caught up in the Culture Wars, not the War on Terrorism. Security at airports was minimal. The Sixties made places like India very desirable for the young - young people wanted what the Beatles were getting in India - LOL - and the 747 seemed to make that accessible.

I'm not saying things were "better" then - but they were surely very different. and the effect of the 747 was a hard, perhaps impossible, act to follow.

I long to live in a world of such glorious ignorance.   

Where places like Tahiti, Guam, Bombay, Siam, Egypt could only be left to the imagination, instead of today where you can Google it or Wikipedia it and find out everything you did and didn't want to know. Sure, we know more today, and the world is a smaller, more efficient and more homogenized place. But there's something to be said for that excitement of a world bigger than our minds. I think there's something to be said for the days when travelling across the world was a big, big deal. It wasn't simply China, or Japan, or the Philippines; it was the "Orient", or the "Far East". But, no more. We're no longer as gullible, we're no longer as ignorant.

  

Cheers!
Anthony/Airport


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10864 posts, RR: 38
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10554 times:

For me the Boeing 747-100 was a novelty at the 1969 Paris Air Show. A novelty but not The novelty.

I had gone there to see the two Concorde prototypes, the French (first time out of Toulouse) and British Concorde prototypes built by Sud Aviation and BAC. They were all for my eyes. I was totally euphoric to see them, both on the ground and in the air during the demo done by their respective test pilots Jean Franchi RIP and Brian Trubshaw RIP. They executed a Concorde prototype flying duet that was never to be seen again at any air shows.

I only saw the 747 in the static display. I don't remember it participating to flying displays. It came to the air show, stayed on the ground and flew back to its next destination after the air show. Maybe Boeing did not want it to fly during the air show. I can't remember what it was but I did not see it flying.

Ths must have been one of the most crowded Paris Air Shows I have ever been to, and I have been to most of them snce 1967 when a full Concorde mock-up in real size was presented. Crowds had come to see the 747 and the two Concordes. Another big plane was also there, the C5 for the first time.



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24967 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10282 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Airport (Reply 12):
I long to live in a world of such glorious ignorance.

It has its upside and it downside. Mostly, it is just progress.

I first went to Bali in 1972 and I thought it was glorious, right next door to paradise. There were tourists, but they were - mostly - confined to certain areas, Kuta and a little bit at Legian.

Those were the days when you could still get a magic mushroom omelet at Poppies - Bali was a big stop on the hippie trail.

But people who had been there before told me that it was all ruined, that it wasn't the paradise it used to be. The tourists had destroyed it, even then.

Then the 747's arrived and the bulk numbers of tourists.

I went back to Bali in 2000 and it was my turn to think it was "ruined." Poppies wasn't a beach shack anymore but a hotel complex and you couldn't get magic mushroom omelets anymore.

You could get MacDonalds, though. And I was scratching my head wondering why people would fly all the way to Bali to eat MacDonalds. LOL.

The 747, I decided, and all the jumbo jets had a lot to answer for. Yet at the same time, the Balinese economy had improved dramatically - there were now a whole lot of jobs.

It's just progress.  

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinehaynflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 146 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9100 times:

Wow. Amazing and thoughtful contributions.

Thanks to all.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts."
User currently offlineaircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1703 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9100 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 14):
You could get MacDonalds, though. And I was scratching my head wondering why people would fly all the way to Bali to eat MacDonalds. LOL.

Very good question indeed... Albeit a bit off-topic.


User currently offlineairplanenut From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 654 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8551 times:

The CFI with whom I trained for my instrument ticket was soloing as a student when the 747 made its first flight. He took evasive action, and then found out it was some 10-20 miles away.


Why yes, in fact, I am a rocket scientist...
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24967 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8511 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aircellist (Reply 16):
Very good question indeed... Albeit a bit off-topic.

Do you think? The point is the effect the 747 had on the world of mass tourism.

But I'll ask for the post to be deleted if you want.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2484 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8448 times:

I'm not sure is "shock" is the right word or not, but I can tell you that people in general, not just aviation nuts were talking about the 747 and would stand and stare at one flying overhead if they were near an airport. They were so much bigger than anything else in the sky at the the time - they seemed to be moving very slowly because of that. It was quite a sight the first time I saw one up close. We were dropping relatives off at ORD for their flight home and we went up to the observation deck (yeah they had those back in the day) and there was an NW 747 just pushing back. I made my Dad stay up there long enough to watch it taxi out and depart. I will never forget that sight and the sound - no other engines at the time had that sound either. She'll always be Queen of the Skies in my book.

User currently offlinejimpop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8337 times:

I'm surprised to not see this mentioned yet, didn't the 747 really introduce expedited cargo services?

User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6374 posts, RR: 54
Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8200 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
...I have want to ask, how big of a shock was the 747 to the world?

Nothing at all. The world was so used to everything having a new look and double size and speed every ten year or so.

The 747 looked like its predecessors, would fly at the same speed (or slightly slower than the CV-990), and BTW it would or course be outdated a ten years time when long range flights would be supersonic.

It was a non-event as it happened at the same time as astronauts were warking on the moon, something which may not happen again in a hundred years.

Since the early 747s had a tendensy to land at strange places because of unreliable engines, then pax were often relieved when they saw a DC-8 at the gate, or even better a VC-10 which had such a quiet cabin up front.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7505 posts, RR: 32
Reply 22, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8198 times:

Quoting aircellist (Reply 16):
Quoting mariner (Reply 14):
You could get MacDonalds, though. And I was scratching my head wondering why people would fly all the way to Bali to eat MacDonalds. LOL.

Very good question indeed... Albeit a bit off-topic.

Three reasons - looking for something familiar and dealing with new diet problems. A lot of folks get tired of 'new' food after a couple days. Many others who travel in-frequently need some familiar food to get their digestive system settled down.

But the biggest, most important reason - the kids.

They don't like strange food - and McDonalds works. So mom and dad can enjoy exotic dishes, and the kids stay happy.

The changing economy and growth in tourism made the jumbo jet necessary. Boeing just got there first with the B747. Those tourist were coming, and yes, I see there are a few places where I think the original feeling why I came there is spoiled by the new higher levels of tourism.

I remember flying across the Pacific on military charter DC-8s which were so long you could see the front and aft of the fuselage twisting in different directions in rough weather.

The B747 just feels roomier and more stable. The seat size and pitch might be the same - but it just feels like there is more room.


User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8089 times:

The 747 had an impact similar to what the A380 is causing today. It was huge; it was novel and it was the future in the present tense. More than anything, it became an icon and no one who has ever seen it has ever had to ask what country produced it.


Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5602 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7926 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 10):

This is somewhat the issue with the A380 when the weight goes from 875,000 lbs to 1,200,000 lbs - an approx 137% increase in weight that the runways, taxiways and ramps have to be able to support.

Most major airport runways can handle those weights occasionally. It is the airports expecting the aircraft on a regular basis which have to rebuild runways, taxiways and ramp areas.

How many more times does this outright misinformation have to get laid on the A380???

The A380 needs LESS in terms of runway strength than the B744, but especially the B777 & A340! This is because runway, taxiway strength is NOT usually measured in terms of absolute weight (with some exceptions), but in terms of LOADING, which is (in simplified terms) weight by unit area. The A380 puts less weight per square cm than any of the three aircraft named above! It was designed that way.

Airbus has always claimed that the A380 was designed to operate from any airport than the B744 operates from, which does NOT have an absolute weight limited structure. Those airports may require some mandatory work to accommodate the A380. This is a relatively small number of major airports.

Some major airports have a few taxiways that have sub standard taxiway curve radius, which have required work to accommodate the A380. Again, not all airports and not all taxiways.

Overall the A380 required FAR, FAR less work on airports than the B747 did.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
25 Post contains images gr8circle : Yes, but only for those who actually saw the C-5.....even today, I don't think too many people outside the US and the bases on which the C-5 lands, a
26 FlyCaledonian : It's like being told how a magic trick is done - once you know there's almost an anti-climax. The 747 was a game changer. It launched the widebody er
27 RayChuang : I think the biggest impact of the 747 was how it made long-distance air travel far more accessible to people of lower incomes. Even during the 707/DC-
28 aircellist : No, not at all, please. I never thought about the relationship between McDo and the 747, but there definitely is one. Both have made "something" popu
29 rfields5421 : Not true. Absolute weight is a consideration in addition to loading. An even more important consideration is frequency of the heavy weights. A great
30 Max Q : You raise a very good point GM but i'll take it further : The 727 has a far higher pavement loading per wheel than the Queen of the skies, Boeing's m
31 gemuser : Not really, on a properly constructed runway, if the loading is within parameters the runway will with stand any number of operations, up to its desi
32 Mortyman : This was ahead of my time, but I have heard that industry people were sceptical to the 747 and wether they were to actually be able to fill it and fin
33 Flighty : The 747 had huge cultural impact. Half the people on Earth know what a 747 is. And, they know the Boeing company makes it, and it's a quality product.
34 Post contains images mariner : I suppose I was using both the 747 and McDonalds as metaphors for globalization. There's no question that in Bali the mass influx of tourists - the 7
35 aircellist : Yes, I can see it. Now, globalization can mean one has more chances to see the world in a lifespan. It can also mean that the world will more look th
36 nycbjr : Funny too cause the 747 has mostly played second fiddle to other company projects, IE 747-100 to the SST and 747-8 to the 787.. Hehehe
37 Baroque : It certainly was in all the papers. As were its teething troubles. These made this weeks coverage of QF and its problems seem very gentle. It was not
38 vv701 : Civil aviation developments in the 1950 to 1970 period were significant. Each - be it the the whine from a Dart powered Viscount, the roar of the firs
39 mariner : I would never make that claim. It was all part the mood of the time and part of that was undoubtedly the Cold War. I was in London during the Cuban M
40 aviateur : Well, the 747 was more than double the size of any existing airliner, and its economies of scale made long-haul air travel affordable for millions of
41 prebennorholm : Sorry, I have to disagree. Unlike many posters here I was there when it happened. Of course it was headline news, but it happened at a time with plen
42 CitationJet : Depends on how you measure large. MTOW. The 747 was 50% heavier than the B-52. 747-100 = 735,000 lb. B-52H = 488,000 lb Length: 747-100 = 231 ft B-52
43 mariner : I was there, too, just turning thirty. I'd been following civil aviation all my life - literally. I was both at a flying boat station, and my first s
44 HBGDS : I remember the press coverage of the first 747 visit to GVA. It was a TWA ship. There are pictures of the fire service rigging an extra ladder atop a
45 NZ2 : I was there when the 747 first came to New Zealand, I was about 9-10 years old and there was massive crowds at Auckland Airport, extra parking areas
46 Post contains images Macsog6 : I was as well, was an officer in the miltary, and had been flying for years. First flight was on a C-69 Lockheed and I even got to ride on a Boeing 3
47 CitationJet : That wasn't my quote in Reply 42. Not sure how it got associated with me. That quote was from prebennorholm....
48 prebennorholm : Length isn't relevant since a bomber plane has far less passenger seat rows, wingspan is. MTOWs are not easily comparable. Some more B-52H figures: E
49 767er : I was living in Wellington at that time and it was over for a promotional visit to AKL and CHC. It did a fly past over Wellington Harbour a couple of
50 Post contains images Viscount724 : Photo of that GVA visit on February 9, 1970. That was just 2 weeks after Pan Am's inaugural 747 service, and about 2 weeks before TW put the 747 into
51 dc863 : According to AWST magazine in 1971, many people liked the roominess, a few thought it was too big "almost like the inside of a barn". Some passengers
52 Baroque : Agree. the -100 was not all that flexible, it was the -200 that really made a difference.
53 Ltbewr : When the 747 and it's closest competitor the DC-10 were announced, it included how coast to coast travel could be done for $99 and by the early 1980's
54 BN747 : As I recall it, with it's anticipation... almost half world knew it's name before it emerged from rollout. Today asmost here know, many (particularly
55 bjorn14 : As a 10-year old, when the 747 came out I thought it was UGL-EE it didn't even look like an airplane. But it has grown on me...it's not my favorite ai
56 Viscount724 : That was probably more likely on early 747-100s ordered with lower-deck galleys, like UA's 747-100s.
57 dc863 : It was. I believe the airlines affected were PA, TW, and CO. The more experienced crews went for the narrow bodies. PA had a long learning curve on h
58 DocLightning : I don't think there's anyone alive today who wouldn't recognize a 747, even if they didn't know what it was called. Just about every living human has
59 767er : BOAC delayed introduction of the 747-100 due to a pilots strike that last almost a year. It was a blessing in disguise for BOAC as they were able to
60 SSTsomeday : it's difficult for me to be objective regarding the impact when the 747 came out. I only know that I was mesmerized, enthralled, infatuated - and when
61 Post contains images PanAm788 : So true. I remember in middle school once, I had a notebook with a picture of a 757 on the cover, and my teacher comes over and says "Ooh is that a 7
62 Post contains images gr8circle : Haha...I remember I was a small kid in BOM the day the first AI 747 arrived in Apr 1971.....I subsequently flew on this plane in May 1972 (my first 74
63 Post contains images Baroque : Let me introduce you to about 80 million Jawanese for a start and then ........
64 Post contains links and images Viscount724 : And the pedestrian tunnel between the original YYZ T1 (foreground in photo below) and T2 (background), both now gone. View Large View MediumPhoto ©
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Big Is WN Now In Relation To All The Majors? posted Mon Nov 19 2001 08:15:47 by SEA nw DC10
DC-10 To MD-11---how Big Of A Stretch? posted Thu Dec 2 1999 03:25:44 by FLY777UAL
How Much Of Airbus' Success Is Down To Leahy? posted Wed Jan 30 2008 16:13:41 by Virgin747LGW
What Was You First Impression Of The 747 posted Sat Aug 23 2003 03:54:19 by 747400sp
How Loud Was The Original 747 posted Wed Aug 20 2003 20:38:49 by 747400sp
How Big Is The A330 Compared To Say The 747 posted Thu Sep 6 2001 09:25:04 by BA-747
The Legacy Of The 747 posted Thu Jan 7 2010 01:20:47 by Propilot83
What Has Come Of The 747-800? posted Sat Jun 6 2009 17:07:47 by SDQ777
The Faces Of The 747 posted Sun Nov 16 2008 22:04:59 by Ovrpowrd727
Any Plans Of KLM Retiring The 747's After AF? posted Fri May 30 2008 08:52:21 by SWISSER