Unless I'm mistaken, that means the largest aircraft now in production is the B777-9.

When was the last time the largest aircraft being built was a twin? Must've been the early days of aviation...

Do you think we might see a revival? Maybe the 747-9 MAX?

Ziyulu wrote:

Do you think we might see a revival? Maybe the 747-9 MAX?

Lol I wish. But we all know it’s not happening.

Ziyulu wrote:

Do you think we might see a revival? Maybe the 747-9 MAX?

The -8 was the revival.

Boeing757100 wrote:

Heinkel wrote:

The track record of the B747 is far from being perfect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_hull_losses

61 hull losses (4% of the production), 3,846 fatalities.

The 777 has a better track record, I presume. Eight hull losses (0.47% of the production), 541 fatalities.

So I really can't see a significant safety advantage of the 747.

I kind of disagree here because when the early generation 747s entered service, aviation back then was nowhere near as robust as it is now, as literally most 1st generation jets (707, DC8, DC9, etc) were pretty unsafe.

Even still, very few of the 747 crashes were caused by design defect. The 777 was introduced at a time where aviation safety was going through a lot more reform than in the 60s and 70s.

I also don’t see how non-design related accidents in civilian sector would sway the military in favor of a twin over a 747. I don’t mean to demean your post or anything, I just disagree a bit.

Agree with you. Raw hull losses is really misleading. For one thing, the number of cycles flown has to be considered, so hull losses per cycles flown and per km need to be brought into the calculation.

Must not have been a dry in the house last night when she rolled out. A toast to the once and always Queen of the Skies.

It's gone. The manufacturing supply chain is broken and the started to dismantle the assembly line already.

Heinkel wrote:

Canuck600 wrote:

The planes that transport the president of the United States shouldn't be a showcase for bleeding edge technology, the are meant to transport him safely & reliably so that's why they go for aircraft with a proven track record & the redundancy of 4 engines.

Does that mean, the later / newer Boeing aircraft have not a proven track record and can't transport people safely and reliably?

We were told, that two engines are good enough for ordinary people. For the potus four engines are a requirement?

The track record of the B747 is far from being perfect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_hull_losses

61 hull losses (4% of the production), 3,846 fatalities.

The 777 has a better track record, I presume. Eight hull losses (0.47% of the production), 541 fatalities.

So I really can't see a significant safety advantage of the 747.

Except we are mainly talking about tne old -100/200 series here. The 757/767-tech -400 and 2000's-modernized -8 have an excellent safety record.

btfarrwm wrote:

BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:

Am I right in thinking this is also the last quad jet that will likely ever be produced? I can’t think of anything else in production right now. Commercial or otherwise.

Don't forget about the Boom Overture...

I’ll remember it the day the first one is delivered in an airline’s livery.

sgbroimp wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

Heinkel wrote:

The track record of the B747 is far from being perfect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_hull_losses

61 hull losses (4% of the production), 3,846 fatalities.

The 777 has a better track record, I presume. Eight hull losses (0.47% of the production), 541 fatalities.

So I really can't see a significant safety advantage of the 747.

I kind of disagree here because when the early generation 747s entered service, aviation back then was nowhere near as robust as it is now, as literally most 1st generation jets (707, DC8, DC9, etc) were pretty unsafe.

Even still, very few of the 747 crashes were caused by design defect. The 777 was introduced at a time where aviation safety was going through a lot more reform than in the 60s and 70s.

I also don’t see how non-design related accidents in civilian sector would sway the military in favor of a twin over a 747. I don’t mean to demean your post or anything, I just disagree a bit.

Agree with you. Raw hull losses is really misleading. For one thing, the number of cycles flown has to be considered, so hull losses per cycles flown and per km need to be brought into the calculation.

Quite true. Not to mention the losses to terror attacks -- 747 was a big juicy target, for hijackers and bombs alike. Plus KAL 007 shootdown. And ground collision in Tenerife, destroying two 747 at once. The plane design is clearly not at fault for those losses.

Since then, security rules at airports made the whole hijack and bombing business much more complicated. You no longer hear of "ten perpetrators with assault rifles took over the aircraft mid-air", right?

edmountain wrote:

This was in the 747 production thread but I feel it's worthy of a thread of its own.

The final Boeing 747, number 1574, rolls out of the Everett factory tonight, December 6, 2022. The 747-8F is to be delivered to Atlas Air in 2023.

The first rollout was September 30, 1968, more than 54 years ago--probably before most of us were born.

Seems like a momentous occasion.

https://leehamnews.com/2022/12/06/last- ... y-tonight/

That's a great article. Thank you for sharing it on the forum.

It's a great testament to Joe Sutter that production of the 747 program outlived him.

As a mild aviation enthusiast, I consider myself lucky that I got a chance to visit the production factory in Everett and see a Korean 747-8i (quite possibly the last passenger frame?) being built.

I do hope that Boeing really pull out the stops and give the final 747 and ending of production of the program a fitting send off that it deserves. Iconic is such an overused adjective these days, but it truly applies to such a game changing aircraft in so many ways, from it's distinctive design and helped bring affordable long haul travel to the masses.

mikejepp wrote:

Unless I'm mistaken, that means the largest aircraft now in production is the B777-9.

When was the last time the largest aircraft being built was a twin? Must've been the early days of aviation...

The 777-9X was already the longest....

Avatar2go wrote:

There are numerous technical reasons to select the 747 for AF1. Including all the complex modifications that are made to the airframes.

I highly doubt that anyone was worried about the perception that they are antiques or out of date. That would probably be the last impression they would ever make on a knowledgeable person.

Adding specifics to this, I was reading at one point that the twins did not have the excess electrical generating capacity of the 747, despite being rated for single-engine operation. The very things that make the twins so well-optimized for their purpose make it hard for them to be modified to serve the military needs of the VC-25

End of a wonderful era for a great aircraft for sure.

Twin engine jets are always one engine away from an emergency.

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Twin engine jets are always one engine away from an emergency.

Point of order. ALL jets are one engine away from an emergency. It's not like a quad loses an engine and the flight crew's presence is "meh..."

NameOmitted wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Twin engine jets are always one engine away from an emergency.

Point of order. ALL jets are one engine away from an emergency. It's not like a quad loses an engine and the flight crew's presence is "meh..."

Didn’t BA lose one engine and continue to LHR on one flight? Does anyone remember the details?

Long live the Queen of the Skies! As I said in the main thread, this is arguably the most important and beautiful commerical aircraft.
It's also kind of strange to think that there's now a limited number of 747's in the world, and one that will keep going down.
At least she'll be with us for many years to come, mainly as a freighter.

Ziyulu wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Twin engine jets are always one engine away from an emergency.

Point of order. ALL jets are one engine away from an emergency. It's not like a quad loses an engine and the flight crew's presence is "meh..."

Didn’t BA lose one engine and continue to LHR on one flight? Does anyone remember the details?

BA 262, KLAX-EGLL, shortly after take-off.

BTW, just about modern twins term, an engine shutdown, as non-normal. The G7500 doesn’t even have immediate actions items.

I’ve shut down, IIRC, I’ve shut down 10; all pretty much, “meh”. Much scarier was a hydraulic misting leak in cargo, pinhole, high pressure 5606 fogging the cargo box. No engine down, but nasty problem. Admittedly, all military.

A quad doesn’t have to divert as a twin does to the nearest suitable airport.

Is there a way to know in advance when this frame's first flight will be?

Nothing terribly new, but nice article, worth a read:

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/boeing-747-jumbo-jet-travel/index.html

Personally, it's groundbreaking aircraft like the 707, the 747, and the 777 that made me a Boeing fan, actually, a turbo-fan For me that Boeing is long, long gone. The aerospace engineer in me does appreciate the technology improvements brought about by the 787, as well as by many Airbus products, but it's not the same thing. The kid in me is not impressed.

United787 wrote:

I understand what you are saying but it isn't that the US hasn't produced newer aircraft (757, 767, 777 & 787) since then but that those airplanes don't meet the specific requirements set by the DOD, right? I personally think a 777-9 should be the new AF1. Not sure why that doesn't meet the spec? 4 Engines?

I remember reading that the AF was willing to put POTUS on a two engine plane, the issue is the 777-9 couldn't meet the electrical generation requirements for the widebody AF1. Don't the existing VC-25s have a slightly larger nacelles than the 747-200 its based on? (They do put POTUS on the military version of the 757 from time to time, so its not just the engine out capability they're concerned about.

Noshow wrote:

It's gone. The manufacturing supply chain is broken and the started to dismantle the assembly line already.

Yes, there are some photos of that in the production thread. The tooling was being moved out of the main factory, and will likely be repurposed or scrapped.

Wonder if in 5 years we will have threads saying that Boeing should have maxed the 747-8 and continued production.

Just like QEII, the Queen of the Skies had a remarkable run.

All hail the Queen!

Boeing757100 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

It's gone. The manufacturing supply chain is broken and the started to dismantle the assembly line already.

Yes, there are some photos of that in the production thread. The tooling was being moved out of the main factory, and will likely be repurposed or scrapped.

Wonder if in 5 years we will have threads saying that Boeing should have maxed the 747-8 and continued production.

Plus the vendors are moving on. Some publicly state to having lost money on 747-8 program, and are busy writing off things, closing plants and selling associated real estate.
You cannot have the suppliers "come back" anymore. You would have to create everything anew. Again.

I've never known a world where 747s were not rolling out of the factory. It's going to be a strange one.

I get the economics of it all and completely understand the decision to call it a day, it's just hard to say good bye to a favourite. I mourned the 757 when it's line closed. Now I mourn the 747.

garpd wrote:

I've never known a world where 747s were not rolling out of the factory. It's going to be a strange one.

I get the economics of it all and completely understand the decision to call it a day, it's just hard to say good bye to a favourite. I mourned the 757 when it's line closed. Now I mourn the 747.

Same.

Heinkel wrote:

Canuck600 wrote:

The planes that transport the president of the United States shouldn't be a showcase for bleeding edge technology, the are meant to transport him safely & reliably so that's why they go for aircraft with a proven track record & the redundancy of 4 engines.

Does that mean, the later / newer Boeing aircraft have not a proven track record and can't transport people safely and reliably?

We were told, that two engines are good enough for ordinary people. For the potus four engines are a requirement?

The track record of the B747 is far from being perfect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_hull_losses

61 hull losses (4% of the production), 3,846 fatalities.

The 777 has a better track record, I presume. Eight hull losses (0.47% of the production), 541 fatalities.

So I really can't see a significant safety advantage of the 747.

You're implying that all 61 hull losses were the fault of the aircraft?? I'd hazard a guess that it's less that 10% of that figure. Three incidents alone (Korean, Pan Am, Air India) accounted for almost a third of the fatalities, and all three were the result of hostile actions...

Boeing757100 wrote:

Heinkel wrote:

The track record of the B747 is far from being perfect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_hull_losses

61 hull losses (4% of the production), 3,846 fatalities.

The 777 has a better track record, I presume. Eight hull losses (0.47% of the production), 541 fatalities.

So I really can't see a significant safety advantage of the 747.

I kind of disagree here because when the early generation 747s entered service, aviation back then was nowhere near as robust as it is now, as literally most 1st generation jets (707, DC8, DC9, etc) were pretty unsafe.

Even still, very few of the 747 crashes were caused by design defect. The 777 was introduced at a time where aviation safety was going through a lot more reform than in the 60s and 70s.

I also don’t see how non-design related accidents in civilian sector would sway the military in favor of a twin over a 747. I don’t mean to demean your post or anything, I just disagree a bit.

Agreed, you cannot really hold bombings and runway collisions etc against the design of the plane, remove those type of events unrelated to the aircraft and what is the net number?

My first 747 flight...Pan American TPA-IAD 1984. Yours??

NameOmitted wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Twin engine jets are always one engine away from an emergency.

Point of order. ALL jets are one engine away from an emergency. It's not like a quad loses an engine and the flight crew's presence is "meh..."

The dreaded 7-engine landing...

PennPal wrote:

My first 747 flight...Pan American TPA-IAD 1984. Yours??

Yet to have my first 747 flight. KE and LH, here I come!

PennPal wrote:

My first 747 flight...Pan American TPA-IAD 1984. Yours??

747-400 Combi AMS-SIN, and back, KLM, year 200?
747-400 FRA-PVG, LH, 200?
I think SIN was earlier, but cannot remember for sure.

PennPal wrote:

My first 747 flight...Pan American TPA-IAD 1984. Yours??

1984, BA 742: BNE-SYD-SIN-KUL-AUH-LHR. Same aircraft all the way through. And to think we do it with one stop now!

PennPal wrote:

My first 747 flight...Pan American TPA-IAD 1984. Yours??

2006 LHR-BKK(DMK) on a Thai Airways 747-400

PennPal wrote:

My first 747 flight...Pan American TPA-IAD 1984. Yours??

CO 747-100 or 200, not certain which, ORD/LAX August 1973. Not only my first 747 fight, my first wide body flight.

747-100 (probably) 1983 PanAm, New York to London. I was 6, I don't recall the airports.

UA 747-122 LAX-HNL November 1986

I remember walking to school and seeing 747s on approach.

The sky is a far less interesting place without them.

The 747 was the first aircraft type I ever learnt and I am so thankfu that I got to see them being built.

We all new this day was coming real soon and now it's here. When long term operators such as BA and JAL didn't order the -8i it was clear that it's days as a passenger airliner were numbered.
I wish things were different but to be honest the -81 didn't have enough to make it worthwhile. Too close to the 77W to make up for it's higher costs and too far from the A380 to be a viable alternative.


It's an interesting time for freighter production to close. With the loss of several Antonov's the 747s ability to move outsized cargo is rather useful.
Not saying hat Boeing should keep the line open. They shouldn't I just think that it's an interesting note.

C182driver wrote:

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

End of an era

It almost feels like someone should be turning out the lights in the building as it rolls out...

This building was built for the 747 right?
Is the first time that there's not been a 747 in there?

PennPal wrote:

My first 747 flight...Pan American TPA-IAD 1984. Yours??

1986 Sabena 747-100 OO-SGB ATL-LGW operating for British Caledonian.

Metchalus wrote:

C182driver wrote:

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

End of an era

It almost feels like someone should be turning out the lights in the building as it rolls out...

This building was built for the 747 right?
Is the first time that there's not been a 747 in there?

Correct on the first question, and I'd guess 'yes' on your second.

NameOmitted wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Twin engine jets are always one engine away from an emergency.

Point of order. ALL jets are one engine away from an emergency. It's not like a quad loses an engine and the flight crew's presence is "meh..."

I’m thinking back to the BA 747 leaving the US that lost an engine shortly after takeoff. It continued without further incident to London. So I’m guessing this is a company by company decision.

PennPal wrote:

My first 747 flight...Pan American TPA-IAD 1984. Yours??

1987 Northwest Airlines 747-200 MSP-SFO-NRT, then 757-200 to Osaka.

USAirKid wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Twin engine jets are always one engine away from an emergency.

Point of order. ALL jets are one engine away from an emergency. It's not like a quad loses an engine and the flight crew's presence is "meh..."

I’m thinking back to the BA 747 leaving the US that lost an engine shortly after takeoff. It continued without further incident to London. So I’m guessing this is a company by company decision.

Didn't it have to make an emergency landing? I think in Manchester due to fuel? and the pilots were dismissed? Or am I thinking of something else?

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

End of an era

I saw the Boeing official photos, and they were nostalgic. Saw a couple others, they were cool. But this one is the one that kicked me in the gut.

Why?

There's NOTHING behind her.

The 747 is and always has been my favorite aircraft. Sad? Of course, but more nostalgic than anything else. My dad (passed) helped me draw a Delta 747 which I thought was the coolest thing ever. The love for her only built when I was in high school when the -400 was introduced. (also my favorite 747)

As others have said, sad day? Yes. But there aren't many aircraft, let alone airliers, that have had the undisputed run that the Queen of the Skies has had.

But for sure, can't say I will miss her yet. The pax versions have a few years left and the freighters have only knows how long they will fly. I may be long gone before the last one makes her final fly by. But if I am, I will be damned sure to be watching it.

Long live the undisputed Queen of the Skies!!!

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

Point of order. ALL jets are one engine away from an emergency. It's not like a quad loses an engine and the flight crew's presence is "meh..."

Didn’t BA lose one engine and continue to LHR on one flight? Does anyone remember the details?

BA 262, KLAX-EGLL, shortly after take-off.

268, not 262.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_A ... Flight_268

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Twin engine jets are always one engine away from an emergency.

All airplanes are one engine away from an emergency. There has never been a crash due to an engine failure in ETOPS operation.

I hate to see this too, but all models get to this point. The 707, 727, and 757 were awesome too. Time moves on.

nz2 wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

Heinkel wrote:

The track record of the B747 is far from being perfect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_hull_losses

61 hull losses (4% of the production), 3,846 fatalities.

The 777 has a better track record, I presume. Eight hull losses (0.47% of the production), 541 fatalities.

So I really can't see a significant safety advantage of the 747.

I kind of disagree here because when the early generation 747s entered service, aviation back then was nowhere near as robust as it is now, as literally most 1st generation jets (707, DC8, DC9, etc) were pretty unsafe.

Even still, very few of the 747 crashes were caused by design defect. The 777 was introduced at a time where aviation safety was going through a lot more reform than in the 60s and 70s.

I also don’t see how non-design related accidents in civilian sector would sway the military in favor of a twin over a 747. I don’t mean to demean your post or anything, I just disagree a bit.

Agreed, you cannot really hold bombings and runway collisions etc against the design of the plane, remove those type of events unrelated to the aircraft and what is the net number?

Not very many, UA811, CI358/ El AL, and TW800 are the only ones I can think of where the design was implicated in some meaningful way (pylons, cargo door). The 747 took a beating in some incidents though that other planes may not have come out of... CI006, UA811, NW85.