Jumbo: The plane that changed the word

veetwin

Documentary on the 747 starting on BBC2 at 9pm tonight. Could be worth a watch.

ednwireland

ha twin spool engine theres your problem

Kaizersoze81

Very interesting program.

EI-DOR

It was very interesting indeed. Great documentary!

Stovepipe

The same old line gets repeated; the Jumbo could have broken Boeing. Horse**** of the highest order.Boeing, then and now, was up to it's armpits in the US military with the B52,the KC-135, the Chinook and so on and the war in Vietnam was at it's height and Boeing was making a mint out of the US government. Boeing was seriously rich and had massive pull on Capitol Hill. What they built into the 747 was what they had learnt from the B-47 and B52 and the very successful B707/727/737 series.A lot of existing technology such as multiple hydraulic systems, Mach trim, spoilers, inboard and outboard ailerons, multi-wheel bogies, redundant control systems, fire suppression, pressurisation and a myriad of other items were simply copied directly into the new aircraft. It was a stunning achievement but it was based on a very conservative growth programme, based on older and existing technologies. Probably the most difficult part of the aircraft to actually build was the junction between the raised head and the rest of the hull. Now that was a genuine achievement and rightly praiseworthy, although it did give trouble later. The engines were P and W's problem and later went on to be widely used outside the 747, but Boeing deserve credit for sticking with them.
regards
Stovepipe

Patrickheg

Stovepipe wrote: »

The same old line gets repeated; the Jumbo could have broken Boeing. Horse**** of the highest order.Boeing, then and now, was up to it's armpits in the US military with the B52,the KC-135, the Chinook and so on and the war in Vietnam was at it's height and Boeing was making a mint out of the US government. Boeing was seriously rich and had massive pull on Capitol Hill. What they built into the 747 was what they had learnt from the B-47 and B52 and the very successful B707/727/737 series.A lot of existing technology such as multiple hydraulic systems, Mach trim, spoilers, inboard and outboard ailerons, multi-wheel bogies, redundant control systems, fire suppression, pressurisation and a myriad of other items were simply copied directly into the new aircraft. It was a stunning achievement but it was based on a very conservative growth programme, based on older and existing technologies. Probably the most difficult part of the aircraft to actually build was the junction between the raised head and the rest of the hull. Now that was a genuine achievement and rightly praiseworthy, although it did give trouble later. The engines were P and W's problem and later went on to be widely used outside the 747, but Boeing deserve credit for sticking with them.
regards
Stovepipe

I would disagree. Boeing as a company was in free fall at the time after the failure of their 2707 Concorde rival and huge scale back of military contracts. They couldn't afford another huge money pit failure which the 747 could very easily have been. Unlike many of their previous money pits they had the US government to bail them out. Not the case with the 747.

The city of Seattle was in free fall because of it. Don't forget that it's different now to back then, boeing weren't the only US plane maker(commercial and military) as it was pre all their mergers so government bailout wouldn't be as critical to the US as it would be now.

Here is a famous billboard that was about at the time about how how much trouble boeing were in

Billboard reading "Will the Last Person Leaving SEATTLE -- Turn Out the Lights" appears near Sea-Tac International Airport on April 16, 1971.
HistoryLink.org Essay 1287 : Printer-Friendly Format

On April 16, 1971, real-estate agents Bob McDonald and Jim Youngren put the words, "Will the last person leaving SEATTLE -- Turn out the lights" on a billboard at S 167th Street and Pacific Highway S near Sea-Tac International Airport. The two realtors, who work for Henry Broderick, Inc., put up the billboard as a humorous response to pessimism generated by the national aerospace industry's nosedive, known locally as the Boeing Bust.

A Sign of the Times

The recession came as The Boeing Company, the region's largest employer, went from a peak of 100,800 employees in 1967 to a low of 38,690 in April 1971. McDonald said their out-of-town clients "were amazed that Seattle wasn’t a ghost town with weeds growing in the streets. We wanted to counteract that attitude with a little humor" (Duncan). They chose a billboard site that they inevitably passed after picking up their clients at the airport. The men rented the billboard for $160.

The Boeing recovery began slowly: By October 1971 the firm employed 53,300 workers.

Regards
P heg JR III

crazygeryy

Excellent documentary. Talk about a gamble jeez!

Stovepipe

Cyclical hiring and firing of workers happened continuously in the US aircraft building industry and continues to this day. Every aircraft manufacturer in the States hires on the basis that jobs are not for life and employees will be furloughed or fired as things rise or fall and every employee knows it. Boeing in 1969 was raking it in, from it's military contracts and it's existing jet sales and support and was never going to fail or be allowed to fail. At one time, Washington State wanted to impose a tax on every aircraft sold (as the potential for sales tax on a jet was huge) and Boeing threatened to uproot and move out of the State. Washington State backed down, naturally, after furious lobbying by Boeing in Congress....it was a great engineering project and led to a great aircraft and an awesome assembly building but do not let the fact that Boeing is as cynical as they come get in the way.

regards
Stovepipe

cml387

Boeing might have maintained it's future as a military supplier but the 747 gamble could have cost Boeing its commercial arm.

Lockheed, Convair and Douglas all had successful military contracts, that didn't save their commercial business.

L1011

Bit hagiographic towards the end of the documentary I thought.

beauf

hagiographic - new word for the day....

Great program. 3 pilots 15 Hostess, all I could thing of was catch me if you can.

Stovepipe

We were just talking about 747s in work the other day and contrasted the consumption of fuel between the 747 and the 330. You'd be talking about an average of 90 tons for a 747 and 55 tons for a 330 to go to New York. can't beat fuel figures like that!

regards
S

beauf

Is there not about 100 people difference in the capacity?

robbieVan

Currently in Vancouver and popped down to Seattle to check out the flight museum and saw that prototype 747, concorde, old air force one, if anyone ever gets a chance to go to Seattle it is well worth checking out the museum, I walked around for ages just taking in everything, nearly too much to see

/

TPMP

Anybody know why theres a 747 in Shannon? Its connected to a gate so I assume its a passenger plane rather then cargo. Cant quite make out its livery.

Nevermind, just discovered its Cargolux and will be headed for Maastrict later.

Comhrá

Seems it had a fire scare and diverted into Snn:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/cargo-plane-makes-emergency-landing-at-shannon-after-report-of-fire-625056.html