Talk:Boeing 747

Stuff needed:

When was it first introduced?
Variations, production history.
Notable variations (Air Force One, Space Shuttle carrier. . . others?)

Much of the material recently added is from; http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_facts.html

Do we have permission to use this under terms of our license (GFDL)? --mav

EricD, I am just wondering why you removed that mass of interesting facts about the 747. I didn't put that stuff onto the page but it's a pity to lose it. Was it not in the public domain?
Just for your interest I took the pic of the JAL 747 at Heathrow. I hope you like it. I always provide a link to a larger pic (800 pixels wide). There is another of my pics at the top of the Paris page.
Best Wishes, Arpingstone 23:19 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Nice photo. I believe these facts come from Boeing and yes it might be a copyright infrigement. What do you think about sending a mail to Boeing ? I think they will accept. Ericd

Or just re-write them. This has several advantages: (a) no copyright problem, (b) can be more concise, and (c) provides the opportunity to use some editorial discretion - for example:

During test flights, a Boeing 747 almost reached the speed of sound while in a dive.

can be left out - this is true of just about any high-subsonic aircraft. It's routine to test this stuff.

The 747-400 can carry more than 57,000 gallons of fuel (215,745 L), making it possible to fly extremely long routes, such as San Francisco to Sydney, Australia.

can become:

The 747-400 carries over 215,000 litres of fuel, making it possible to fly long routes, such as San Francisco to Sydney.

(Gallons is a very bad measure to use in an aviation article - not only is it an obsolete measure outside the USA, but there is the perennial confusion between Imperial and US gallons, and aircrew tend not to use volumetric measures of fuel anyway - in the US it's normally pounds of fuel that matters. Secondly, SF to Sydney is no longer a "very" long route. It's aircraft like the A340 and the 777 that fly very long range routes.)

and the several dot points on parts can be neatly trimmed down to:

A 747-400 includes 66 tonnes of aluminum, has six million parts (half of them fasteners), 8km of tubing, and 274km of electrical wire.

There are several uses of statute miles too: air and marine distances should always be in nautical miles or kilometres. Statute miles are only for cars. Tannin 00:14 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

The only problem with using nautical miles, is that most people (people that are not diehard aviation fans, or pilots) can not relate to what these terms (nautical miles, pounds of fuel, etc.) mean. Also, a specification can not be copyrighted. It is like saying that a certain car can go 0 to 60 in so many seconds. Is everybody who republishes this information violating the law?

I don't agree with the class of airliners known as jumbo jets bit. A jumbo is a 747, end of story. I don't know what the A380 will do to the terminology, but today, referring to a plane other than a 747 as a jumbo is just plain wrong. Markonen 17:15, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Agree. This is a glaring error. I am going to change it.

In the early days of wide-body jets, Jumbo-Jet was a more general term than it has become. Once the 747 was rolled out, it became THE Jumbo-Jet, and the term tended not to get used for other planes. But the fact remains that the term was general before that. Graham 02:01, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I found out a bit more about this. The media was using the term jumbo jet in the 60s for all wide-body types. When the 747 was rolled out, Boeing went out of their way to try and prevent the media applying the term to the 747. I'm not sure why they were so keen to avoid the term, but the press packs at the time were at pains to avoid the term, and the press instructed not to use it. Of course in time this effort was a waste of time. I've added a para to the trivia section to mention this. Graham 00:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed most of the photos, on the basis that they all looked pretty much the same, and do nothing but make the page slow to load. I realise that they each represented slightly different versions of the jet, but so what, the differences are very minor. The one I left in was a random choice - if you prefer another please change it, but I do strongly feel that multiple images are unnecessary here.

In addition, does the list of airlines really belong here? Most major airlines use 747s. Graham 02:01, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed that the list of airlines is irrelevant and just looks like padding. For comment on removal of my two pics see User talk:GRAHAMUK.

Adrian Pingstone 10:26, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Adrian, I think linking to the other pics is a good idea - in fact I almost did that myself, but got called away and didn't have time. The small differences that you mention are very small however, I don't think they are noticeable except once they're pointed out, or unless you're a 747 anorak, but other may disagree! I think had the images shown different aspects of the aircraft, rather than all showing more or less similar views, it would have been harder to make the case. Graham 21:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I completely accept your argument on the three identical views, I'll do a link to the other two. I'll also remove the airlines list, it just looks like padding. Your info about cameras was very helpful, thanks for giving up the time to write it.

Adrian Pingstone 09:08, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see another photo has crept back onto the page ;-)

Is the download link for a flight sim model of the 747 appropriate here? I don't think so. For one, not everyone is using windows, for another, this article is about the actual plane, not the flight sim, or the flight sim model of the plane. It just doesn't seem as if it should be here. Graham 00:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I changed the New York to Tokyo range reference to Hong Kong, as I recall United Airlines used to fly that route, and it's a lot more dramatic than the relatively short JFK-NRT flight.