Talk:Boeing 747/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Factual error?

In Background and initial design it says that Malcolm Stamper was Boeing's President in 1966 (when quoting Juan Trippe - "...a great weapon for peace..." etc). But a bit later in Production plant it says that Stamper was head of the company's turbine division around that time. Also, in the article on Malcolm T. Stamper, it says he was Boeing President from 1972 to 1985. Do we need to correct this, and if so how best to do it? --JCG33 (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Good observation; correction made. Archtransit (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Boeing references

I replaced some of them. Less than about 25% are Boeing references. Some of them are good sources, such as technical specifications and measurements. Use of other sources is less definitives. As far as references used to confirm opinions, a lot of them are not Boeing references. Per SandyGeorgia, FA deputy director, please discuss here if you have something to add. Archtransit (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Crashes

Per SandyGeorgia, trying to make it prose even though other aircraft articles don't do it this way. Let's see how this works. Archtransit (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Max speed with wind

Does anyone know what the maximum speed wind assisted is? Its quite common to break 1,000km/hr when flying across the pacific ocean because of the high wind speed you are still just below the sound barrier.--Dacium (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The max design speed is .92, so that plus max wind gives you your result. I recently saw 1100+km/h on my way to Europe with a 150 km/h tail wind. Given 977 km/h max speed and 250 km/h wind, which is probably the maximum for the jetstream, you get 1227. Mgw89 (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Wright Brothers

I believe it was the fuselage, not the wingspan. Furthermore, I think it needs to be properly cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllStarZ (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wright Brothers first powered flight was 120'. Both the wingspan and length of the first 747-100 is longer than that. I notice that the dimensions of the various variants of 747 have been properly cited.--PremKudvaTalk 10:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mach speed

In the introductory section of the article it says that Mach 0.85 is 913km/h. Later on (under Background) it says that Mach 0.75 is 919 km/h. I'm pretty sure the second one is right and the first is wrong (because the Boeing source is wrong), but I don't know whether the top speed is Mach 0.85 or is 913 km/h.Fat Red (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually Mach speed does vary according to altitude, so it is possible that both figures could be closer to right than you think. Such number-crunching isn't my forte, I'll let our resident mathemeticians and aerodynamicists tackle that. - BillCJ (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The Mach 0.85 speed is right. The speed is calculated from that at a cruise altitude of 35,000 feet as listed here. I fixed the Mach 0.75 data. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Layout

'Out of service' and 'Incidents' really need to go above 'Specifications' to match WP:AIR guidelines and the majority of our other articles, I tried but the images are causing problems, they don't look neat as it is (just in those sections). If both of these sections were expanded slightly and one image removed then it should fit better. Just a thought. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

ref name="Boe_storyIV"

The citation associated with "Boe_storyIV" referenced a blacklisted website: www (dot) associatedcontent (dot) com . I did not discover this until I tried to re-insert the citation.

The original citation was:
<ref name="Boe_storyIV">Cox, Joel. [http://www (dot) associatedcontent (dot) com/article/324426/the_boeing_story_part_iv.html "The Boeing Story Part IV"], ''Associated Content'', [[27 July]] [[2007]]. Retrieved: [[17 December]] [[2007]].</ref>

This citation appears to have been removed by User:RoboMaxCyberSem with edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_747&oldid=199054955
--Dan Dassow (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • We should be able to find a replacement for that. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Soviet purchase

According to this, the Soviets wanted to purchase Boeing's book on the criteria that the 747 team used. Can this be included in the article somehow? It seems pretty reflective of how well Boeing planned this, especially when the Soviets sought the 20-year-old book that had no military significance. 156.56.137.46 (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to be directly related to the 747 more to do with the methods of design used by Boeing.MilborneOne (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It was their design guide on the 747. The guide was/is built on with each model. It was not 20 years old at the time. This is mentioned in Joe Sutter's book too. Selling them that book would be selling away company expertise and knowledge. That knowledge could have helped in designing military transports and such. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Verb tense

Yes, the 747 is a jet airplane. But it was the first one ever produced. As someone alluded to in an earlier discussion, the plane exists in the present, but references to its stages of development (including its initial deployment) are in the past. As currently written, this reads very awkwardly. Other possible versions could read:

  • The Boeing 747, sometimes nicknamed the "Jumbo Jet", was the first wide-body commercial airliner ever produced.
  • The Boeing 747, sometimes nicknamed the "Jumbo Jet", is a wide-body commercial airliner, the first ever produced.
  • The Boeing 747, sometimes nicknamed the "Jumbo Jet", is a commercial airliner, and was the first wide-body jet ever produced.

I understand that the first version will be objectionable to many, because someone who goes no further in the article might conclude that 747s no longer exist. But that would be my first instinct. I shall not make any change at this time; I await others' comments. Just please don't say "this is the way that all other similar articles are done". Precedence is significant, but it does not preclude intelligent rational thought for all future generations. Unschool (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just bad grammar! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.205.159 (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that someone has made the change to the first of my proposed versions. I'm cool with this, of course, but am still open to one of the other two versions, if someone objects to the first. Unschool (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The "747" is not exactly "a" jet plane. "747" is a trade name under which a series of jet planes have been marketed. The first in the series was presumably the first wide-body commercial airliner. Aircraft names tend not to identify one specific design, but rather, a series of designs that varies greatly with time and bear some superficial resemblence to one another (e.g., overall size, or engine placement, etc.). Boeing could easily use different names for each design, if it chose to do so. Rahul (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong: A380 delay helped the 747-8 order book

Long delays in production of the Airbus A380 helped the 747-8 order book. Two Airbus customers signed additional 747-8 orders; actually it should say additional A380 orders, somebody did a mistake here two customers cancelled their A380 orders, and several launch customers deferred delivery or considered switching to the 747-8 and 777F aircraft. That was right, but no company changed A380 for 747-8 (nor freighter or Intercontinental) Please see also: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/10/222872/boeing-blames-production-delays-to-airbus-a380-for-sluggish-sales-of-its-747-8i.html Cirrocumulus (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Trivia"

Contrary to popular belief, trivia is not prohibited, nor even depricated, within Wikipedia. What is depricated are trivia sections. What one person sees as mere trivia, another person may recognize as trivia that nonetheless helps to illustrate a point. That the tidbit of information may not be of critical factual importance does not mean that it does not add to the value of the article and interest therein. However, we are encouraged to include such information within the normal prose of the article, as opposed to creating stand-alone sections, for reasons discussed elsewhere.

That the wingspan of the world's first jumbo jet exceeds the flight distance of the world's first flight is not something that a person "must know" about the 747. But it clearly adds perspective to the size of the plane, and as such, adds value to the article. I intend to restore the tidbit, but await comment before doing so. Unschool (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia or not I am not sure it adds any value to the article as I would think that only a few hundred out of the very large number of readers have a clue how long the length of the wright brothers flight was, so would not produce a mental image or comparison with most readers. Dont think the article needs this information more people have seen in real life or images a 747 so already have an idea of the size. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a valid point; part of the reason that I find this a compelling tidbit of information is the visual image that I retain from when the first 747 prototype was rolled out. The local newspaper (Chicago Tribune) article on the 747 contained a visual showing the Wright Flyer's path as it would look if it took off at one end of the 747's wingspan—and then landed on the other wing. You're right, most people lack this visual; if anything, they are more likely to have a visual of the 747's wingspan, and thus, the info might serve more purpose on the article on the Wright Brothers' first flight. Unschool (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Trivia and trivia sections are not prohibited. They should be kept to a minimum however. WP:TRIVIA says "Trivia sections should be avoided." The Wright Brothers length sentence should probably be somewhere else besides the lead, in my opinion. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
But this has nothing to do with Trivia sections; there is no section, ergo, nothing to "minimize". The way you "minimize" trivia sections is specifically what has been done here, i.e., include it within the article's prose. However, I will concur (and previously thought) that the lede might not be the place for this, per WP:WEIGHT. Unschool (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • True for this article. I just wanted to clarify about trivia sections so others won't get the wrong idea and mistakenly run with it. You bringing this up on the talk page was the right thing to do vs back and forth edits. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
It is basically trivial in that the 747's wingspan is the length of the Wright Brothers' first flight; the very same comment was made previously about the H-4 Hercules, the Boeing 707 and numerous other large aircraft. There is really no relationship between the Wrights and the 747 albeit this "shakey do." What next? the 747's engine's were a gazillion times more powerful than the Wright Flyer's engine? Like Orville, 747 captains also wear ties and hats? Just being facetitous, but, the item still doesn't add much to the story of the 747. LOL FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC).
Well, I confess that I was ignorant that this was also true of the 707; that does diminish its significance greatly. But your comment regarding the engines does not strike me as having the same nature; you seem to miss the point. The initial point wasn't about comparing the same parts; that would be simply dull (and quite obvious). A more similar (and, as far as I know, a completely fictitious) example of a comparison would be like this: The native Ohioans, Orville and Wilbur, took their flyer to North Carolina to benefit from the steady winds found on the sand dunes of Kitty Hawk; interestingly, greater winds can be found today sitting on the runway generated from the engines of a 747 shortly before it begins its takeoff run. Yeah, I know, this is ridiculous and awkward (and I would imagine certainly untrue). But the point was not to compare apples and apples, it was comparing a photo of an apple with a list of the nutritional value of the apple. Or something like that:-)
Oh well, I guess I won't be placing that back in. Unschool (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the Spruce Goose?

"The Hughes H-4 Hercules is the largest aircraft by wingspan, but it only flew once." So what? Howard Hughes' masterpiece is a marvel of 1940's aerospace engineering. How is its rightful place in aviation history invalidated by the fact that it only flew once? It certainly shouldn't be written-off, as this sentence seems to insinuate. This should be reworded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.196.164 (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the Spruce Goose never actually saw active service; It would have failed miserably. Yes it does deserve a place in aviation history, I agree on that. Liam.thomas64 (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone See a Problem

"...one of the common large commercial aircraft of the 1960s. First flown commercially in 1970, it held the passenger capacity record for 37 years, until it was surpassed by the Airbus A380." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.224 (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the A380 entered airline service in Oct. 2007. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The other part of the text says "...the 747 was two and a half times the size of the Boeing 707,[8] one of the common large commercial aircraft of the 1960s. First flown commercially in 1970, it...' The 1960s part refers to the 707. Perhaps there was some confusion that the earlier sentence was referring to the 747, but it is actually a comparison. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah! Thought it was something about the time span. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thumbnail positions

A featured article, but photos are just piled at right border. Would be nice to have one photo right, one left, right left and so.--Kozuch (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There has been a couple images on the left. Today I moved a couple more to the left to reduce bunching/crowding. I don't think the formatting will be as good with the short sections in the article and a lot of images on the left. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

First 747 flown commercially?

Regarding this paragraph:

"Upon its retirement from service, the first 747 flown commercially was dis-assembled and shipped to Mokpo, South Korea where it was re-assembled and converted into a restaurant. It was originally flown commercially by Pan Am. While it was the first 747 flown commercially, it was actually the second to be built. As of April 2009, the 747 restaurant is closed and abandoned."

- I thought the first 747 flown commerically was the Clipper Victor which was later destroyed in the Tenerife Disaster? The articles for Clipper Victor and the Tenerife Disaster support this? The linked article which supports the detail of the airplane restauarnt seems a bit light on detail, so I don't know how accurate this paragraph is.

I think you're right, although there is a nuance: There was one that should have been the first, labeled Clipper Young America. Because it had maintenance issues, they used Clipper Victor and quickly repainted it because they wanted that name on the first 747 flight. I'd have to go check the tail numbers. The Clipper Victor that crashed in Tenerife was N736PA. I don't know the other one, but I can look for a ref. Apparently a 747SP N533PA got the name Clipper Young America in 1976.[1] Ok, N735PA, MSN 19642 was called Young America in 1970, and N736PA (the Tenerife Aircraft) was MSN 19643.[2] Interestingly, N731PA-N734PA have lower MSNs, I guess they were delivered later because of the engine delay, which caused them to sit around before the JT9Ds were ready. The article about the restaurant probably refers to N735PA, I'll see if I can sort it out. Mgw89 (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I dug around a bit, the restaurant one is N747PA, MSN19639, initially called Clipper America, later Clipper Juan Trippe. It was involved in Pan Am Flight 845, where it says it was the secong built and first to enter service. Other sources have N736PA as the first in service.[3] I say we could reword the sentence because we have conflicting data. Mgw89 (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea: perhaps N747PA was the first commercial 747 built, but not the first one flown commercially. Mgw89 (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of WP:cite template

Recently I was attempting upgrades to this article, as I have done so to many others in order to bring them up to a common standard of quality and methord, involving switching out some of the plain text references and placing them onto proper {{cite}} templates. This was almost instantly reverted as "not necessary". I agree, it isn't necessary, most acts of improvement or polishing aren't actually necessary at all, they still improve and augment the quality of the article being overhauled. So I don't consider this reason alone valid to stand in the way of such implimentations; as such I wish to enquire into opinions and views upon this conversion, to see if there is any particular indepth reasoning to not adopt the more common (not to mention being quicker to use and easier to understand) referencing templates. Thoughts? Kyteto (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This article passed Featured Article review with consistent manual formatting references in 2007. It does not seem worth the effort to change. However, if there is a Consensus to change, then we will. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sutter Twist

Maybe someone should find a source and write about the Sutter Twist. It was a hurdle in the development and was fixed by twisting the outboard wing. IluvSD40s (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is talked about here: [1] SynergyStar (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Article's owner?

Someone could tell me which user has a valid ownership tittle over this article? This is a free english encyclopedia, if any user didn't accept new valid contributions, and keeps reverting them, I will suggest to a sysop to full protect this article, so we can discuss any change. It's a shame that some users still are acting like that. 213.80.128.38 (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has ownership of any article on Wikipedia. If your contribution has been reverted then somebody else disagrees with it and if you are not happy then you should come here to discuss it. If you get consensus from other editors for the change then it can be added, if you dont then you cant include it. So please assume good faith on other editors as I see no issues of ownership. Can I suggest you just explain what you want to add and gain comments from other editors. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed your on-ground -100 image 1 time since there are multiple -100 images in the article already. There's no need for these comments. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
If I may add, I am not a regular editor of this article but I do revert vandalism when I see it. The close patrolling by many editors (that may well include reverting) is necessary as this is a Featured Article, the highest quality status awarded to articles on Wikipedia. If the quality falls below that of the reviewed version then the article can be subjected to featured article review and possibly lose its status. This involves another long process to improve the article back to its original version (or better). Hope that explains why a close watch is needed and that it dispels any notions of ownership, a policy that the experienced editors that watch this article will be very aware of. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Also note the the provenance of the Avianca image that was added and removed is a bit iffy and has been put up for deletion review on commons so should not be used until that is resolved. MilborneOne (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sub-Sections for -100B

Hi Fnlayson, Why the 747-100B does not require a separate sub-section? See the B747-400, we have -400, -400M, -400ER, -400F, -400ERF, -400BCF, etc. these are not variants but developments of the same variant "the -400 series aircraft". Also, there is a sub-section for the 747-100SR, why is that and not the -300SR or the -100BSR. Like the 747-SP, I suggest that a separate section for the "747SR" be introduced under which the versions -100SR (or as was called by Boeing the 747SR-100), the 747-100BSR, the 747-100BSRSUD and the 747-300SR are described.

Here are the variants and versions of the early 747s (Classic):

747-100 747-100SR 747-100F 747-100SF 747-100B 747-100BSR 747-100BSR SUD

747-200B 747-200M (-200B Combi) 747-200C 747-200F 747-200SF

747-300 747-300SR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malshayef (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There are subsections for the -100SR and -100B now. The Variants section now has these subsections:
  • 747-100,
    • 747SR
    • 747-100B
  • 747SP
  • 747-200
  • 747-300
  • 747-400
    • 747 LCF Dreamlifter
  • 747-8
  • Government, military and other variants
  • Undeveloped variants
These subsections appear to be about the right length. Not too short or so long to need more subsections. Maybe shorten the text some here and there. The Gov/military and Undeveloped subsections maybe could be shortened some. -fnlayson (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The -400/500X picture

I appreciate the work of Altair78 in trying to create a picture showing the -400 with an impression of the -500X model. However, it's not an especially accurate image. It shows roughly the same wing plan, same sweep angle, same dihedral, and same engines, along with the same horizontal and vertical stabilizers. All of these are fundamentally different on the 500X. The upper Type A door is also in the wrong spot, as is Door 2 (L&R). I know this because I've been researching the 500X and 600X a lot lately. Again, it's a nice bit of image manipulation, and the stretch shown is in roughly the right spot. Granting that, though, it's still not a close approximation of the appearance of the 500X, as it appeared in its final design (called Model 763-224, and illustrated in Norris's "Giant Jetliners"). As such, it probably should not be included in this article. I'm not trying to be mean, just accurate. Sacxpert (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the details regarding the -500X picture, it's been replaced with a more general one. SynergyStar (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
There's something wrong with that image, methinks. It displays in Firefox, but in IE8, comes up as the "red x" image placeholder. That's why I deleted the link to it on the page. Now I see that it works in Firefox, but not all of us use Firefox. Sacxpert (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

747 Classic seperate article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: See Split 747 Classic for details.

I have noticed that both the 747-400 and the 747-8 have there own articles. I think that it would be a good idea to make a seperate artical for the 747 classics as there is a lot more information about the classics than shown in the main 747 article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holden yo (talk • contribs) 01:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This is my plan in the next few days. Besides, this article is already over 100Kb in size. (Malshayef (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC))
  • The problem is that the consensus here is against this split. See section #Split 747 Classic further down the page. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Deleted and then zapped to smithereen! @Spartan7W: Please consult the regular editors on the discussion page in future before you do something stupid. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CC-177

Is CC-177 bigger/wider/heavier than a 747 ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  • This is probably not the best place to ask general questions but you could just compare the specifications in each article to get an answer. MilborneOne (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Why not just look at the technical specs on the one aircraft, the technical specs on this one (they've both got a section with that information listed), and then you'll have your answer. I just did it, took less time than it took to tap out this reponse. Kyteto (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Stacked containers?

"This meant that it would be possible to support a 2-wide 2-high stack of [8-foot] containers..."

The 747 was never expected to carry containers stacked two high, was it? Tim Zukas (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

New York to Tehran?

"The Tehran–New York route when launched was the longest non-stop commercial flight in the world."

Did they actually launch it? If they did, was it before Pan Am's NY-Tokyo nonstop? Tim Zukas (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Turns out Iran Air was flying JFK-THR nonstop (eastward only) in summer 1976; PA's JFK-TYO nonstop started in April-- so no conclusion yet. Tim Zukas (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Absence of alt text

I've been opening up Featured Articles lately, and see if they include alternative text for their media. I'm disappointed that this article barely has an alt text. Roughly 30 of the images are missing alt text and I've done some editing regarding the matter yesterday (AEST). Can someone who is expert at writing alt text please come and fix this up. Cheers --Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 09:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the nominator of this article for FA status needs to visit WP:ACCESSIBILITY.

Alt text definitely needs to be added. However having alt text in captions is not a hard requirement for FA status per Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I added alternate text for two images, but removed "alt =" from all of the others since the captions were no longer visable. It is important to make this article accessible to the visually impared. However, providing alternate text is not as critical when the images already have descriptive captions. Alternate text should not simply parrot captions, but should provide a visual sense of the image.--Dan Dassow (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The alt text is absolutely unnecessary, not required for reviews, and in most cases, is vacuous and obvious, and detracts from the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC).
I strongly disagree with alt text is absolutely unnecessary – that's because you're not visually impaired, are you? Alt text are there out of consideration for disabled readers, see WP:ALT. Furthermore, Featured Articles represent the best of Wikipedia's works; e.i they should be close to perfect. Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 01:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • How does alt text actually detract from the article? The text does not show up in normal viewing. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Alt text is helpful for sight-impaired people who access Wikipedia via text readers. It's meant to be 'obvious' as it describes images for people who can't see them. Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The trouble is much of the alt text is either duplicates of the captions - which isn't really helpful , or rediculously verbous as in: "|alt=Inside Boeing's cavernous Everett Factory, where airplane sections are readied for mating with other major components. Above are the cranes which ferry heavy and outsize parts of the 747" - which is absurdly OTT and arguably NPOV - and doesn't do the job that alt text should do - ie descibe the image in context for screen readers.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
While I agree that alt text is useful for vision-impaired users, a modicum of attention to the writing must be present. FWiW, the original argument was that it was necessary for feature articles which is not the case, but an acceptance that it is useful if properly worded for the user who needs it. When I said that it detracts from the article, I was strictly speaking of the writing style involved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC).

Origin of the term: "Jumbo Jet"

Despite the "informal" appropriation of the term, "Jumbo Jet" was a creation of the Boeing marketing division on the launch of the B.747, see: Company history and the first popular use of the term, Popular Science and definitively, Robert J. Serling's account of the development of the 747 Legend & Legacy: The Story of Boeing and its People (1992), p. 293. The derivation of the term from a marketing exercise to a commonly-used term approximates that of the earlier "Jetliner" terminology which actually was the official name of the Avro C.102 Jetliner but like many other words/terms in transition, was purloined to attach to all jet airliners of the period, although the terminology is now arcane. The Boeing Company actually tried out a number of descriptive terms before settling on "Jumbo Jet", see: Douglas Ingells' 1970 747: Story of the Boeing Super Jet which constantly refers to the 747 as the "Super Jet". Regardless, "jumbo jet" is a PR person's god-send as it is now used for every and any aircraft, despite its original origins. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC).

That is exactly what I have said. I think the sentence, as it was running, was misleading. The words "...its original nickname..." (instead of "the nickname") You have found, now, should clarify the true situation. It is also a good idea to let my "Clarify" request in the source code, for a while. The discussion on the article Jumbo jet shows that there are quite a lot of people who could be confused, otherwise. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Nope, the term "Jumbo Jet" is linked to the Boeing 747, any other use of "jumbo jet" is a derivation and as indicated above, a misappropriation of a marketing label. It's like saying "Scotch tape" which was originally a 3M trademarked name, that is now slapped onto any adhesive tape. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC).
How one may ever interpret it, the current formulation ("often referred to by its original nickname, Jumbo Jet") should satisfy any demands, both that of the party asserting Jumbo Jet was a misappropriated marketing label and that of the party saying it wasn`t. There is clearly stated that Jumbo Jet is the original nickname, and through the use of the adjective original, it is also clear that it, in the meanwhile, has got necessary to mention that. A good example of a neutral formulation. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
We are now dancing on the head of a pin; I am satisfied that the subtle change qualifies the use of the term and the note you have left in the edit text can remain with a "pointer" to this discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

Reference link updates

Hi all, the following are updates for the recently tagged expired links:

52
http://web.archive.org/web/20090331202213/http://www.janes.com/transport/news/jawa/jawa001031_n_1.shtml

54
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1997/06/11/3750/jumbo-challenge.html

65
Davis, R.E.G. (1990). Delta - An Airline and Its Aircraft: The Illustrated History of a Major U.S. Airline and the People Who Made It. Paladwr Press, p. 96.

72 (same ref as 120)
http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sample_articles/sample_articles/owners_guide.pdf

113
Norris & Wagner, p. 71

120 (same ref as 72)
http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sample_articles/sample_articles/owners_guide.pdf

131
<ref name=plan/>; also Jenkins, p. 97

144
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q1/nr_040107h.html

149/152
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1080

155
http://web.archive.org/web/20090410042129/http://flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRHeft06/FRH0601/FR0601f.htm

179
http://web.archive.org/web/20090410050853/http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frheft/FRH0205/FR0205c.htm

186
http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/boeing-747-121

191
http://www.jumbostay.com/DynPage.aspx?id=73030&mn1=5293&mn2=5301

193
http://web.archive.org/web/20080224015351/http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Drag/Page4.html

Best, SynergyStar (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Split 747 Classic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Discussion closed per no clear consensus and thread starter deserves a minnow for his effort.

We need to split article to Boeing 747 Classic, due to make consistent with Boeing 737 Classic. If we don't do splitting, then we should rename article to Boeing 747 Classic. Thank you! --B767-500 (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose cant see anything to split, nothing wrong with the current articles, this article on the main Boeing 747 production and development and the others on the SP, -400, and -8 cant see any reason to change. MilborneOne (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Boeing 747 classic does not seem to be that heavily used a name, unlike 737 Classic.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Neutral Maybe an article to cover the -200 and -300 versions. But the main 747 needs to cover the -100 versions. The 737 having a "737 classic" article is not a good reason for another unrelated model doing the same. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Which I give reason above. --B767-500 (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with you, for all the reasons previously stated above. -Compdude123 (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - per MilborneOne's rationale. @B767-500: please stop with your nonsensical, unhelpful edit/suggestion, the nominator has a serious problem with her/his level of English which needs constant correction from us. Note also that Wikipedia is not a night school for the nominator to help her/him improve her/his comprehension of the English language and that we are not qualified professional teachers to teach her/him the language. Best and out. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm unclear on what models the user intends to cover under the "Classic" banner, as the term appears to be made up by the user without a clear definition. As is, the article covers the early model 747s in sufficient detail that another varant article isn't warranted at this time. - BilCat (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I did not make up anything definition: Boeing Classic Airliner --B767-500 (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, but you still haven't defined its scope - are we supposed to buy the book to find out? The book appears to use the term to cover all pre- -400 versions, but that's not the way "737 Classic" is used, as it deosn't generally cover the 737-100/200 models. Agin, this is probably because it's not a common term yet. - BilCat (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
        • BilCat makes funny humor (are we supposed to buy the book) which I like it. My idea includes all of pre-B747-400. --B767-500 (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Sometimes my humor works, sometimes it doesn't! I still don't see the need for a separate article on the earlier versions. The article is not very long at this point. However, if the 100/200/300 info were significantly expanded, it might warrant a variant article in the future. - BilCat (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
            • BilCat charm me with humor to withdrew split request. Thanks! --B767-500 (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
              • You nominated this request for a split. You'll have to withdraw the request. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Strongly ambivalent however, can't see a particular reason for the change. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cutaway

I made the cutaway, please use it in articles you guys see fit. You are welcome though. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Iran742.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Iran742.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yellowstone

"The 747 is to be replaced by the Boeing Y3 (part of the Boeing Yellowstone Project) in the future." The reference is for a 2007 article. Is it out of date? I doubt whether Boeing would consider updating the 747 after the 8i and 8f for another 15 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.115.12.144 (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The text in this article just says "is to be replaced by the Boeing Y3 ... in the future". So I don't see where you get the 15 years part. This is a longterm thing, and even longer term after the -8 model. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

New infobox picture?

I tried editing the page, but forgot to check through teh talk first. The 747-8I is the most recent version of the Boeing 747, and due to the fact the British Airways 747-400 picture has been the infobox pic for over two years now, I say we freshen up the page with the 747-8I picture. Ift can bee seen on the previous revisions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_747&oldid=464139057 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan7W (talk • contribs) 13:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose change - The 747-8 is not typical of the 747 family and the current image is a far better representation of the type, this is an encyclopedia and we dont have any requirements to "freshen up the page". MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

747-200 on display at the Top Gear track

There is a 747-200 on display at Dunsfold Aerodrome. It is frequently seen on the BBC motoring show Top Gear. Would this be sufficiently notable for inclusion in the Aircraft on display section? I was just about to add a paragraph about this, but figured I'd probably ask on this talk page first. -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 21:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

For starters it needs a reference. I can not find mention of aircraft on display on Dunsfold Aerodrome's site (dunsfoldpark.com). -Fnlayson (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
That I agree with; the article on Dunsfold Aerodrome lacks such references. However, the plane can be clearly seen on many Top Gear episodes (and is occasionally mentioned on the show), but that probably doesn't count as a reliable source.
-- Skysmurf  (Talk) 00:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Found refs in Flight International and the Dunsfold Newsletter for this aircraft; added and linked to G-BDXJ article. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 05:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

SIA 747 tribute site

SIA has a B747 tribute site http://www.siajourneys.com/ WhisperToMe (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

not really relevant, did you have a point or question? MilborneOne (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

747-100 development problems

While working as a management consultant in the aviation industry, I heard from two clients of the extraordinary difficulties that Boeing had in achieving basic range/payload capability for their launch customers. The problem was allegedly caused by the inability of the JT9D engine to deliver the thrust required and contracted for. As a result Boeing had to work extra hard to find ways of reducing the empty weight of the aircraft, involving, for example, the first large-scale use of phenolic resin honeycomb material in the floor panels and the use of new aluminum alloys. The JT9D article doesn't cover the matter either. I am reasonably sure that one could get the facts from books about Pan-Am, the launch customer, and Boeing, with support from Aviation Week and Space Technology and some airline magazines. DCDuring (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Maximum Speed

The specifications table lists a maximum speed of Mach 0.89 for the 747-100/-200 and -300. The Type Certificate Data Sheet (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/29f8f1f15b2b08b786257479004b50e1/$FILE/A20WE.pdf) shows an MMO of Mach 0.92 for those models, the same as the -400. There is no reference as to where the 0.89 Mach number came from. I have no direct experience with these models of the 747, so am hesitant to make the edit, although I would normally trust the TCDS as gospel.

Can someone with direct experience chime in, or someone with more courage make the edit?

-Sky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.124.65 (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of date reference

Just an FYI, the very first reference links to a website that no longer exists. If it were any other reference I wouldn't bring it up, but it's been reference multiple times throughout the article 18:11 16/02/2013

wrong model designations in File:747 Deliveries Timeline (malshayef 05-2010).jpg

it seems to me that the model designations "740-300M" and "740-400M" shown in "File:747 Deliveries Timeline (malshayef 05-2010).jpg" are incorrect; should correctly read "747-300M" and "747-400M" respectively 77.188.124.231 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted, I have removed the image as it didnt really add anything to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Nippon-koku seifu sen'yōki (dedicated Japanese government aircraft)

This is for Fnlayson in particular; I'll see if I can find some english language citations for the name and/or call signs. I should note that at least one early [1980s] Japanese origin source refers to them as "special-purpose government aircraft" (I'm not sure if that is a direct translation, but you can see it at the end of this message). In the meantime would it be alright for me to add an augmented version of the same text (please see below) in the Government, military and other variants section over in the Boeing 747-400 page?

  • Nippon-koku seifu sen'yōki – Two modified JASDF 747-400 aircraft whose primary role is to transport the Emperor of Japan, members of his household, the Prime Minister, and other high ranking officials. The designation translates to 'dedicated Japanese government aircraft'. Other roles include emergency evacuations of Japanese citizens and/or the overseas deployment of Japan Self-Defense Forces personnel, in situations where commercial or friendly military/governmental transport (e.g. UN assigned aircraft) are not available.

Source mentioned in main body of message; Excerpt from "Purchase of Aircraft by Ministries and Agencies of the Japanese Government", Tokyo AEROSPACE JAPAN, December 1987 p 25:

"Ministries and agencies of the Japanese Government have selected the types of aircraft whose purchasing schedules were included in the supplementary budget and have entered into contracts for these aircraft with aircraft manufacturers. The contents of these contracts are shown below.

Government special-purpose aircraft. On 22 October the government announced that it had selected the Boeing 747-400 as a special-purpose government aircraft. The contents of this decision are as follows:

1. ¥387.58 billion was appropriated as the total contract authorization in the supplementary budget for fiscal 1987. Aircraft to be purchased by the government were studied by the Government Special-Purpose Aircraft Study Committee (chairman: Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Fujimori) and, eventually, it was decided by the committee that the Boeing 747-400 would be purchased as a special-purpose government aircraft.

2. The Boeing 747-400 was selected on the basis of a comprehensive assessment which showed that the Boeing 747-400 is a top high-performance aircraft, has excellent range, etc., and is flexible in operation because the airframe capacity is large. In addition, a sufficient support system can be expected.

3. In the future, the government intends to enter into a contract with Boeing Corporation (agent: C. Itoh & Co., Ltd.) as quickly as possible (probably in December) after it discusses detailed specifications for the aircraft with the company." (End of excerpt.) 83.70.244.244 (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"standard-length runways"

What does "standard-length runways" mean? Is that an official term? Is there truly a standard somewhere or is the term "standard" being used improperly? If there is a precise specification of "standard-length runways" then what is that?

For example, the VC-25 is the military equivalent. The current aircraft usually used as Air Force One is a VC-25. The Van Nuys Airport in southern California has a runway that is 8,000 feet. I do not know how to determine if Air Force One could land at (and take off from) Van Nuys Airport. It would help to have a precise specification of what a 747 requires. Sam Tomato (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not all 747s are the same, they have different weights which change the runway requirements as well as the actual load on the day, any 747 figures are unlikely to apply to the VC-25s, does Boeing VC-25 mention runway length? MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Aviation Project

I was thinking about the detailed information on this page and I'm thinking that something like this should be done with the military aviation forums. 69.127.45.17 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Huh? What detailed information on which page? This article or the talk page? What "military aviation forums" are you referring too? WP is not a forum, and has nothing to do with forums on other sites. So what exactly are you even suggesting here? - BilCat (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Date format

Correct me if i am wrong, but i believe the concensus is that dates for aviation articles should be , with the exception of US MILITARY articles.--Petebutt (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, M-D-Y date format is used here because this is a US product and not military-related. The established date format should not be changed without good reason. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Cargo containers

Can anyone point me to any image of a 747F with cargo containers loaded? A photo or diagram would be fine. I want to show something in the Boeing RC-1 article, but can't find a thing. Everything I can find is pallets. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not run across any. But there are container images at Unit load device, such as the one with containers in an A300 fuselage section that could be of general help. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Boeing 747 already being replaced

The Boeing y3 is not the one to replace the 747. The Boeing 787 is the airliner that is now replacing the 747 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely the 787 is a smaller and a replacement for the 767. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

747 AAC dead link update

I found a page that appears to be the correct link for #176 ″"The Parasite Fighters". VectorSite, December 2009.″ http://www.airvectors.net/avparsit.html#m5 If someone can verify then it should be updated. I did not update it yet as I was not sure and this is my first wikipedia post. BenjaminJMeyer (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The link and info in cite have been updated. Thanks for the notice. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

New source from the Economist

WhisperToMe (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirect of Jumbo jet

Hi, I wanted to direct the attention of those who might have some input or better arguments than I to the discussion on the Talk:Jumbo jet redirect. There are several editors who feel strongly that jumbo jet primarily refers to all wide body aircraft, and do not support directing the term jumbo jet to either this page Boeing 747 or making it the disambiguation page which lists both the specific historical nickname for the 747, it's broader usage for wide body aircraft, and a few other "jumbo jet" named items. I am a lone voice, and I thought editors here might have an inherent interest. Marcinjeske (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Primary users?

Obviously British Airways has the biggest 747 fleet but I am curious what qualifies KLM, United Airlines and Lufthansa as "primary users"? The 747 is way more common in asia and many asian airlines have a much bigger 747 fleet then they have. 88.151.72.75 (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Normal practice for airliners that are still in service is to list them by the size of the current fleet, when the type is retired they will be changed to the more significant or largest fleet during the types life. A bit of original research indicates this is the current fleet size list:
  • British Airways 55
  • Atlas Air 36
  • Qantas 25
  • United 24
  • Lufthansa 22
  • KLM 22
  • Cathay Pacific 18

So really Atlas Air and Qantas should be added instead of Lufthansa and KLM. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Lufthansa is the only two-times 747 launch customer (-200F and -8i) and thus sure worth mentioning. 46.115.74.1 (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to add an updated version of this list:
British Airways: 55
Atlas Air: 39
Lufthansa: 36
United: 23
KLM: 22
Qantas: 12
Cathay Pacific: 3

The list of "Primary Users" really should be the following:
British Airways
Atlas Air
Lufthansa
United

Just because Lufthansa was the launch customer for the -200 freighter and the -8 intercontinental doesn't mean they have the second most, which is how the primary users should be listed. Rufusmi (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Primary" can also be defined by importance, and Lufthansa´s contribution and involvement to its developement from the beginnings in the 60ies (ask Joe Sutter himself) to evolvement into the -400 in the 80ies (they were the most vocal airline to demand a two-man flightdeck) and finally into the -8i is outstanding and incomparable to any other airline. 89.204.138.20 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

TWA Flight 800

Sadly this was probably shot down by the US navy. Hence the complete lack of urgency in implementing a 'fix'. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I hate to see the plane cop the blame for something that wasn't its fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.70.30.27 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

TWA Flight 800 already covers such theories. Wikipedia talk pages are meant to be for improving articles, not as discussion forums. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Air Force One

Shouldn't it be listed some where that the new Air Force One will be a 747-8?--Airplane Maniac (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The selection is covered at Boeing 747-8, Boeing VC-25 and Air Force One already. However, there's been no aircraft order with this yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "there's been no aircraft order with this yet."--AM (I would LOVE to talk!) 18:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
They have not actually signed anything all they have said is they have decided to order it in the future or to quote "This decision is not a contract award to procure 747-8 aircraft,' said Col. Amy McCain, the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization (PAR) program manager. 'We still need to finalize the overall acquisition strategy and conduct risk-reduction activities with Boeing to inform the engineering and manufacturing development contract negotiations that will define the capabilities and cost.' " MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I still think it should be mentioned though... Thoughts?--AM (I would LOVE to talk!) 19:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
It is mentioned in Boeing 747-8, Boeing VC-25 and Air Force One so even if ordered is not really notable here, we only mention the current VC-25s Air Force in the variants section so I dont see why we should mention the proposed buy. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 37 external links on Boeing 747. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorporate Template:RP?

With all of the repeated citations, is there any objection to incorporating Template:RP into this article? It will make the number of footnotes much smaller while retaining all of the information. Scotteaton92 (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Not than many repeated citations and adding rp doesnt actually reduce the number and probably introduces more clutter in the article, probably best to leave alone. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
RP does reduce the number of sources in the reference list by consolidating references to different pages of a single book into one line (E.G. there are 11 citation lines to Irving 1994 right now that would be reduced to 1 citation line.) I still think it is worth changing. Scotteaton92 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Use of RP will make virtually no difference to the number of citations in the article - most are single use calls of cite web, while it makes it harder to follow a reference to the source and harder to edit based on your changes to the King Air article, where you hid references away as List defined references.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I feel that it makes it easier to follow a reference to the source. The mouseover of the note shows the entire citation, rather than just a name and year. I also feel that list defined references are not difficult to edit. If the references are in a list sorted in some manner (I chose to sort alphabetically by author) it is easier to find the definition of the reference than if it is in some place (possibly not the first instance) in the body. Adding additional citations is also easy when using the named reference tool in the editing window. Scotteaton92 (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The rp template only applies to references with pages, such as books and magazines. The template does not apply to web articles/pages of a single page. Almost all the repeated references in this article are the single-page web articles. The book and magazine sources use shortened footnotes, which can be linked together if needed. There little use for this template in this article and not much benefit. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the rp template only applies to references with pages. I did a count, and found that if the rp template were used here, there would be 48 fewer items (48 unique lines and 56 instances) in the reference list. I think that this is a substantial improvement, as it would reduce a significant portion of clutter in the references. I would not say that there is "little use for this template in this article and not much benefit." Scotteaton92 (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Boeing 747. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

need pics of 747s

Email to cinderella7321@gmail.com. Any pics of 747 airplanes please :) Cinderella7321 (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Boeing considering ending 747 production

Numerous sources (WSJ, CNN, USA Today) have reported Boeing's regulatory filing stating that 747 production could be terminated based on insufficient demand. Should this new event be added to the "Development" section? Helmut von Moltke (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Not here yet. The statement have only says Boring may end production in the near future. Wikipedia is not a news service. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
But wouldn't you say that Boeing even considering a complete halt to production of the 747 is a somewhat major development in its aviation career? Helmut von Moltke (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Fnl that it's too early to mention here yet. When Boeing publicly announces it, then we report it. - BilCat (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
But Boeing has announced it in their own SEC regulatory filing, which clearly notes "lower than expected demand for large commercial passenger and freighter aircraft" and brings up halting 747 production as a possible consequence of "market uncertainty, pricing pressures, and fewer orders than anticipated. Since the source for this news is a company report, I believe that this development merits inclusion in the article.
Per WP:CRYSTAL, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." I think that this segment exactly describes what we are discussing here, which further supports mentioning Boeing's announcement in the article. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Queen of the Skies

"The Boeing 747 is an American wide-body commercial jet airliner and cargo aircraft, often referred to by its original nickname, Jumbo Jet, or Queen of the Skies."

While no one would question that "Jumbo Jet" is a very common nickname, this statement also implies that the nickname "Queen of the Skies" is used "often". I have personally never heard that name used, and I question whether "often" is justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.9.190 (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I concur, "Queen..." is used only in aeronautical journals at my knowledge, whereas "Jumbo" is universal. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2017

Chapter Display:

The cockpit section of B-747-338, former Qantas VH-EBW, is under transformation to an public flight simulator in the Flieger-Flab-Museum in Duebendorf, Switzerland. (Source: www.airforcecenter.ch, me as technical project leader). B727PeterK (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

We would not normally include this type of information as it has no encyclopedic value when complete aircraft are on display. MilborneOne (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Specifications Table: Cruise speed

The speeds given jump all over as to which measurements are used: miles/hour, kilometers/hour, knots, or mach. Should probably list it converted to all of those (in the same order) for each entry, so that people can compare them. Also, there seems to be an error in the figures given for the 747SP & the 747-400 disagree: Mach goes from .86 down to .855, but the mi/hr speed goes up from 568 to 580? (And the next row, Airspeed, should be shown in the measurement(s) as this row. T bonham (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

More coherent now. SP cruise was at higher FL than -400/-8 thus different conversion (see convert templates in history). I removed it as I didn't found it in the ref and it was indeed hard to comprehend. Max airspeed is different from cruise speed.Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.panamair.org/aircraft/clippernames.htm
  2. ^ http://www.netguest.com.br/panam/pa747eng.htm
  3. ^ http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Aviation/Aircraft/747.asp
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_747/Archive_3&oldid=1160823619"