NEW Boeing 747 Is Now Making A MASSIVE Comeback! Here's Why 

That is what actually I am thinking. Having more macchines...

...because so many planes ditch in the ocean.

The more engines it has, the bigger the ocean gets!

more engines, the more chances something will break inside one of them . . . . the odds get worse not better the more engines you add

Flying to LA and back regularly have always felt safer on that long time in the Sky.Rog.Pacific Sunset ( LA).

You wouldn't be 'Big Eddy' of 7 Sqdn Shacks at Changi 1970 would you? Eddy the Kat charmer!

Beautiful story. Thank you for sharing it with us.

A close second to the Airbus A380 I would argue :)

​@@Shinbaal99A380 is kind of bland, a big blob. I'd say the 747 is a close second just behind the Concorde.

747 a failed Military Transport Aircraft, lost out to the Lockheed Galaxy, and that is WHY it has the raised flight deck so that it could have a hinged front door and the long slope at the back for the rear cargo/ramp door. Concorde IS the stand out design, the Jumbo Jet not even close.

@@trevorhart545 While I'll agree about the Concorde being an awesome design, they never made any money on it, was always subsidized and a maintenence nightmare. It's still my favorite commercial airline despite those things. The 747 took a failure and turned it around, made tons of money and boeing produced 1574 units. Someone somewhere in Boeing had a back up plan, that wasn't dumb luck. Their relation ship with Pam AM didn't hurt. Concorde only produced a handful, twenty Concorde aircraft were built: two prototypes, two pre-production aircraft, two development aircraft and just 14 production aircraft for commercial service. I wish there were fleets of them world wide. Side note: I blew the chance to fly on the Concorde w an older family friend who worked for BA, she ran and flew with their private Concorde charters from the near the start to the end of the Concordes life. She lost count of her flights aboard, been everywhere. She'd send me stamps from all the places she traveled to, still have them. That was a chance of a life time, but too young too dumb to appreciate it at the time. I need to badger her to write a short book about those experiences before it's too late, she's in her 80's now.

In fact Concorde was a flawed design with problems surrounding the delta wings. With its appalling fuel characteristics and the noise issues, the plane never really got off the ground. The only carriers to use it were the counties that made it

Agreed. But if an airline doesn't make money it Will not be an airline very quickly.

4 medium sized engines do look better than 2 ginormous engines. Also safer.

I trust them more on long hauls

Me too man

The last production 747 was delivered This year, 2023, to Atlas airline. It is a remarkable production run. However, the longest production run is for the C-130. The C-130 does carry passengers: it is still in production.

I had a similar experience 1969. The city of Billings, Montana sits in a valley cut by the Yellowstone River into a massive layer of sandstone, and the airport sits high above the city on top of the "Rimrocks," several-hundred-foot-high sandstone cliffs cut by the river. I was working outside in a lumber yard when I looked up and saw this gigantic plane execute three "touch-and-go" landings at the Billings Airport. I read in the paper the next day that the Billings airport was being tested as an emergency diversion airport for the 747 for flights between Minneapolis and Seattle-Tacoma airport.

I was there February 1969 - I was 15 years old visiting family in Tacoma Washington and we all drove out to watch this massive four engine jet fly out of Everett Paine Field the freeway was stopped and people couldn’t believe the size of the plane

The 'freeway' ended at Everett, into SR99 at that time, important to set the expectations of your readers.

As a prospective aviator, if I could get augmented reality enhancement that uses radar, GPS and ATC data to show the locations and types of other aircraft, the locations, types and entry/exit corridors of various airspaces, weather data, VORs, optimal departure/approach paths, and other critical information in real time, I could definitely do the rest. You are right, though. Computer assistance is the future of commercial aviation, but pilots need to have the skills and knowledge to fall back on when that computer assistance ultimately fails. There are also moments where most forms of computer assistance are outright impossible due to the age of the aircraft. This is why, even in the 21st Century, pilots are still required by international aviation laws to learn and know how to use paper maps and E6B calculations.

It must be hard to imagine that soon pilots will be a thing of the past.

I am a retired 777 Captain and I could not agree more about automation and deteriorating pilot skills.

I had a neighbor that was a pilot and he said the exact same thing! He said the 747 was the best aircraft he ever flew and he hated Airbus.

100% agree

No, The Lockheed constellation❤

As a B747 captain currently. I can say that she is not called "The Queen" for nothing. 😊

​@@user-gf3lw5pi4tThe Lockheed Constellation was much slower taking 23 hours to cross the Atlantic.

@@farsiga2899 it had the look❤️❤️

It would. I love the 747 and I wish they would keep building them. I would love to fly on one. And pay extra to do so.

Of course, it's called 747-8, duh!

That's literally what the 747-8 is...

Boeing better get their act together before China builds a knock off!

They are it's the 747-800 global jetliner

You should take a look at the Lockheed Super Constellation. Not relevant today, but in my eyes it easily beats the Jumbo!

Concorde

@@alexandergutfeldt1144 You took the words out of my keyboard! That dolphin hull is unmatched for beauty.

> Heh, heh! Perhaps we will see the day when the 747XP flies ---- a TWIN ENGINE 747! Solve all those noise and pollution problems.

@@SeattlePioneer Maybe a tri-jet ? Slap one on the tail ?

Then you have not flown a lot I guess . The Airbus 380 Is a lot quieter , has more room above the seats and is overall a lot more comfortable .

Ditto , in my 50 plus years of flying. Nothing has come close to the comfort of thee Boeing 747. The DC-10 was a close second. But, thee Boeing 747 is in a class by itself. 😎👍

@@ralphreinhardt6020 never flew Airbus a380 . That is a different class . Very quiet , lots of space overhead , …

@@ralphreinhardt6020DC-10 crashes weren't very comfortable tho

Nothing beats the A380,even in Economy.

She will just like the A380

Boeing has completely retooled the 747 line to produce 737s. The 747 is not going to make a comeback unless someone pays massive amounts of money to retool again.

How do all you people talk about what a great idea and update would be when the 787-8 WAS the update with new engines, wing, avionics, interiors, everything. And guess what? The age of the 4 engine jumbo is over and the 747-8 is now out of production. This video is of course pure nonsense, the 747 is not making a comeback as sad as that is. Take a trip to one of the aircraft boneyards like Mojave, Victorville, Kingman, Marana.......hundreds of 747s parked and being chopped up for scrap, even newer ones.

I suppose that's the point, it's made in an old fashioned/classic way and manufacturing has moved on hence its decline.

Best plane ever built . Put it in the sky before computer 🖥️ tex started in 1968 . 27 months later it’s in the sky.when engineers were engineers. Now we have collage kids spent 8 years 737 with technology and we all know how that when .China will be buildings planes so good luck

Over 50 years and the 747 is still flying and being considered for upgrades to try and bring it back to its former prominence. There can be no other testament that I can think of to the brilliance and the being so far ahead of its time than this reality. People forget or didn't know that the 747 was originally designed as a freight hamuler and was supposed to be phased out of passenger service when Boeing's highly touted supersonic jet was supposed to take over passenger service. The government pulling the plug on the very inefficient SST was probably the biggest favor it did Boeing. The queen of the skies does not care if it hauls foreign dignitaries or freight or flies the rubber dog s*** out of Hong Kong to paraphrase a line from top gun. It's just a beautiful sight to see any 747 flying, hell it's actually quite thrilling just to see one on the ground. Physics can't be altered so severely in that 4 engines will most likely never be near is economical as 2 engines; conversely two engines will not be most likely able to haul the weight of 4 comparably sized engines. Boeing probably could develop more fuel efficient engines may be increased the 747-8 size a little more and utilize the benefits of the two extra engines by hauling more freight.

You should try flying on a modern long haul aircraft like an Airbus 350. As much as I liked the 747 when it was current, it;s old, clunky and noisy.

will not happen, if it is only the engines, then other aircrafts will use them also , and since the engines are mainly from GE or RR they are open for anybody. If it would make a come back , it would need a much lighter hull design ( composite) also , making it not a 747-1000 but rather a new nr . I do not hate the 747 at all , it surely was a "queen of the skies" for decades , only its time is gone. I only see use right now in A380 for a 4 engine plane , and that is making a slow come back ( i would not be surprised to having production back). For 2 engines , A350XWB ( the promised land) , 787 and 777 rule right now. The 777 is imho not very good .

@@sergesmets5685 I wonder if the upcoming CFM Rise external turboprop engine might work in a four engine config. It would give the extra fuel savings needed.

@JoeHamelin Apples And Orange's

Why would you want something as environmentally damaging as biofuel?

That's literally the 747-8

I flew from Germany to China and back 20 years ago twice, all 4 on 747s and all 4 flights were horrible, grueling experiences. The cabin was cold, the air was stale and the air pressure constantly fluctuated even when the plane was flying at cruising altitude, making my ears pop constantly for the whole 13 hour flight. I still wonder how they justified the ridiculous First Class prices they charged back then, since the First Class chairs weren't those luxurious small cabins they are now, but just bigger and maybe more comfortable chairs with a little more leg room. I think they didn't even have individual screens with entertainment systems back then. Considering that people in First Class also had to deal with the cold, shitty air and the pressure fluctuations, paying 10 000 Dollars for a flight was just demented. In Economy Class we definitely had no screens and back then nobody had smart phones yet, iPads didn't exist and the batteries in laptop computers only lasted for like 2 hours. So the only possible ways to entertain yourself on such a long flight was to read, listen to a small selection of songs from your 32 MB storage space MP3 player or play on a Nintendo GameBoy. It was horrible. I basically spent the whole 13 hours shivering under a shitty, coarse blanket, swallowing to pop my ears every 30 seconds or so, staring at the one big cabin screen at the wall separating the front crew area from the passenger cabin 8 rows ahead of me, which showed the barely moving position of the plane on a world map. I still feel slight PTSD when I read the name "Ulan Bator" to this day, hehehe.

*Tiny* yet engines. By today's standards.

A380 is quieter and more comfortable.

@@michaelphillips1701who care’s, i like the 747 even if the a380 is a bit better

​@@youradoptedlol7691Those who hate the proliferation of alternative facts or reckless inaccuracies care very much, that's who.

I only flew in one a few times, but yes.. Loved it. Then again, I'm old.. I miss the L-1011 too.

@@jonhutto580 I’m old too. Also flew the L1011. And just took the A380. No doubt the 380 is good, but the Queen of the skies is nostalgic.

Looks like it will.

There's no question it's going to. The 747s production was shut down after the A380 and will be flying long after due to Cargo variants.

It did 🤣🤣🤣🤣 60 years compared to 20. A380 failed and couldn’t do a freight version

I am South African, 78, and yearn for the days when SAA was a great International Airline flying all variants of 747 200, 300, SP, and 400.🇿🇦🇿🇦.

@ddc163264 Actually, i have been in that Seat , which you reference, and The view is a Blank Plastic Wall, which gives you plenty of time to think about the Pilot's and have they had heavy hands with Spirits the previous day. Having seen crash sites of 747 Aircraft, the pilots appear to use the nose section Passenger's as a crumble zone Passenger's, Who never survive.

An-225

The wiring and hydraulics another reason for nose door.

Uhh no.

I was there in 1969, worked on the first one at Paine field,then down to Boeing field on the flight test prigram using the first 5 for certification, Amazing plane, Flew down to NM for landing gear and break testing, First two had fireman's pole to get from the cockpit to the cargo hold so they could bail out if needed, I sat in the upper deck on the flight. had to change antenna connection on top of the tail using a cherry picker, 60 ft to the top of the tail. I could wiggle the whole plane from up top, Certication took 3 fully loaded landings. full panic stop , no thrust reversers, no flaring upon landing and immediate take off. amazing

Especially with upcoming Boeing 777x-es

I love and actually fly the 747, but there is no engine efficiency reason to have 4 engine aircraft. Actually the 777-300ERSF is being set up to replace all the 747BCF (Boeing Converted Freighters) aka passenger aircraft converted to cargo, and even replace a big chunk of the regular Freighters. This particular 777 has a similar payload, 25%-30% more fuel efficient and longer range

@@Eldanyveneboy 2 engine is definitely more efficient, however, the unique design & comfort is exclusively 747, I want to see it again from Boeing. . Thanks

So, basically you are saying this Reuters clip dismisses this video.

@Ebros415 I watched a documentary on that. Not worth the engineering of the wings and manufacturing plants. She will be flying freight for decades.

That's not the issue. The issue is, can it fly on one? All multi-engine aircraft must be able to safely take off at MTOW after a single engine failure after V1. In order to get an engine big enough to lift a 747 off the ground onto the plane, you'd have to move the wings to the top of the fuselage. And even that won't work. In order to make this plane make sense as an airliner, you'll have to show you can fill it to at least 80 percent of capacity on a regular basis. Only Lufthansa seems to be able to do that. And Lufthansa can do it because they run hub-and-spoke out of Frankfurt am Main. While I too love the 747, reality says 777s and 787s work better for hauling passengers. Freight? Totally different story. They can pack those things so full of freight there's no room for air in the cargo bay and head out to the other side of the ocean. When you're hauling freight you want the biggest plane you can get your hands on...and since the A380 hits MTOW long before it cubes out, the 747 is the best freight hauler in the skies.

Not all Atlas 747s are cargo jets, although most are. Atlas covers the Defense Department's contracts for hauling GIs to overseas assignments, and they're also the Jacksonville Jaguars' carrier. They have five 747s with seats in them.

Keep the cockpit of the 747 8 but put 4 brand new Trent XWB Or uprated RR Trent 700 jets on her beautiful wings (and skip the MCAS)

Why redesign a classic? They can keep the same design by using fuel efficient engines. The air frame is the best there is currently. Built for durability which is why cargo companies love them.

Because old airframes are much heavier than new ones that incorporate composites. It would be insane to use the "original" airframe from ANY airliner that was being updated due to its much heavier empty weight than a new design. The Boeing 727-200 weighed about 102,000 empty and required 3 engines. The 737-400, roughly the same size in capacity weighed 71,800 pounds empty, used two engines and was about 45% more economical to operate. Same goes for the 747-100 vs the 747-8. The 747-8 could lift 40% more while burning 30% less fuel due to its advanced materials and upgrades. So yes, there is a reason to "redesign a classic" because its all about operating costs.@@Darkk6969

I got a picture of my wife sitting in the Co-pilot seat in mid flight of a 747 with his cap and jacket on in 1989 was a incredible memory on our honeymoon

The A380 has two full length decks that are necessary for the structure of the airframe. There is no way to remove the upper deck to make more cargo space. The A380 was neither designed for or intended to be converted into a freighter. There is also not sufficient demand for new cargo aircraft that would require more conversions. The market for cargo has always been a mix of conversions and new build and there is plenty of product out there to take care of the demand for decades.

Bean counters are needed because the 6 Trillion Dollar a year US government sucks every private Bank Account dry.

Range of 8f is not as long as 8i.

​@@user-kq8if3ud5ethat's with any airplane the freighter variants was always less but the fact remains no other aircraft has that payload and range. That was the point.

747 is ideal for Russian airlines for 'coast-to-coast flights with jet fuel being so cheap in Russia!

Not being snarky but I think very few people responding here have the vaguest idea of transport aircraft development, manufacturing and marketing. It’s a bit dated but John Newhouse’s book,”The Sporty Game,” is a good primer . He wrote a follow on that’s worth the time as well. Here’s a couple of clues. It takes 500 aircraft sold to break even on R&D/certification. That’s at full list price and nobody pays list. Google just how many of the following were built. L-1011, DC-10, Concorde, A-300, A-340. If it weren’t for the too big to fail national interest subsidies, AirBus would be a distant memory. A new airframe takes about two years to certify. An engine, three. The wing and center section are about 65-70% of the development costs. Every leap forward in speed and efficiency was predicated on new powerplant development. (The Wright Brothers had to create their own engine as there were none in the entire world capable of meeting their weight and performance specs.) Boeing has publicly stated they are waiting for a new generation of engine before they launch a new Narrow Body. Every one of these videos on any particular type of aircraft draws the same,”I loved to ride on it,””once when I was a kid,” and “my dad….” responses. Followed by some idiotic statement about how it should still be flying today if only….. Here’s a fun fact. The airlines chooses the interior and sets the seat pitch. If you loved the seating on a 747 then I guarantee you never rode on a high density version.

Really? The 747-1000F? Did he tell you this? If he did he was pulling your chain. Boeing is currently building the 737-MAX series on the old 747 line in Everett. There is no 747-1000F. The freighters with two engines that Boeing is building is called the 777 and I guess still some 767s to be delivered. But no, there is no such thing as the 747-1000F, this madness must stop!

@@ak1ranger Yes really. You work for Boeing? Funny thing my brother actually works there in Everett. The whole thing in on paper only right now. How dare I challenge the internet. OMG I am so shameful. Jesus Christ man get a hold of yourself. "Madness" Trigger easy bro? LMFAO

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DP0669DNt34.html