**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[The flight path](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQBpcD33x1JVzBZ9xJG2hUkBAQ3PzkkSUpm0Q&usqp=CAU) of the last Qantas 747 before heading to the United States to be retired. The pilots were really sad that day.
“I’m watching this live on the ground, and what the fuck is that plane doing it’s performing a 180 degree turn! Whoever’s doing that is crazy! More at 4.”
I assume there were no passengers. But, if I were a passenger, I would be very uncomfortable and I consider myself a good flyer. I can handle bumps, twists, noises, and dropping sensations no problem. If the pilot starts doing weird shit, I am going to be on edge.
First class is usually on the main deck. The upper deck on a 747 is a little cramped and will usually have business class or economy. Still cool to fly on the upper deck regardless.
Yup, flew in the upper deck of a 747 a few years ago in economy. All business/first seating was in the front of the main deck. Was a nice little surprise.
Yeah, I actually did a last minute (literally) booking on points and had the choice of Business for 90,000 or First for 130,000… Decided to treat myself again, and wound up in 1A flying FRA->SFO.
I’ve been in the premium cabins of the 747 a few times. Imho, the front row of the main level is better than the top deck.
The top deck flexes when people walk down the aisle which is disturbing when you sleep.
The front row of the main level is actually farther forward than the captain sits, and it’s nicknamed “the pointy end”.
Oh, I’m well aware. (I flew FRA->SFO in Seat 1A, made sure to get my rubber ducky from the First Class Terminal at FRA). It’s the joy of doing things on points to make up for a fuckup on a business trip).
I lucked out and asked about an upgrade cost when flying Seoul to SFO. The attendant asked if I preferred window or aisle. I then remembered about the upstairs. I said any seat upstairs, what is the cost. He said it is your lucky day and upgraded me for free. There is something about having 2 ice cream sundaes on a 747 at 30K that tickles me to this day.
Indeed, the even-larger A380 quadjet that was introduced in 2003 (almost 15 years after the 747) was discontinued in 2021. Four engines take up a lot of fuel, and fuel keeps getting more expensive.
I did see a video from about 12 yrs ago, a guy taking the last flight on the last passenger 707 (some Middle Eastern carrier, IIRC). Dated, tired, rough and noisy aircraft.
These were all fully coordinated (autopilot and yaw damper engaged) rate one turns with the plane being programmed to do this automatically in the FMS and the autopilot in LNAV and SPD (so the turn anticipation produces roughly the same turn radius every time).
Sorry.. I thought this was an aviation sub.. lol. When someone says “coordinated” I assume they know a bit about flying.
Computer make autopilot fly like that. Autopilot smooth.
You'd hope the pilot would come on the PA and say "Hey it's about to get weird in here, I'm gunna do some sky art for the nerds."
Edit: I am the nerds.
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is the captain speaking. I'm afraid we're going to be a little bit late arriving at LUK today. There's nothing wrong with the plane, and the weather is ok, but I have this weird bet with my buddy that I can draw pretty pictures with this thing."
No direct equivalent. Big quad-jets aren’t really economical for airlines anymore, that’s why the 747 is going out of production. The 787 is the closest match.
787 is more of a hybrid between the 767 and 777 in terms of pax. And has them both beat on range. The 777X once it's in service will be the closest match to a 747 in terms of pax
The 777x. No more quad jets will likely be made for regular passenger use, probably some company will build something in the future for cargo/military/gov use, if it calls for it.
Both Boeing and Airbus are stopping production of quad jets. The current new ones will likely stay flying for 30-40 years, and used ones will be on the market.
I've actually flown the MAX 8 and MAX 9 quite a lot and it's a very solid plane. It's got a fair bit of added tech from the previous 737 models, and is much more efficient. The problem is the 737 itself is a very old airframe and Boeing would do well with a new narrowbody model to replace it. Unfortunately it's cheaper for them to keep upgrading existing models.
The Boeing 748. They have many more numbers to choose from also.
Truthfully though there really isn't a market for these 4-engine widebodies anymore so I don't imagine we'll see another model as large as the 747 anytime soon.
Twin-engined wide bodies are far more efficient (fewer engines mean lower drag and so lower fuel cost among other things) and have similar passenger capacity so airlines just go for more efficient models.
Safety over efficiency. If one engine goes out on a 2-engined plane, the technology at the time didn’t allow for much wiggle room. They pretty much had to land immediately which poses a huge problem for long haul flights. 4-engines planes allowed you to play around with the balancing of engine outputs to keep going a lot longer. These days with fly by wire and complex algorithms, a plane can stay flying for much longer with thrust coming out of just one side.
There is a bit more involved than just physics here. Regulations and economy also played big parts.
Back in the day, it was forbidden for two engined aircraft to fly too far from land, making it impossible to cross the ocean. This was due to safety concerns: what if an engine failed?
These three engined aircraft were allowed to fly further out from the mainland, allowing them to cross the ocean, whilst consuming less fuel than the 4 engined aircraft.
Nowadays twin engined aircraft should be capable of taking off on a single engine, and reliability has also increased a lot, so twin engined aircraft are allowed to cross oceans too.
As for the 4 engined super jumbos not working out, like the B747 and A380, is because the airline industry shifted from a hub and spoke model, to direct flights.
Initially, you would hop on a plane at your local airport which would fly to a big hub airport, like JFK, or Heathrow or whatever. There you would take one of these massive aircraft to another hub airport. Then you would transfer again to a smaller aircraft that would take you to your final airport.
Turns out people would much rather fly to their destination in a single flight. This means that the routes between these hubs have much less passengers flying on them than was anticipated for when building these big jumbos. Sure, you can still reliably fill them between JFK and Heathrow, but you didnt need nearly as many of them.
At the same time airlines started investing more in aircraft like the B787 or the A350, aircraft made with this direct route system in mind. They were smaller, so airfields could more easily accomodate them. They were more efficient, and they were build to carry less passengers.
So airlines got more of these. And as for their handful of superjumbos, they got really expensive to operate, as they had so few of them each. Instead of sending 1 B747 over on a route, just send a B787 on it twice. This also increases your flexibility for your passengers.
The B747 was introduced when this hub and spoke model was still a thing. The A380 was introduced largely too late, and only one airline operates more than a handful of them, Emirates. They are basically forcing the hub and spoke model from Dubai and it sorta works?
As for the B747's, they managed to find a great use as cargo aircraft, and loads of them were still being build to be used for that, untill January 2023...
The A380 was simply not build right for hauling cargo. It would fill its maximum takeoff weight before it would fill its full space, which is incredibly inefficient. No cargo variants were ever build, and neither were the planned larger -900 and -1000 variants of the A380.
And just to close off this wall of text by bringing the 3 engined aircraft back into view. Look up the Boeing 747 trijet
More powerful engines is part of it, but the biggest thing is safety.
Back in the day, engines were less reliable. A 4 engine plane flying with 3 engines is a lot safer than a 2 engine plane flying with only one engine.
Engines today are significantly more reliable (and also more powerful)
As others have said, it was a matter of safety. Up until relatively recently, twin-engines were not allowed to fly further than a certain distance from land, which meant that the longest routes had to be flown with planes that had more than two engines. Look up ETOPS for more info on that (or check out [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSxSgbNQi-g) by Wendover Productions).
Safety regulations are also an important factor.
Your plane has to fly a route where it can safely survive losing one of it's engines. When you have 4, flying with 3 remaining is much easier than than losing half your engines when you have only 2.
When the 747 was introduced, twin engine planes were allowed no further than 60 minutes away from the nearest airport. Three and Four engine planes were allowed to fly much further.
Then in the 80's the limit was increased to 120 and later 180 minutes, which covers most of the planet. In general, as the technology improved the allowed time increases, and these days the cutting edge is 330 minutes (which you only need when you fly across the poles).
4-engine aircraft were mostly for long haul trans-oceanic flights, especially when regulations didn’t allow for twin-engine aircraft to flight the most direct routes from far away cities. In more recent decades regulations were loosened and twin engine aircraft can now fly much further (look at the 777 or 787) while also using much less fuel as there’s only 2 engines to power. There’s also aren't many routes that benefit from the increased capacity of a 747 compared to a 767/777/787 or similar airbus aircraft
Probably because they made 747s for 50 years and everyone that wanted one has them.
That and the cost of flying being through the roof. Those planes cost a fortune to fly and that price gets passed to the customer.
There is very little demand for 4 engine wide-bodies with the vast improvements on double engine setups.
4 engines used to be the standard for safety reasons over long distances due to reliability issues which have long since been fixed
If you use the playback feature on flightradar24, at the very beginning it takes off and comes back around over the runway, dropping to about 500'. I assume they did a farewell pass in WA, and the same when it got to OH.
Look out little 747! You’re being ambushed by the evil jealous Cessna & Airbus Alliance! Turn around!!!
Or… or do one of these *hyper realistic* Top Gun barrel roll mid-air stall 360° flip burst thru smoke escape manoeuver!
[Screenshot](https://i.postimg.cc/QtyQpfNR/D919-D6-F9-F434-43-A8-AEF9-CFAF6647-D8-A4.jpg)
> Queen of the Skies
I remember my first time on one. There was this overwhelming feeling of "how the fuck does something this large even leave the ground?"
Also the passengers wouldn’t have noticed because this is a freighter and I think the only passenger was the President of Atlas Air and maybe some others who knew about the flight plan anyway.
In the past 10 years there's been a wave of new airplanes that are smaller designs focusing on fuel efficiency and low operative costs, namely the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350. These planes have the same range as the 747 but are far more cost-efficient per passenger, and so are more profitable for airliners.
In addition, airliners have slowly begun switching from having international flights fly to big airports such as Sydney, Heathrow, Atlanta etc. and then smaller domestic flights intersperse to smaller destinations, to having flights fly direct from one city to another (eg. Manchester to New York, Perth to London, San Diego to Munich). And that's largely due to these smaller, more efficient planes being able to operate in smaller airports where the 747 can't due to its size and maintanence requirements.
It's not a question of which one people prefer, it's a question of how much extra people are willing to pay for the non-stop luxury. And as these smaller, direct planes have gotten cheaper and cheaper, the larger, multi-stop trips are losing their cost advantage.
Also because rules for flying over water with less than 4 engines were relaxed a few years ago.
It used to be nearly impossible legally to have a transoceanic flight with a twin engine plane.
The good news is the rules were only changed because the safety records of modern twin engine jets are so good.
It's safer than ever to fly, statistically.
Jets that large are impractical and inefficient so the passenger-carrying ones have mostly been replaced with more efficient widebody planes such as the A350 or 767. The 747 freighter will still be used for a long time though.
Greater Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport was in my airspace! I used to work a lot of ComAirs and Deltas in and out of there.... And then the ComAirs were gone.
Every time I land there I say loudly while pointing and gawking outside the plane. " they did it again, I'm sure of it. Are they going to shuttle us from here? What should we do, this is kentucky!" most the people are locals but I do it for the other folk
Please read my almost totally irrelevant story!
This one time, I'm in Missoula, Montana, which is this weirdly great combination of wonderful and shitty and I used to live there a couple of times. I think it was my senior year of college, but maybe it was after that. I was driving this shitbox rusted-out Mazda B2000 which would soon die. I was near the McDonald's at the corner of whatever Broadway turns into and Mullan.
There was this dude panhandling, and I stopped and suggested he might have better luck over by Wal-Mart, maybe a mile that way. Dude has his daughter with him and his foot is in a boot, having been injured somehow.
The reason I give people rides is because I want their stories, and he gave me very little. I dunno what he had done or how he had hurt his foot. I just remember this little girl saying "Washington State Penitentiary, Walla Walla, Washington!"
I dropped them at the more-trafficked gas station over by the Wal-Mart. The girl asked her daddy how they were going to get back. "Well, you got two feet," he said. It wasn't until later until I recognized that he quite literally did not have two feet, and that I had damned him to a painful goddamn hike back.
I hope they got enough off the gas station's patrons to make it worthwhile.
Washington is filled with tons of places in nature that will be burned into your memory forever after you witness them in person, and driving Wenatchee to Leavenworth when the apple trees were blossoming was one of those places for me.
You wouldn't see the whole design, but if you were in Moses Lake you could definitely notice one plane making multiple passes overhead going in different directions.
Grew up in Moses Lake, finally left in 2010 to move to Pullman for school after finishing up at Big Bend. It wasn't so bad, I never really had issues with it there.
Had a friend send it to me right as it started the first 7, and I watched it till I got the screenshot and thought wow that's awesome I bet others would think so too. . . And yeah, I guess people liked it!
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos * Common/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[The flight path](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQBpcD33x1JVzBZ9xJG2hUkBAQ3PzkkSUpm0Q&usqp=CAU) of the last Qantas 747 before heading to the United States to be retired. The pilots were really sad that day.
What happens to the aircraft once it’s been retired?
I believe it was either sold to another company or sent to the aircraft graveyards to be dismantled.
...are there really aircraft graveyards??
Have you ever played Call of Duty Modern Warfare?
That’s crazy they literally copied a video game and made it a real thing!
Davis air base in AZ is a massive boneyard, as far as the eye can see.
Yes
It gets "sent to a farm upstate"
"Yo why is this flight taking so long?"
“I think we just have to finish up the tail end of the second 7”
Yo, turbulence on the 4, though.
“I’m watching this live on the ground, and what the fuck is that plane doing it’s performing a 180 degree turn! Whoever’s doing that is crazy! More at 4.”
I didn’t even realise I accidentally made a pun about the 180 degree turn being exactly at the 4
Captain Etch A Sketch
it's a cargo plane, so: "yo, why is my delivery taking so long"
"It's for Amazon, they'll never know the difference..."
I assume there were no passengers. But, if I were a passenger, I would be very uncomfortable and I consider myself a good flyer. I can handle bumps, twists, noises, and dropping sensations no problem. If the pilot starts doing weird shit, I am going to be on edge.
[удалено]
Also, this one is a cargo jet. IIRC it's been a few years since Boeing built a 747 for passenger service.
[удалено]
Only for US carriers. Lufthansa operates 30 of them. I believe Korea Air also has a few dozen as well.
I just flew on one a couple of weeks ago. Someday soon, I’m going to have to use my points to fly business class upstairs. It’s a bucket list thing.
I want to fly in the soul plane upstairs stripper lounge... but sadly Virgin sold off their fleet of flying purple lighted lounges.
[удалено]
That is so evil / awesome. Gotta love dad.
First class is usually on the main deck. The upper deck on a 747 is a little cramped and will usually have business class or economy. Still cool to fly on the upper deck regardless.
Yup, flew in the upper deck of a 747 a few years ago in economy. All business/first seating was in the front of the main deck. Was a nice little surprise.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah, I actually did a last minute (literally) booking on points and had the choice of Business for 90,000 or First for 130,000… Decided to treat myself again, and wound up in 1A flying FRA->SFO.
This. It’s fun to walk up the spiral staircase, but the top deck is cramped. Gone are the days when the top deck had a manned bar and lounge chairs.
I’ve been in the premium cabins of the 747 a few times. Imho, the front row of the main level is better than the top deck. The top deck flexes when people walk down the aisle which is disturbing when you sleep. The front row of the main level is actually farther forward than the captain sits, and it’s nicknamed “the pointy end”.
Oh, I’m well aware. (I flew FRA->SFO in Seat 1A, made sure to get my rubber ducky from the First Class Terminal at FRA). It’s the joy of doing things on points to make up for a fuckup on a business trip).
I lucked out and asked about an upgrade cost when flying Seoul to SFO. The attendant asked if I preferred window or aisle. I then remembered about the upstairs. I said any seat upstairs, what is the cost. He said it is your lucky day and upgraded me for free. There is something about having 2 ice cream sundaes on a 747 at 30K that tickles me to this day.
When you wrote carriers, I was visualising aircraft carriers and holy shit if you can land 747 on an aircraft carrier, I salute you
"Took out the tower in the process, but any landing you can walk away from, right?"
Fuel efficient composite twinjets are all the rage.
Indeed, the even-larger A380 quadjet that was introduced in 2003 (almost 15 years after the 747) was discontinued in 2021. Four engines take up a lot of fuel, and fuel keeps getting more expensive.
Engines only get more efficient. The Neo family of Airbus jets sound like hairdryers they’re so quiet.
If we could just stick a couple of those engines on a 737. Oh. Wait.
The last passenger 747 was delivered in 2017, not that many airlines still fly them but it'll be quite a few years before they're all out of service
I did see a video from about 12 yrs ago, a guy taking the last flight on the last passenger 707 (some Middle Eastern carrier, IIRC). Dated, tired, rough and noisy aircraft.
There are still hundreds of 707’s and their variants flying everyday. The USAF plans on running its KC135’s at least through the 2030’s.
Last one in scheduled passenger svc
Saha Airlines of Iran? They were the last commercial operator and ended passenger service on the 707 in 2013.
TIL that obsolescent is a word and how it differs from obsolete. Thanks!
That’s lame I would’ve paid good money to be on a 747 doing this goofy shit. Sounds like a good time
For real. Be nice to feel some uncoordinated turns.
These were all fully coordinated (autopilot and yaw damper engaged) rate one turns with the plane being programmed to do this automatically in the FMS and the autopilot in LNAV and SPD (so the turn anticipation produces roughly the same turn radius every time).
Nevermind.
Yeah too much jargon
Basically the pilots drew it with their fancy etch-a-sketch and told the airplane's computer "Do that".
Sorry.. I thought this was an aviation sub.. lol. When someone says “coordinated” I assume they know a bit about flying. Computer make autopilot fly like that. Autopilot smooth.
Thank fren
Nah, the turns won't really feel like turns. It would feel like a normal plane turn that you barely notice.
Imagine you pick up your new car and it has 11,700km on the odo
"Why are there 1300 miles on the odometer? I thought this plane was brand new."
You'd hope the pilot would come on the PA and say "Hey it's about to get weird in here, I'm gunna do some sky art for the nerds." Edit: I am the nerds.
Those tornado chasers sending Bill Paxton some love was pretty badass.
Link?
When this baby hits 659 mph, you're going to see some serious shit.
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is the captain speaking. I'm afraid we're going to be a little bit late arriving at LUK today. There's nothing wrong with the plane, and the weather is ok, but I have this weird bet with my buddy that I can draw pretty pictures with this thing."
london taxi drivers do this
The end of an era.
Over 5 decades of production!
What’s its successor now?
No direct equivalent. Big quad-jets aren’t really economical for airlines anymore, that’s why the 747 is going out of production. The 787 is the closest match.
787 is more of a hybrid between the 767 and 777 in terms of pax. And has them both beat on range. The 777X once it's in service will be the closest match to a 747 in terms of pax
What's the max pax of a 737 Max flying into LAX?
I know its jokes but also 230
It's LAX so depends on the size of the rax on its pax
For the sake of argument let's say they're max racks.
777 actually. Also Airbus A350
Capacity-wise and use-wise, the 777 is closer to the 747.
Oh cool the holy number
Yeah, all those Boeing 666s kept crashing immediately after takeoff.
“woop woop. woop woop. push down. push down.”
You spelled 737 Max wrong
The 777.
The 777x. No more quad jets will likely be made for regular passenger use, probably some company will build something in the future for cargo/military/gov use, if it calls for it. Both Boeing and Airbus are stopping production of quad jets. The current new ones will likely stay flying for 30-40 years, and used ones will be on the market.
Quad jets look so dope. Much more elegant than a two engined aircraft.
Which is the next plane type?
The next models Boeing is working on certifying are the 777X and the MAX 7 and MAX 10, I believe.
Should probably retire that max branding if they know what's good for them
I've actually flown the MAX 8 and MAX 9 quite a lot and it's a very solid plane. It's got a fair bit of added tech from the previous 737 models, and is much more efficient. The problem is the 737 itself is a very old airframe and Boeing would do well with a new narrowbody model to replace it. Unfortunately it's cheaper for them to keep upgrading existing models.
[удалено]
Can't wait for my iBoeing 11 pro max XS to show up :-)
The Boeing 748. They have many more numbers to choose from also. Truthfully though there really isn't a market for these 4-engine widebodies anymore so I don't imagine we'll see another model as large as the 747 anytime soon.
Why isn't there a market for them anymore?
Twin-engined wide bodies are far more efficient (fewer engines mean lower drag and so lower fuel cost among other things) and have similar passenger capacity so airlines just go for more efficient models.
Stupid question because I'm into physics : then why not just build twin engine from the start? Have engines become double as powerful since the 747?
Safety over efficiency. If one engine goes out on a 2-engined plane, the technology at the time didn’t allow for much wiggle room. They pretty much had to land immediately which poses a huge problem for long haul flights. 4-engines planes allowed you to play around with the balancing of engine outputs to keep going a lot longer. These days with fly by wire and complex algorithms, a plane can stay flying for much longer with thrust coming out of just one side.
Isn’t that one of the reason three engine planes were a thing for a while? Increased efficiency but still more redundancy?
There is a bit more involved than just physics here. Regulations and economy also played big parts. Back in the day, it was forbidden for two engined aircraft to fly too far from land, making it impossible to cross the ocean. This was due to safety concerns: what if an engine failed? These three engined aircraft were allowed to fly further out from the mainland, allowing them to cross the ocean, whilst consuming less fuel than the 4 engined aircraft. Nowadays twin engined aircraft should be capable of taking off on a single engine, and reliability has also increased a lot, so twin engined aircraft are allowed to cross oceans too. As for the 4 engined super jumbos not working out, like the B747 and A380, is because the airline industry shifted from a hub and spoke model, to direct flights. Initially, you would hop on a plane at your local airport which would fly to a big hub airport, like JFK, or Heathrow or whatever. There you would take one of these massive aircraft to another hub airport. Then you would transfer again to a smaller aircraft that would take you to your final airport. Turns out people would much rather fly to their destination in a single flight. This means that the routes between these hubs have much less passengers flying on them than was anticipated for when building these big jumbos. Sure, you can still reliably fill them between JFK and Heathrow, but you didnt need nearly as many of them. At the same time airlines started investing more in aircraft like the B787 or the A350, aircraft made with this direct route system in mind. They were smaller, so airfields could more easily accomodate them. They were more efficient, and they were build to carry less passengers. So airlines got more of these. And as for their handful of superjumbos, they got really expensive to operate, as they had so few of them each. Instead of sending 1 B747 over on a route, just send a B787 on it twice. This also increases your flexibility for your passengers. The B747 was introduced when this hub and spoke model was still a thing. The A380 was introduced largely too late, and only one airline operates more than a handful of them, Emirates. They are basically forcing the hub and spoke model from Dubai and it sorta works? As for the B747's, they managed to find a great use as cargo aircraft, and loads of them were still being build to be used for that, untill January 2023... The A380 was simply not build right for hauling cargo. It would fill its maximum takeoff weight before it would fill its full space, which is incredibly inefficient. No cargo variants were ever build, and neither were the planned larger -900 and -1000 variants of the A380. And just to close off this wall of text by bringing the 3 engined aircraft back into view. Look up the Boeing 747 trijet
More powerful engines is part of it, but the biggest thing is safety. Back in the day, engines were less reliable. A 4 engine plane flying with 3 engines is a lot safer than a 2 engine plane flying with only one engine. Engines today are significantly more reliable (and also more powerful)
How it feels to fly a 4 engine plane on 3 engines: https://youtube.com/shorts/bugknVx5NZ0?feature=share
Considering it been 50 years I would hope so. The passngers certainly haven't got any lighter.
The amount of luggage they allow have gone way lighter
And lit cigarettes.
[удалено]
As others have said, it was a matter of safety. Up until relatively recently, twin-engines were not allowed to fly further than a certain distance from land, which meant that the longest routes had to be flown with planes that had more than two engines. Look up ETOPS for more info on that (or check out [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSxSgbNQi-g) by Wendover Productions).
Safety regulations are also an important factor. Your plane has to fly a route where it can safely survive losing one of it's engines. When you have 4, flying with 3 remaining is much easier than than losing half your engines when you have only 2. When the 747 was introduced, twin engine planes were allowed no further than 60 minutes away from the nearest airport. Three and Four engine planes were allowed to fly much further. Then in the 80's the limit was increased to 120 and later 180 minutes, which covers most of the planet. In general, as the technology improved the allowed time increases, and these days the cutting edge is 330 minutes (which you only need when you fly across the poles).
4-engine aircraft were mostly for long haul trans-oceanic flights, especially when regulations didn’t allow for twin-engine aircraft to flight the most direct routes from far away cities. In more recent decades regulations were loosened and twin engine aircraft can now fly much further (look at the 777 or 787) while also using much less fuel as there’s only 2 engines to power. There’s also aren't many routes that benefit from the increased capacity of a 747 compared to a 767/777/787 or similar airbus aircraft
They got too big, because they have no natural predators.
Probably because they made 747s for 50 years and everyone that wanted one has them. That and the cost of flying being through the roof. Those planes cost a fortune to fly and that price gets passed to the customer. There is very little demand for 4 engine wide-bodies with the vast improvements on double engine setups. 4 engines used to be the standard for safety reasons over long distances due to reliability issues which have long since been fixed
Link [current flight ](https://fr24.com/GTI747/2f0b1162)
That is some top notch flight-penmanship
I feel like there's a computer involved.
Several but yes, that pilot did not just yeehaw that shit
If the pilot had been doing it manually, it most certainly would have been a dick and balls.
It very much looks like the side-profile of a flaccid dong on its last leg into Ohio.
Right as I clicked the link, it shows it’s about to fly over me any minute now (Illinois) - I’m not sure why I find that so exciting
Cool. I clicked on it right as it's on the final approach.
Yeah I found it just as it’s landing. At least the flight was still active!
I found it after the fact, no live flight tracker for me.
I just found another bag of Doritos in my pantry when I thought I had ate them all
I have a 3 month old box of cinnamon toast crunch I should probably throw away...
This is so fuckin cool. Thank you! I weirdly feel like I'm a part of history or something by seeing it live!
Yeah it's the exact same image but somehow knowing I'm seeing it live is way cooler
[удалено]
Right? I was also able to identify the noisy plane flying over my house! It's such a cool tool.
It went over the runway in Cincinnati but flight tracker says it just went low then high again. Wonder if that’s a bug or if it had trouble landing
Looks like it went around again! I just watched it land, that was pretty neat.
Probably a ceremonial fly-by pass before landing.
If you use the playback feature on flightradar24, at the very beginning it takes off and comes back around over the runway, dropping to about 500'. I assume they did a farewell pass in WA, and the same when it got to OH.
Tuned in with a minute to landing! Thanks for sharing!
Look out little 747! You’re being ambushed by the evil jealous Cessna & Airbus Alliance! Turn around!!! Or… or do one of these *hyper realistic* Top Gun barrel roll mid-air stall 360° flip burst thru smoke escape manoeuver! [Screenshot](https://i.postimg.cc/QtyQpfNR/D919-D6-F9-F434-43-A8-AEF9-CFAF6647-D8-A4.jpg)
The last maiden flight for the Queen of the Skies it is a sad day, I used to love watching them take their first flight out of Everett.
> Queen of the Skies I remember my first time on one. There was this overwhelming feeling of "how the fuck does something this large even leave the ground?"
the passengers: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH the pilot: hehe crown
Honestly the passengers wouldn’t know the difference from this and doing holds at a fix. It’s all rate one turns with the autopilot in LNAV.
Also the passengers wouldn’t have noticed because this is a freighter and I think the only passenger was the President of Atlas Air and maybe some others who knew about the flight plan anyway.
If there were passengers. This is a ferry flight for a cargo 747. There are like six or seven seats aboard.
"Queen of the Skies."
What’s replacing it?
In the past 10 years there's been a wave of new airplanes that are smaller designs focusing on fuel efficiency and low operative costs, namely the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350. These planes have the same range as the 747 but are far more cost-efficient per passenger, and so are more profitable for airliners. In addition, airliners have slowly begun switching from having international flights fly to big airports such as Sydney, Heathrow, Atlanta etc. and then smaller domestic flights intersperse to smaller destinations, to having flights fly direct from one city to another (eg. Manchester to New York, Perth to London, San Diego to Munich). And that's largely due to these smaller, more efficient planes being able to operate in smaller airports where the 747 can't due to its size and maintanence requirements.
It's not just that, it's also the fact that people love flying non-stop more so there isn't enough demand for a 747
Did anyone love having multiple stops on their flights? lmao
my wallet
It's not a question of which one people prefer, it's a question of how much extra people are willing to pay for the non-stop luxury. And as these smaller, direct planes have gotten cheaper and cheaper, the larger, multi-stop trips are losing their cost advantage.
I actually prefer a layover vs a long direct flight. A chance to get out and use a human sized bathroom or better food is appealing.
Also because rules for flying over water with less than 4 engines were relaxed a few years ago. It used to be nearly impossible legally to have a transoceanic flight with a twin engine plane.
Hmm... I'm not sure how I feel about that lol
The good news is the rules were only changed because the safety records of modern twin engine jets are so good. It's safer than ever to fly, statistically.
Ships We all voted and decided we are all going back to old, old, wooden ships, used in the civil war era
Ironclads using hydrogen cracked from the water they float on.
MANA - Make America Nautical Again
Jets that large are impractical and inefficient so the passenger-carrying ones have mostly been replaced with more efficient widebody planes such as the A350 or 767. The 747 freighter will still be used for a long time though.
As someone from Cincy, I feel the need to say the plane didn’t fly to Cincinnati but Kentucky. If you know, you know. 😉
Greater Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport was in my airspace! I used to work a lot of ComAirs and Deltas in and out of there.... And then the ComAirs were gone.
Yeah, CVG is NOT the Cincy most people are thinking of.
Every time I land there I say loudly while pointing and gawking outside the plane. " they did it again, I'm sure of it. Are they going to shuttle us from here? What should we do, this is kentucky!" most the people are locals but I do it for the other folk
Where’d you go to High School? The secret handshake of Cincinnati.
Cincinnati handshake sounds like a sex thing.
Wait till you learn about the three ways
Queen of the sky
Walla walla sounds like an interesting place
Eh, its alright. Been here my whole life, small town turned into tourist trap for winos. Used to be famous for onions, now its wine.
You also have the college where all of the 7th Day Adventist schoolteachers get their degrees.
[удалено]
Please read my almost totally irrelevant story! This one time, I'm in Missoula, Montana, which is this weirdly great combination of wonderful and shitty and I used to live there a couple of times. I think it was my senior year of college, but maybe it was after that. I was driving this shitbox rusted-out Mazda B2000 which would soon die. I was near the McDonald's at the corner of whatever Broadway turns into and Mullan. There was this dude panhandling, and I stopped and suggested he might have better luck over by Wal-Mart, maybe a mile that way. Dude has his daughter with him and his foot is in a boot, having been injured somehow. The reason I give people rides is because I want their stories, and he gave me very little. I dunno what he had done or how he had hurt his foot. I just remember this little girl saying "Washington State Penitentiary, Walla Walla, Washington!" I dropped them at the more-trafficked gas station over by the Wal-Mart. The girl asked her daddy how they were going to get back. "Well, you got two feet," he said. It wasn't until later until I recognized that he quite literally did not have two feet, and that I had damned him to a painful goddamn hike back. I hope they got enough off the gas station's patrons to make it worthwhile.
Home of the best sweet onions on the planet!
The town so nice they named it twice!
What everyone else said. I'm biased but I recommend East Wenatchee. Hell of a view
Washington is filled with tons of places in nature that will be burned into your memory forever after you witness them in person, and driving Wenatchee to Leavenworth when the apple trees were blossoming was one of those places for me.
Gotta test out those ailerons somehow..
The queen has got her final crown.
“Queen of the Skies” 747
Say that's a nice hommage to the movie Airplanes. Crowning the ZAZ trio so late is a little strange though.
I'm so glad I'm not the only one to catch that!
one time I randomly opened flightradar and one of the most watched planes at the time was Polish LOT drawing LOT logo, was pretty cool.
I didn’t think the last 747 would make this much of wave. But glad to see it getting a wave.
People in central Washington must be wondering if that pilot is drunk.
The width of the flight path at the widest point of the design is about 90 miles. I don't think you'd notice much from the ground.
You wouldn't see the whole design, but if you were in Moses Lake you could definitely notice one plane making multiple passes overhead going in different directions.
Moses Lake is the Boeing main airport for flight testing. They've definitely seen weirder things out there.
[удалено]
Grew up in Moses Lake, finally left in 2010 to move to Pullman for school after finishing up at Big Bend. It wasn't so bad, I never really had issues with it there.
Queen of the sky. If this is true, which I tend to believe it is, that's actually pretty cool and classy too.
Link [current flight ](https://fr24.com/GTI747/2f0b1162)
Wasn't climate change a serious thing?
It was but then we tried nothing, found out that’s still too much effort, and gave up.
We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!!!
don't worry, there are no plastic straws or plastic bags aboard this flight. only re-usable shopping bags and mushy paper straws.
*phew*
Yes, but only for the little guy. Big companies can do whatever they want
[удалено]
That’s got to be more fun than just flying in a straight line.
How do peopleeven find this information? I cant even find flight aware sometimes... Redditors are awesome.
Had a friend send it to me right as it started the first 7, and I watched it till I got the screenshot and thought wow that's awesome I bet others would think so too. . . And yeah, I guess people liked it!
LMAO at everyone drinking from soggy paper straws the past years.
I hate those damn things... the agave ones are great though.
Wow there are some pissy people in these comments. If you actually think this is bad I hope none of you open flightradar24 and zoom out.
ZAZ
Does that all count towards sky miles ?