World's biggest jet engine takes off

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

i dont know how many still fly in total but these at least will use them for a while.



British Airways still operates 36 of the 747-400, but plans to retire the jumbo jet by 2024. It flies to several US cities, including on the busy London Heathrow–New York-JFK route.

KLM has announced plans to retire its 747-400 fleet, there's no publically-announced timeline. The airline still flies the plane on a few routes, including Los Angeles–Amsterdam.

Air China flies two variations of the 747: the -400, and the newer -8. Catch it to Beijing from US cities including New York and San Francisco.

Asiana operates several 747s on its routes, including a few to the US

El Al operates six 747-400s, servicing cities including New York, London, and Paris.

Lufthansa's 747-400 and 747-8 fly between Frankfurt and cities including Orlando, Seattle, Denver, Boston, Houston, and New York's Newark airport.

Korean Air flies the 747-400 and 747-8 on some of its US routes, although many are serviced by the A380. The 747 operates on some flights from Honolulu, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and occasionally New York.

Qantas is in the process of retiring its 747 fleet to make way for Boeing 787 Dreamliners

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The way I see it, a lot of airlines are moving away from 4 engined aicrafts, and at the current production rate for the 747-800 the production may stop in 4 years due to no orders.
The point of having 4 engines is that you have no ETOPS limit - so I doubt anyone will aim for a twin engine 747 if you have 777 with huge amount of orders.

The 777 is so much more efficient than the 747. Remember, fuel consumption is the main cost (outside of aircraft purchase price) airlines incur. You can likely operate two or three 777s for the price of one 747.

The problem with upgrading the 747 is that the engines are too close to the ground to install bigger, more efficient engines. 777, on the other hand, was designed for massive engines from the start.

If Boeing could reasonably fit bigger engines on 747 they could introduce a new version of it and court new orders. Then again, it might make more economical sense to go completely back to the drawing board and make a new aircraft altogether. I don't think this seems likely though because orders for the A380 are dwindling too (apparently it isn't profitable for Airbus):
https://airwaysmag.com/industry/a-l...airbus-a380-and-boeing-747-orders-deliveries/

 

[lexluthermiester]

The problem with upgrading the 747 is that the engines are too close to the ground to install bigger, more efficient engines.

I think this very article, and the flight it depicted, has proven otherwise.

 

[Nuckles56]

I think this very article, and the flight it depicted, has proven otherwise.

For permanent usage, I think the engine would be too close to the ground and as a result have too high a risk of FOD

 

[lexluthermiester]

and as a result have too high a risk of FOD

FOD?

 

[PLAfiller]

FOD?

Foreign object debris, I think. It is anything that has fallen on the tarmak: suitcase lock, zipper, lighter , anything. Guys working on the airport has a constant duty when walking/driving if they see something like this to pick it up and get it out of the tarmak.

 

[dorsetknob]

The Meds i'm on when taken in conjunction with Alcohol give me weird dreams

here is a weird Idea
Variable Pitch Moter mounts (hear me Out )

Mount upgraded Engines as that picture shows
+ Points Reduces Foreign Object Debris ingestion FOD
Increase's Downward thrust for Shorter take off's
Engine Mounts adjust Pitch for Normal Level flight and increase level thrust
Should not be that Hard to retro engineer ( and before you knock the idea think back to concorde's nose ).

 

[repman244]

The 777 is so much more efficient than the 747. Remember, fuel consumption is the main cost (outside of aircraft purchase price) airlines incur. You can likely operate two or three 777s for the price of one 747.

The problem with upgrading the 747 is that the engines are too close to the ground to install bigger, more efficient engines. 777, on the other hand, was designed for massive engines from the start.

If Boeing could reasonably fit bigger engines on 747 they could introduce a new version of it and court new orders. Then again, it might make more economical sense to go completely back to the drawing board and make a new aircraft altogether. I don't think this seems likely though because orders for the A380 are dwindling too (apparently it isn't profitable for Airbus):
https://airwaysmag.com/industry/a-l...airbus-a380-and-boeing-747-orders-deliveries/

Looking at fuel cost/consumption alone the 777 is NOT more efficient. The -300ER burns around 7,3 tons of fuel per hour which comes down to around $10500 per hour (~$28 per seat).
The 747-8i/F burns around 8,8 tons of fuel resulting to around $25 per seat of fuel burn.

But that is only a small part of the story - since when you factor in the costs of operating and most importantly - maintenance costs it quite often looses against the 777.
It also comes down to routes/airports it's being operated at - which is the main factor why 4 engine aircrafts still exist.

There are however still many many more factors that come into play (ever noticed that not all 747-800 have winglets? Yes it's an option and it does NOT bring profit to everyone like general public thinks it does - there are downsides as well) which you get to know if you work in aviation. The amount of manpower and paperwork that keeps these things in the air is just mind boggling.

 

[yotano211]

You could drive a bus into that engine, I believe!

Not if the engine is on, I hope.