747 is the greatest aircraft of all time, morons

[Jason Strong]

Does it really take a travel agent to inform you guys that the 747
will be the aircraft long remembered in aviation history?

The 747 revolutionized air travel and has moved billions of people
around the earth, making flight obtainable to everyone for a
reasonable price without the need to become a pilot or join the AF.

The 747 has established air routes that link the entire world and
moved cargo at a pace that transformed not only the delivery business
but the nations that rely on those resources to advance their own
industries.

Who cares about some old rusting hunk of military hardware? Even the
sleek SR-71 is nothing compared to the Jumbo.

You guys need to get your heads out of your ass**, um... the clouds...
and think about the revolution the 747 has caused and the
accessability of flight to the average Joe.

Even when that monster Airbus slugs its way into the air it will be a
long time before that aerial doubledecker ever truly rivals the Jumbo.

The 747 will never be forgotten while Concorde fades away like the
Russian SST.

JS

[Jonathan]

I think that is more an opinion than anything else. I certainly agree with
you that the 747 did revolutionize aviation, but you could make that
statement for many aircraft. There are tons of aircraft that are just as
important to flight as the 747. The Wright Flyer, the DC3, Me262, Concorde,
and the list could just keep on going.
-Jonathan
"Jason Strong" > wrote in message
om...
> Does it really take a travel agent to inform you guys that the 747
> will be the aircraft long remembered in aviation history?
>
> The 747 revolutionized air travel and has moved billions of people
> around the earth, making flight obtainable to everyone for a
> reasonable price without the need to become a pilot or join the AF.
>
> The 747 has established air routes that link the entire world and
> moved cargo at a pace that transformed not only the delivery business
> but the nations that rely on those resources to advance their own
> industries.
>
> Who cares about some old rusting hunk of military hardware? Even the
> sleek SR-71 is nothing compared to the Jumbo.
>
> You guys need to get your heads out of your ass**, um... the clouds...
> and think about the revolution the 747 has caused and the
> accessability of flight to the average Joe.
>
> Even when that monster Airbus slugs its way into the air it will be a
> long time before that aerial doubledecker ever truly rivals the Jumbo.
>
> The 747 will never be forgotten while Concorde fades away like the
> Russian SST.
>
> JS

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Jason Strong) writes:
> Does it really take a travel agent to inform you guys that the 747
> will be the aircraft long remembered in aviation history?

No, but for some reason, the theme from Expedia.com is running through
my head, just now.

> The 747 revolutionized air travel and has moved billions of people
> around the earth, making flight obtainable to everyone for a
> reasonable price without the need to become a pilot or join the AF.

I really have to disagree. The revolution in air travel came 10 years
earlier, with the introduction of the Boeing 707 and the DC-8. They
were teh aircraft that changed air travel, bringing about a whole new
universe of operating economics and making transoceanic travel
something other than a luxury. The 747 expanded that somewhat, but it
was operating in a universe that had already changed. The 747 was an
evomutionary step, not a revolutionary one.

It was the 707 that killed off the Ocean Liners. They were all gone
by the time the 747 showed up.

> The 747 has established air routes that link the entire world and
> moved cargo at a pace that transformed not only the delivery business
> but the nations that rely on those resources to advance their own
> industries.

Uhm, what routes, exactly? The 747s aren't going anywhere that the
707s weren't already going.

> Who cares about some old rusting hunk of military hardware? Even the
> sleek SR-71 is nothing compared to the Jumbo.

> You guys need to get your heads out of your ass**, um... the clouds...
> and think about the revolution the 747 has caused and the
> accessability of flight to the average Joe.

This paragraph makes me quite proud that I helped develop the
Distributed Network Control System that allowed the Sabre Reservation
Network to be restrung for open access, thus allowing the average Joe
to find and book flights over their own computers, reducing the
requirement for Travel Agents.

> Even when that monster Airbus slugs its way into the air it will be a
> long time before that aerial doubledecker ever truly rivals the Jumbo.

Y'know, I still haven't seen how the A380 is supposed to pass the
evacuation requiremnts for certification. The upper deck's too far
off the ground for slides to work reliably enough.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[damron]

Yes, the 747 will be remembered. However, I think its place in history is
more evolutionary than revolutionary. The 707 more closely meets the
criteria that you presented. Its entry into service was truly
revolutionary.

> The 747 revolutionized air travel and has moved billions of people
> around the earth, making flight obtainable to everyone for a
> reasonable price without the need to become a pilot or join the AF.

When the 747 entered service, prices did not drop. In many cases, fares
increased, as passengers were willing to pay a premium for non-stop service.
It took awhile before passengers benefitted from reduced operating costs.
Likewise, load factors limited the routes on which the 747 could be
operated.

Although you don't address it, the "average Joe" has never been an
international traveller. For the "average Joe", affordable domestic and
continental air service was revolutionary. For the "average Joe", the 727
and 737 were probably more revolutionary.

> The 747 has established air routes that link the entire world and
> moved cargo at a pace that transformed not only the delivery business
> but the nations that rely on those resources to advance their own
> industries.

Having worked extensivley in air cargo operations, we are in some agreement
here, but maybe not for reasons that you intended. If you were thinking
about 747 freighters, I would argue that the tremendous cargo capacity of
passenger 747's has played a bigger role in cargo transport, over the life
of the 747. The economics of operating a 747 freighter has always been a
bit problematic.

> You guys need to get your heads out of your ass**, um... the clouds...
> and think about the revolution the 747 has caused and the
> accessability of flight to the average Joe.

It sounds like you need to pull your head out of your ass and learn more
about civil aviation

[C.D.Damron]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> The Comet lead the way, the metal fatigue issue lead to changes in the
> following designs on both sides of the atlantic.


I'll put that in the category of, "what might have been."

[John Cook]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:13:33 GMT, "damron"
> wrote:



The Comet lead the way, the metal fatigue issue lead to changes in the
following designs on both sides of the atlantic.

Cheers
>
>
>
>
>
>

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Andreas Maurer]

On 29 Nov 2003 18:01:22 -0800, (Jason Strong)
wrote:

>The 747 revolutionized air travel and has moved billions of people
>around the earth, making flight obtainable to everyone for a
>reasonable price without the need to become a pilot or join the AF.

Go a couple of years ahead and take a look at the Junkers 52...
Bye
Andreas

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:28:53 +0100, Andreas Maurer > wrote:

>On 29 Nov 2003 18:01:22 -0800, (Jason Strong)
>wrote:
>
>>The 747 revolutionized air travel and has moved billions of people
>>around the earth, making flight obtainable to everyone for a
>>reasonable price without the need to become a pilot or join the AF.
>
>Go a couple of years ahead and take a look at the Junkers 52...
>Bye
>Andreas

The JU-52 was a contemporary of the DC-3, which was clearly a far more
advanced and noteworthy aircraft.

Al Minyard

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>
> The JU-52 was a contemporary of the DC-3, which was clearly a far more
> advanced and noteworthy aircraft.
>

Contemporary? The Ju-52 first flew in October 1930, more than five years
before the DC-3. That's a fairly long time in a period where aviation
technology was advancing rather rapidly.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message >...
> "Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The JU-52 was a contemporary of the DC-3, which was clearly a far more
> > advanced and noteworthy aircraft.
> >
>
> Contemporary? The Ju-52 first flew in October 1930, more than five years
> before the DC-3. That's a fairly long time in a period where aviation
> technology was advancing rather rapidly.

Yeah, but the DC-3's *very* close direct ancestor, the DC-2, flew in
1933, and was quite a bit advanced over the Ju-52 (more than one would
probably expect from a three year period in the early 1930's). I don't
think 1930 versus 1933 is that much of a difference, do you?

Brooks

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:27:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The JU-52 was a contemporary of the DC-3, which was clearly a far more
>> advanced and noteworthy aircraft.
>>
>
>Contemporary? The Ju-52 first flew in October 1930, more than five years
>before the DC-3. That's a fairly long time in a period where aviation
>technology was advancing rather rapidly.
>
The DC-2 (which was as similar to the DC-3 as the Ju-52 was to its latter iterations)
first flew on 1 July 1933. Three years makes them "contemporary" in my book.

Al Minyard

[robert arndt]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:27:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> The JU-52 was a contemporary of the DC-3, which was clearly a far more
> >> advanced and noteworthy aircraft.
> >>
> >
> >Contemporary? The Ju-52 first flew in October 1930, more than five years
> >before the DC-3. That's a fairly long time in a period where aviation
> >technology was advancing rather rapidly.
> >
> The DC-2 (which was as similar to the DC-3 as the Ju-52 was to its latter iterations)
> first flew on 1 July 1933. Three years makes them "contemporary" in my book.
>
> Al Minyard

Who cares Al? DLH had a whole bunch of world class aircraft that set a
bunch of records including the Junkers G.24, Junkers 52, Junkers G.38
(the Jumbo of the '30s with a bar and salon plus wing viewports) and
of course the modern Fw 200 Condor that flew record flights from
Berlin-New York and Berlin-Tokyo.
Other aircraft that were adapted from a civilian role to a military
one included: the He-111, Ju-90 series, Dornier flying boats, and
giant Bv 222.
Even so, the occupied French built two advanced high-wing Bv-144
transports that could have been Europe's medium range airliner
postwar:

(a rare photo): http://net.bialystok.pl/~hess/b/blohm_bv_144_fot_01.jpg

Rob

p.s. Al, your anti-German hatred is showing. Who doesn't love the
Ju-52? It is one of the world's greatest civilian aircraft of all
time.

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)

<snip>
>
>p.s. Al, your anti-German hatred is showing. Who doesn't love the
>Ju-52? It is one of the world's greatest civilian aircraft of all
>time.
>
Your bias is showing. I have flown in both the Ju-52 and DC-3. I found the DC-3
superior.

The Ju-52 was Martin Caiden's.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (robert arndt)
>
> <snip>
> >
> >p.s. Al, your anti-German hatred is showing. Who doesn't love the
> >Ju-52? It is one of the world's greatest civilian aircraft of all
> >time.
> >
> Your bias is showing. I have flown in both the Ju-52 and DC-3. I found the
DC-3
> superior.
>
> The Ju-52 was Martin Caiden's.

Neat. I recall seeing that same aircraft back in the very late seventies
when Caidin flew it into Langley AFB for an openhouse. There were three
warbirds there--the Junkers, a P-38, and IIRC an AT-6. IIRC Caidin taxied in
to the display line with his head poked up through an overhead hatch while
waving at the crowd? Long time ago...

Brooks
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Kevin Brooks"

>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: (robert arndt)
>>
>> <snip>
>> >
>> >p.s. Al, your anti-German hatred is showing. Who doesn't love the
>> >Ju-52? It is one of the world's greatest civilian aircraft of all
>> >time.
>> >
>> Your bias is showing. I have flown in both the Ju-52 and DC-3. I found the
>DC-3
>> superior.
>>
>> The Ju-52 was Martin Caiden's.
>
>Neat. I recall seeing that same aircraft back in the very late seventies
>when Caidin flew it into Langley AFB for an openhouse. There were three
>warbirds there--the Junkers, a P-38, and IIRC an AT-6. IIRC Caidin taxied in
>to the display line with his head poked up through an overhead hatch while
>waving at the crowd? Long time ago...
>
>Brooks
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

That was the last weekend in July 1978. The P-38 belonged to Pete Sherman if I
recall correctly. I got my rides (2) in the Junkers the day before the open
house with the P-38 and some other airplane, I can't recall it's designation,
in formation.

It was rather interesting watching the P-38 easily pass us with one prop
feathered.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: (robert arndt)
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> >
> >> >p.s. Al, your anti-German hatred is showing. Who doesn't love the
> >> >Ju-52? It is one of the world's greatest civilian aircraft of all
> >> >time.
> >> >
> >> Your bias is showing. I have flown in both the Ju-52 and DC-3. I found
the
> >DC-3
> >> superior.
> >>
> >> The Ju-52 was Martin Caiden's.
> >
> >Neat. I recall seeing that same aircraft back in the very late seventies
> >when Caidin flew it into Langley AFB for an openhouse. There were three
> >warbirds there--the Junkers, a P-38, and IIRC an AT-6. IIRC Caidin taxied
in
> >to the display line with his head poked up through an overhead hatch
while
> >waving at the crowd? Long time ago...
> >
> >Brooks
> >>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> That was the last weekend in July 1978. The P-38 belonged to Pete Sherman
if I
> recall correctly. I got my rides (2) in the Junkers the day before the
open
> house with the P-38 and some other airplane, I can't recall it's
designation,
> in formation.
>
> It was rather interesting watching the P-38 easily pass us with one prop
> feathered.

Wow, small world. I can remember being amazed at how *slow* the P-38 seemed
when it did its flight demo--being used to the likes of the F-106's flown by
the 48 FIS and later the F-15's of the 1st TFW ripping over the
neighborhood. That was one of the last airshows I attended at Langley; ISTR
there was a nice A-10 flying demo and the usual (but still impressive) F-15
demo prior to the Thunderbirds show. A bit different from the days when the
316th TAW with its C-130's was the major resident unit at Langley (talk
about feathering...I can still remember seeing a C-130 pass overhead with
one feathered while on final approach)! Though I do recall an earlier
openhouse on the NASA side that included some flight demonstrations,
including a RATO assisted takeoff by a C-130E and a VTOL demo by a HS
Kestrel in NASA livery. I don't know how they do today, but when I was a kid
in the late sixties and early seventies the annual Langley airshow was the
highlight of my summers--my first recollection of them was when they were
still in the F-100, and I had a print of them flying their shortlived
F-105's hanging in my bedroom. Thanks for reviving good memories!

Brooks

>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Pete]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote

> Thanks for reviving good memories!
>
> Brooks

Langley is still quite good, if a little toned down.

A few years ago (97ish), a U-2 came in. Did a pass down the runway, and then
turned and landed.
Taxied to the end of the main show area, and TA was helping the pilot out.

As we were down towards that end, my son and I walked down there just as the
pilot was getting out.
Big helmet, pressure suit...the whole deal.

People were starting to take some pics...the pilot was just standing there.
Then off comes the helmet, and all this blond hair falls out.

The looks on people's faces was classic.
"OMG!!...It's a girl flying that thing!"

Pete

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: 747 is the greatest aircraft of all time, morons
>From: "Pete"
>Date: 12/5/03 7:12 PM Pacific Standard Time

>People were starting to take some pics...the pilot was just standing there.
>Then off comes the helmet, and all this blond hair falls out.
>
>The looks on people's faces was classic.
>"OMG!!...It's a girl flying that thing!"
>
>Pete
>
>

Then there was the day in Stansted England with pea soup fog right down to the
deck. Then we heard a pair of R-2800's overhead. No one believed that it
could make it down safely. It did. Out climbed a a WAAF ferry pilot. She did
something we never thought she could do. Very impressive. She was delivering a
new Marauder. But to these gals this was SOP and was repeated many times in the
months to come..But she learned to fly long before the war began and had more
hours than most of our pilots.

Regards,

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ron]

>Then there was the day in Stansted England with pea soup fog right down to
>the
>deck. Then we heard a pair of R-2800's overhead. No one believed that it
>could make it down safely. It did. Out climbed a a WAAF ferry pilot. She
>did
>something we never thought she could do. Very impressive. She was delivering
>a
>new Marauder. But to these gals this was SOP and was repeated many times in
>the
>months to come..But she learned to fly long before the war began and had
>more
>hours than most of our pilots.
>

Reminds me of a story of a WAC pilot who, post war was a stewardess. On a
DC-4, the co pilot is a ex single engine fighter guy with a bit of an
attitude...Captain, who knew the stew well and knew she was a skilled pilot,
told the copilot to lose the attitude or he would invite the stewardess to come
in and take his place in the seat.

Copilot still has the attitude, but no clue she could fly, so captain invites
the stewardess to come in, where she then flies the appproach perfectly!




Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Reminds me of a story of a WAC pilot who, post war was a stewardess.
>

WAC pilot? Perhaps you mean WASP.

[Ron]

>Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Reminds me of a story of a WAC pilot who, post war was a stewardess.
>>
>
>WAC pilot? Perhaps you mean WASP.
>

Yes you are right....I stand corrected




Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Tex Houston]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Reminds me of a story of a WAC pilot who, post war was a stewardess.
> >
>
> WAC pilot? Perhaps you mean WASP.

My thought exactly.

Tex