Talk:Boeing 747-400

fly-by-wire

Is the Boeing 747 a fly-by-wire aircraft or does the pilot still control the plane independent of an electronic/computer aided control system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.123.80 (talk • contribs)

The 747-400 is still hydraulic, but the 747-8 is partially FBW (varying by which flight surface we're talking about.) —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

ah. thanks for the little bit of info. i was just wondering since the 744 was introduced in an era when fbw was starting to become the standard (a320 and onwards, boeing 777 etc.). what control surfaces of the 747-8 will be computer aided (pitch, roll, yaw). thanks for the answer.74.112.123.80 06:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Variants?

I don't think the 747-8 should be refered to as a variant of the -400, it's the new model. --203.122.209.151 09:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the 747-8 does use the 747-400 as a starting point. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Current operators

The way "Current operators" for a product like the 747-400 is formatted is impractical. It needs to be revised or split. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking, why is it on this page, in one form, and then an extended list here?

Surely the duplication isnt needed? Reedy Boy 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Great point. user:mnw2000 00:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:070112a 2 lg.jpg

Image:070112a 2 lg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Converted Freighter nose door

Is it technically impossible or economically disadvantageous to install a nose door? 84.173.231.124 18:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Probably some of both. It'd take a big rebuild of the area to the get the structure to allow for a nose door. Boeing may not approve that also. -Fnlayson 19:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Weight-to-fuel ratio?

The article cites an "incredibly high dry weight to fuel volume ratio" for the -ER version. Isn't a low weight/fuel ratio the desirable one? A solid brick has a higher weight/fuel ratio than a milk jug.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.100.179 (talk • contribs)

The LCF is *really* fast!

The article currently says: "Compared to marine shipping, delivery times for the parts built in Italy will be reduced from around 45 days to four hours with the 747 LCF." I suspect it takes more than four hours to fly from Italy. While it's a lot faster than 45 days, can someone find a more accurate flight time? I just don't know, or I'd fix it myself. Davidlwilliamson (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• I looked in the LCF article and changed to that text and reference. Boeing states it can reduce delivery times from 30 days to as low a 1 day. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Corsairfly2.jpg

Image:Corsairfly2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Northwest listed as a current operator

Why is NWA and DL listed as a current operators? Shouldn't NWA be removed since it is no longer a certified operating airline. I know the statistics state are from 2008 but they really need to update it. Snoozlepet (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I believe the Boeing C-33 article should be moved into this one, seeing as the C-33 never moved beyond the paper-project stage, and its page is only a little more than a stub. - The Bushranger (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree the C-33 article is unlikely to grow and most of the info is already in this article under variants. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I now believe we have consensus to merge. Airplaneman ✈ 18:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Merging now. - The Bushranger (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Outdated information in the Operators section

The information available in the operators section is outdated (as if the date didn't give it off :P) and some of the airlines listed (e.g. JAL, South African Airways) have retired their fleets of 747s and other airlines have picked up or leased 747-400s from other airlines. If you can, please find out the new operators, remove old operators and find out the new total in service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadunit404 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the current list is based on commercial operators data from Flight International, which only publishes the data once a year, in August. Or use data from some self-published web site.. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like that information will be dated until Flight International publishes the latest information. Considering how fast this year has been going (feels like it began only yesterday to me) four months shouldn't be TOO long. --Quadunit404 (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

-400 and -400ER

The Design and Development section has the following statement:

Qantas uses the aircraft on its Melbourne-Los Angeles and Sydney-San Francisco flights, which are too long to operate using a standard 747-400.

The last bit is demonstrably false, because United Airlines does not have 747-400ERs and yet operates a daily non-stop SYD-SFO route. Before I delete it, I'll wait to see if there is a good reason not to do so. Darcyj (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)