Talk:Boeing 747

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing 747 article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Featured article star Boeing 747 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 9, 2008.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Boeing 747 is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia

User:Andmott is currently recording or editing an audio version of this article.
See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

This notice is dated 2008-02-06 . If a significant amount of time has passed,
please check with User:Andmott to see if he or she is still working before removing this message.

Contents


[edit] Factual error?

In Background and initial design it says that Malcolm Stamper was Boeing's President in 1966 (when quoting Juan Trippe - "...a great weapon for peace..." etc). But a bit later in Production plant it says that Stamper was head of the company's turbine division around that time. Also, in the article on Malcolm T. Stamper, it says he was Boeing President from 1972 to 1985. Do we need to correct this, and if so how best to do it? --JCG33 (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Good observation; correction made. Archtransit (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing references

I replaced some of them. Less than about 25% are Boeing references. Some of them are good sources, such as technical specifications and measurements. Use of other sources is less definitives. As far as references used to confirm opinions, a lot of them are not Boeing references. Per SandyGeorgia, FA deputy director, please discuss here if you have something to add. Archtransit (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crashes

Per SandyGeorgia, trying to make it prose even though other aircraft articles don't do it this way. Let's see how this works. Archtransit (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verb tense

Yes, the 747 is a jet airplane. But it was the first one ever produced. As someone alluded to in an earlier discussion, the plane exists in the present, but references to its stages of development (including its initial deployment) are in the past. As currently written, this reads very awkwardly. Other possible versions could read:

  • The Boeing 747, sometimes nicknamed the "Jumbo Jet", was the first wide-body commercial airliner ever produced.
  • The Boeing 747, sometimes nicknamed the "Jumbo Jet", is a wide-body commercial airliner, the first ever produced.
  • The Boeing 747, sometimes nicknamed the "Jumbo Jet", is a commercial airliner, and was the first wide-body jet ever produced.

I understand that the first version will be objectionable to many, because someone who goes no further in the article might conclude that 747s no longer exist. But that would be my first instinct. I shall not make any change at this time; I await others' comments. Just please don't say "this is the way that all other similar articles are done". Precedence is significant, but it does not preclude intelligent rational thought for all future generations. Unschool (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just bad grammar! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.205.159 (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that someone has made the change to the first of my proposed versions. I'm cool with this, of course, but am still open to one of the other two versions, if someone objects to the first. Unschool (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Max speed with wind

Does anyone know what the maximum speed wind assisted is? Its quite common to break 1,000km/hr when flying across the pacific ocean because of the high wind speed you are still just below the sound barrier.--Dacium (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The max design speed is .92, so that plus max wind gives you your result. I recently saw 1100+km/h on my way to Europe with a 150 km/h tail wind. Given 977 km/h max speed and 250 km/h wind, which is probably the maximum for the jetstream, you get 1227. Mgw89 (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Wright Brothers

I believe it was the fuselage, not the wingspan. Furthermore, I think it needs to be properly cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllStarZ (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wright Brothers first powered flight was 120'. Both the wingspan and length of the first 747-100 is longer than that. I notice that the dimensions of the various variants of 747 have been properly cited.--PremKudvaTalk 10:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mach speed

In the introductory section of the article it says that Mach 0.85 is 913km/h. Later on (under Background) it says that Mach 0.75 is 919 km/h. I'm pretty sure the second one is right and the first is wrong (because the Boeing source is wrong), but I don't know whether the top speed is Mach 0.85 or is 913 km/h.Fat Red (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually Mach speed does vary according to altitude, so it is possible that both figures could be closer to right than you think. Such number-crunching isn't my forte, I'll let our resident mathemeticians and aerodynamicists tackle that. - BillCJ (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The Mach 0.85 speed is right. The speed is calculated from that at a cruise altitude of 35,000 feet as listed here. I fixed the Mach 0.75 data. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

'Out of service' and 'Incidents' really need to go above 'Specifications' to match WP:AIR guidelines and the majority of our other articles, I tried but the images are causing problems, they don't look neat as it is (just in those sections). If both of these sections were expanded slightly and one image removed then it should fit better. Just a thought. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ref name="Boe_storyIV"

The citation associated with "Boe_storyIV" referenced a blacklisted website: www (dot) associatedcontent (dot) com . I did not discover this until I tried to re-insert the citation.

The original citation was:
<ref name="Boe_storyIV">Cox, Joel. [http://www (dot) associatedcontent (dot) com/article/324426/the_boeing_story_part_iv.html "The Boeing Story Part IV"], ''Associated Content'', [[27 July]] [[2007]]. Retrieved: [[17 December]] [[2007]].</ref>

This citation appears to have been removed by User:RoboMaxCyberSem with edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_747&oldid=199054955
--Dan Dassow (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • We should be able to find a replacement for that. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet purchase

According to this, the Soviets wanted to purchase Boeing's book on the criteria that the 747 team used. Can this be included in the article somehow? It seems pretty reflective of how well Boeing planned this, especially when the Soviets sought the 20-year-old book that had no military significance. 156.56.137.46 (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to be directly related to the 747 more to do with the methods of design used by Boeing.MilborneOne (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It was their design guide on the 747. The guide was/is built on with each model. It was not 20 years old at the time. This is mentioned in Joe Sutter's book too. Selling them that book would be selling away company expertise and knowledge. That knowledge could have helped in designing military transports and such. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)