The Boeing 747 David H. MintonFIRST EDITION FIRST PRINTING © 1991 by TAB/AERO Books, an imprint of TAB Books. TAB Books is a division of McGraw-Hill, Inc. Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. The publisher takes no responsibility for the use of any of the materials or methods described in this book, nor for the products thereof. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Minton, David. The Boeing 747 / by David H. Minton. p. cm. — (Aero series ; v. 40) Includes index. ISBN 0-8306-3574-2 1. Boeing 747 (Jet transports) I. Title. TL686.B65M57_ 1991 629.133'349—dc20 90-21315 CIP TAB Books offers software for sale. For information and a catalog, please contact TAB Software Department, Bluc Ridge Summit, PA 17294-0850. Questions regarding the content of this book should be addressed to: Reader Inquiry Branch TAB Books Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17294-0850 Acquisitions Editor: Jeff Worsinger Book Editor: Steven H. Mesner Production: Katherine G. Brown Book Design: Jaclyn J. Boonc Cover photograph courtesy of Bocing Commercial Airplane Group.Contents Acknowledgments Introduction In the Beginning Bigger and Better 1 First Orders 6 First Flight 8 In Development Two Basic Versions 12 Big Top and Megatop 15 Putting the Custom in Customer 17 Milestones in Boeing 747 Development 21 In Detail Engines 23 Landing Features 25 Electronics 27 Production Problems 34 The Future 38 Vii 11 234 In Uniform 39 United States Air Force 39 Iranian Air Force 40 NASA 41 Air Force One 43 Other Uniforms 44 5 In the News 45 Setting Records 46 Crashes and Smashes 47 Tenerife 50 Terrorism 51 Lockerbie 52 Rocket Attack 55 Tokyo 57 Aging Aircraft 57 The Future 59 6 In Scale 61 1/200 Scale 61 1/144 Scale 67 1/156 Scale 71 1/125 Scale 71 1/100 Scale 72 Conversions 73 Decals 73 Appendix: Boeing 747 Fleet Listing 77 Index 113Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge support from the following: Boeing Commer- cial Airplanes, McGraw-Hill, Aviation Data Center, Kit Collectors Clear- inghouse, and Airliners magazine. ViiIntroduction HIS BOOK is for you if you are an airliner observer, historian, or modeler, or if you have any interest in the Boeing 747. It covers all variants of the 747 in use, including military and civil versions, both American and foreign. It discusses the origins of the design and the evolution of the 747 into a “world class”’ airplane like no other—probably the single greatest contribution in modern times to allowing the people of the world to meet and mingle. Beginning as a “wide-body”’ jet in a class all its own from the start, the 747 has evolved into one of the most sophisticated, complex, and cost-efficient aircraft ever built. It carries more people farther than any other aircraft in existence. This book chronicles the history of the magnificent 747, while along the way, pointing out some of the colorful and significant historical events associated with it, including records, terrorism, and acci- dents. Many of the most colorful schemes ever put on a 747 are illustrated, together with a fleet listing. Finally, the book covers virtually all of the models of the 747 available, with construction, conversion, and livery tips provided for many of the most important. In short, if you are interested in the 747, this book has something in it for you.In the Beginning IKE ALL Boeing airplanes, the Model 747 began with an idea. For the 747, the largest commercial jet in service, the idea was to meet a requirement yet unborn, a require- ment foreseen in certain people’s imaginations—not yet a reality, not yet discovered. The basic issue concerned projections for air travel in the 21st century. These projections heralded more: a lot more travelers and a lot more cargo using the same airports and the same airplanes. Some people envisioned an almost steady ‘‘airplane conveyer belt” of people being transported in and out of airports using conventional air- planes. Day and night, the sky would be full of airplanes as people arrived and departed. More airplanes of existing types were not the answer, because each airplane could hold only so many people, so more airplanes would simply get in the way. More airports wouldn’t help, because people wanted to go to the same basic destinations. There was simply no place to put more airports. Bigger and Better If more planes and more airports wouldn’t meet the need, then the answer had to be bigger airplanes. And, in Boeing’s case, bigger implied a lot bigger. When the Boeing 747 was first conceived, the largest intercontinental airliner in service was the Boeing 707, which could carry up to 200 people (depending on configuration). It could fly to any interna- tional airport in the world and was in service, at that time, with approximately 70 different carriers throughout the world. The 747 was envisioned as the 707’s replacement, but able to fly farther, faster, higher, and carry up to 500 people at a time—over twice as many per aircraft as the 707. In addition to relieving the overcrowded skies, this aircraft offered the possibility of lower operating costs per passenger, since the same four engines would be carrying more than twice as many people. When all is said and done, the operating cost per passenger is perhaps the single most important consideration to the passenger carrier.Pan Am Airline Pan American was the first to order the 747 and has used them since the beginning. Seen here in that carri- er’s most recent markings, with the titles in large letters in Pan Am blue on the fuselage in lieu of a cheat line, N740PA, Clipper Ocean Pearl, a series 121, makes her way across the skies. All carriers (with the exception of government-owned or subsidized carriers) are in busi- ness to make a profit and stay in business. In a sense, because airlines were more regulated when the 747 was first conceived and fuel was a lot cheaper, the profit incentive was not as magnified as it is today. But it was still a major consideration, as was passenger comfort, which promised to be much better on a two-aisle wide-bodied jet. Regulation had been a natural fallout of the original subsidy of the airline companies to carry mail. In the beginning, the U.S. government was the largest customer of the carri- ers, paying for the transportation of mail, by air, across the United States. With the Air Mail Service (as it was then called), a letter could get from New York to San Francisco in about 20 hours, with an average of 18 stops along the way, whereas surface mail (by train) could take up to three days. Passengers were included more by accident than by design. The carrier would have a contract with the U.S. Government to pay for the specific route, and any additions or extra freight—passenger or otherwise—that was carried just hap- pened. As it became apparent that the ground service requirements for aircraft were just as important and expensive as the aircraft itself, the involvement of the government in terms of services and safety became more and more complicated. In this sense, ‘ground ser- vice” included much more than just refueling and loading the jet; it also provided for all of the runways and terminals, all of the landing and instrument aids, and all of the various navigation aids that were slowly springing up across the United States. In the meantime, passengers began to provide real income to the carriers, and carrying the mail and other government merchandise slowly became of secondary rather than primary importance to most of the carriers. The airlines began to evolve.rmercial Arplane: Com HAG BEE OG BOG Be The difference in capacity between the 747, with its two deck configuration, and the near- est similar capacity wide-body aircraft, the DC-10, is illustrated here. The 747 can carry about six times as many passengers as the original DC-9 and a little less than twice as many as the DC-10 illustrated here. BOAC (British Overseas Airways Corporation), later British Airways, was one of the early operators of the 747. Seen here with the gold speedbird on the tail, NM12799B was later delivered as G-ANNA. But it was easy for the government to slip from the position of being the primary cus- tomer to subsidizing the various carriers to develop and provide incentives for air travel. Therefore, the public began to get a deceptive idea of the true cost of air travel. From the very beginning, carriers had a real idea of their real operating costs, and the proposed Model 747 offered a simple way to decrease these costs. A decrease in costs translated to an increase in profits—the ideal proposition for carriers. Under deregulation, the cost sub- sidy of the fare structure for the individual carriers would be removed. With this removal,The 747, largest of the Boeing jetliners, can carry over six times as many people as the Boeing 737, smallest of the Boeing jetliners. Here the first Western Airlines 737 series 200 is seen in the original Indian Head markings. the actual cost of the fare would become more important. Unfortunately for the carriers, cost is driven much more by the total operating expenses—including the Direct Operating Expense (DOE)—than one might expect. Thus, if a carrier has a domicile in New York and a domicile in San Francisco, the total cost of operating a modern jetliner between In actual use, the 747 has more directly replaced the intercontinental 707s, widely in use at the time the 747 was first delivered. Detractors claimed the 747 was nothing but a scaled-up 707, but history would prove them wrong. Seen here is OD-AFT, a 707 in MEA markings, with the Cedar of Lebanon on the tail.those two destinations will be less than between two destinations for which there is no domicile. The reason for this is that all of the ground handling expenses are already included at the domiciles, whether or not the aircraft arrives, but they must be leased or bought from some other carrier or service agency at other destinations. So a ticket from New York to San Francisco might be half the cost of a ticket from New York to Salt Lake City and a fourth of the cost of a ticket from Albany to Butte for the same carrier. The actual distance is not really that much involved in cost, particularly after a certain thresh- old of about 500 miles. But the new 747 would require an entire new generation of ground handling and ser- vice equipment. This consideration was somewhat threatening to the carriers, so the task of selling the 747 was not as simple as it could have been. Indeed, all of these consider- ations were included in the life-cycle cost estimates developed by the Boeing engineering team. Also included, but not obvious, were the production costs, which would require an entire new generation of hangars and assembly facilities and techniques. With all of these facts in hand, the 747 engineering team estimated the cost per air- craft at 20 million in current dollars. They estimated a break-even cost of about 50 air- craft. The initial study was, in effect, bootstrapped from an earlier government competition for the CX (later to be known as the C-5 series, which Boeing lost to Lock- heed), so by this time, most of the technical facts for the 747 were already in hand. The C-S was a government-developed and sponsored aircraft, and was the first true jumbo jet to fly, even though it has never been made in a passenger version. Although Boeing lost the government transport contract, it decided to test the water for a commercial version of a similar aircraft. Armed with multiple artists’ conceptions of the finished plane in the respective carriers’ livery, and various facts and figures, the team set off on a tour of various international airline companies. They visited airline facilities nee ee mcta Sait aia é A * While not a direct competitor of the 747, the Douglas DC-10 was sold as a wide-bodied transport. Many carriers operate both 747s and DC-10. Here a British Caledonian DC-10 is seen at Long Beach in the deliv- ery markings on a maiden flight. The DC-10 can carry about 225 people depending on the configuration.throughout the world, often running into teams from Douglas, who at the same time was working on the DC-10 project, and teams from Lockheed, who was working on the L-1011 project. It was as if an entirely new generation of wide-bodied jets suddenly took hold at the same time. First Orders In the beginning, Boeing received what was then the largest order in the history of com- mercial airliners. Pan American Airlines placed an order for 25 of the new Boeing 747s, at a total cost, including spares, of over $550 million. Armed with this single order, the Boeing engineering team began serious work on the remaining design effort, the goal now being to build and fly a Boeing 747. Slowly but surely, the aircraft took shape under the team’s hands. After trying a variety of fuselage configurations and shapes, including dou- ble passenger configurations, the rather strong, simple lines that we have come to know all over the world emerged. These lines did not change shape in the ensuing months. mre <3 Spee ee = : & Another aircraft sold as a wide-body was the Lockheed L-1011. This Eastern Airlines white-crowned Whis- perjet is seen enroute. The L-1011 also carries a maximum of about 225 people. Because of the increase in the cockpit height—now some 30 feet from the ground— Boeing pilots were concerned that there might be problems with learning to ground- handle the aircraft. This led to the invention of a simulated cockpit, mounted high above a truck bed, for the purposes of familiarization. Thus, as the engineering crews were work- ing on the prototyping and fabrication of the actual aircraft, the flight crews were evolving a whole new generation of cockpit simulators, which would eventually impact the entire concept of flight training and associated costs. Similar problems, owing to the 747’s increased height, were met and solved concern- ing the evacuation process during emergencies. New, larger galleys to feed more people had to be designed. Entirely new entertainment systems—with up to four different movies showing at the same time in different parts of the aircraft—had to be developed.David H Minton The implementation of the 747 required an entirely new family of ground handling and servicing equipment, as can be seen by the various pallets and loading equipment sur- rounding this Northwest Orient 747 in Honolulu. Boeing already had experience with a double-decker fuselage design. One of the most successful transcontinental airliners in post-WWII service was the Boeing 377 Strato- cruiser, a double-decker airliner built on the basic B-29 airframe. The double-decker arrangement for the Stratocruiser was a “double-bubble” affair. Such a design was con- sidered unacceptable for the 747, which would be traveling at speeds much higher than those of the 377. One of the early problems was where to put the crew. There were several interesting designs proposed, including the so-called ‘*droop-snoot,” in which the upper cabin deck tapered quickly down to the nose, where the cockpit crew was located. In all, more than 50 different variations of the double deck fuselage were seriously investigated by Boeing for the 747. Eventually, however, the elegant design we know so well today was adopted. Many of the early development aspects of the 747 were finalized with feedback from its potential eventual users, the pilots and cabin crews of the carriers who ordered the air- craft. There are many interesting anecdotes about changes to the galley door locations, increasing sizes in drains, and redesigning the spiral stairs associated with the design of the first 747. By the time the new 747 design was ready for customer input, Boeing was adept at putting these ideas into practice. Above all, Boeing designed the aircraft with safety in mind. There is, in some sys- tems, quadruple redundancy to ensure that, as Boeing puts it, ‘‘no single failure will jeop- ardize the passengers, crew, or cargo.” Orders for the aircraft continued to grow. As Pan American announced adding the new aircraft to their inventory, it seemed they almost challenged all other carriers to join them in ushering in this new age of wide-bodied aircraft. The challenge seemed to work, and the other carriers quickly responded. Soon after the initial Pan Am order, orders started coming in from all over the world, with Lufthansa, long a faithful Boeing cus- tomer, becoming the first non-U.S. carrier to order the big new jet. Orders eventuallyIn addition to new cargo-handling equipment, the 747 required a new generation of food and cabin service equipment, as can be seen servicing this Swissair 707-300. came in from Delta, Eastern, Aer Lingus, Continental, Japan Airlines, Air Canada, World Airways, KLM, United, American, Air France, Alitalia, BOAC, and Swissair. Today, virtually every noncommunist country has at least one 747 flying international routes, primarily between their capitals and London, New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo, and similar cities. Japan Airlines has as many as 60 of the jumbo jets, with an additional 20 on order, and currently has the largest fleet of 747s in the world (a position long enjoyed by Pan American until recent years). First Flight Finally, the first 747 was ready to fly. The maiden flight, which lasted about 45 minutes, was uneventful. As Boeing noted in its in-house newsletter, it was almost anticlimactic that the aircraft ushered in a new era of wide-bodied transportation. Pilots were satisfied with the overall handling characteristics of the aircraft. After a couple of landings and takeoffs, the “tall’’ cockpit location seemed almost natural to them. There were none of the scary problems associated with the Boeing 727 program, in which pilots were often disoriented by the relationship of the aircraft to the ground and sometimes flew the plane into the ground on landing. Although the 747 was obviously different in this relationship, ssa Swisian . e e re | DUTCH AIRLINES : j Although designed for containerized cargo, the 747 can easily handle a variety of palletized cargo, as seen being loaded on this KLM white-crowned series 100 somewhere in the far east. the extensive training and familiarization required by the program more than compensated for the size of the new aircraft. Best of all, from the point of view of the engineering team, pilots liked the new jet. They were quick to learn its handling characteristics both on the ground and in the air. The use of the rear steering on the main struts made the aircraft almost as easy to handle on the taxiways as smaller jet airliners, according to pilots who flew both types. And the 747’s flight characteristics were quickly applauded. No one expected the plane to be as smooth and easy to handle as it was on its very first flight. All parties concerned were eager to get the 747 into service, but several problems were yet to come. The 747 has been known by a variety of interesting names. The largest of Boeing’s jets, it has shared the name ‘‘Fat Albert” with the smallest of Boeing’s airliners, the 737 (see Aero Series 37, Boeing 737, TAB book No. 20618). It has also humorously been referred to as a ““condominium” and a “‘flying tin heap.” With the advent of newer series 747s, the older ones have been called “classics.” But from the very beginning, the Boeing 747 was different, larger, more stately—“The King of the Road.” = Ea £EAer Lingus put the 747 to work on international routes between Dublin, Shannon, and New York. Seen here is St. Colmcille, which was leased to Air Siam shortly after delivery. Markings are the early light and dark green on a white crown. ne The 747 SP, or Special Performance, is a smaller, long-range version of the 747. Typically, it can carry about 100 fewer passengers than a series 200, but can travel about 1000 miles farther. This red-trimmed Air Malawi SP, 70-YKL, is seen in temporary service in 1985. 10 via J Wegg AirlinersIn Development URING the Second World War, visual aircraft recognition was extremely important. Aircraft recognition and observer’s books were published to help people learn the quick detection of an aircraft throughout the war and for some considerable time there- after. Although the Boeing 747 came long after such books ceased to be published, a rec- ognition manual might have described the 747 as follows: “Easily the most widely recognized passenger aircraft in the world, the 747 is a two- story affair with a cockpit bulb on the top front. The wings are instantly recognizable, shaped like a boomerang and tucked low in the belly of the enormous fuselage. From the cantilever wings are hung huge engines, dwarfed only by the yet bigger size of the air- craft.” But a simplistic description such as this, while perhaps visually describing the air- craft, belie the vast technology and flexibility embedded in it. Boeing was quick to realize that the 747 was, ina real sense, a plane for all seasons in the long-haul business. True, a 747 could not get from London to New York as fast as the Concorde, but the fact of the matter is that there is very little call for service such as is available on the Concorde, even if it is all First Class. Most passengers would rather pay a considerably lower fare and arrive at their destination somewhat later. The transit time from London Heathrow to New York Kennedy is about three hours on the Concorde and about six hours on the 747, depending on the time of the year, the weather, and so forth. However, because much of the total travel time is used up in getting to and from the airport, the actual improvement the Concorde offers in terms of total travel time is fairly small. As the distance travelled gets greater, the Concorde becomes more efficient, because it easily flies twice as fast as ilUnited Airlines The easiest way to distinguish a series 100 747 from later variants is by the number of windows at the top. Here, in original delivery “‘Friendship”’ colors, is a three-window United series 100. the 747—but it cannot carry sufficient fuel to take full advantage of this capability. The Concorde must make frequent stops for refueling along the way, which naturally slows the aircraft down, and these takeoffs and landings add to the fuel burn, making it even more ineffic. nt. On the other hand, the 747 can fly the distance. It has been in the business of setting distance records since its beginning. Additionally, Boeing has consistently increased the distance capability of the aircraft throughout its life. Two Basic Versions There are two basic versions of the 747, passenger and cargo. For both versions, once the enormous infrastructure of passenger- and cargo-handling facilities and equipment is in place, it is easy to move enormous loads of freight from one hemisphere to another and across continents. Humans, being the peculiar beasts that they are, still prefer to travel at what might be called “convenient hours.” That is, they prefer to take off about mealtime and arrive about mealtime. The ideal schedule is rumored to put the aircraft out at about the proper time for some specific meal, or have it arrive just before some specific meal. For example, flying from San Francisco to Washington Dulles, a takeoff serving breakfast or lunch, with a landing just before lunch or dinner, is most desirable to passengers. In actuality, it might be that many of the flights are tied to work days, with arrivals and depar- tures scheduled, as much as possible, to coincide with the beginning or end of the work day. Hence, those hours that are “‘inconvenient” to the passenger, as long as they don’t cause problems with noise abatement, are available to cargo—and the 747 can carry a lot of cargo. Boeing, having learned this early on in the 707 program, began to develop two differ- ent (but not independent) series of 747 aircraft, all-cargo and convertible passenger/cargo, in addition to the all-passenger version. While the cargo version wanted to carry a lot of freight, and the convertible version wanted to carry a lot of passengers and freight, the passenger version wanted to go farther and farther. This led to the creation of the SP, (Spe- cial Performance) version of the 747. From a passenger’s point of view, the SP is probably the premier aircraft of all time. Because it is basically a downsized version of a regular 747, it can go higher, farther, longer, and faster than virtually any other passenger aircraft in service today. It also gets off the ground and above bad weather much faster than any other aircraft. But more importantly, it can follow those long and tremendous routes far- ther anc faster than any other aircraft. Thus, carriers such as Qantas, South African, Iran f2700 500 Hours siaBuassey 400 300 200 a o 9 2 2 2 3 3 : 2 3 8 8 8 100 2 oD ® w w pe c ” o vo 8 3 E 5 5 a a Re ” ” 25 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 Year Graph illustrating distance vs passenger-carrying capacity by years for various aircraft for a trip from San Francisco to New York. Air, and others who have to fly long routes between such cities as London and Cape Town or New York and Sidney were quick to recognize the use of such an aircraft. Other carriers (such as TWA and LUX) attempted to use the aircraft effectively, but were unable to sup- port their markets. Nonetheless, Boeing aggressively developed and marketed the aircraft, and Pan American set records and developed excursion flights based on it. For those carriers needing more passenger density over a shorter route structure, Boe- ing developed the SR (Short Range) version. The special seating arrangement for this air- craft allows seating for 498 passengers, (about half as many as the bullet train). Japan 13a Lor Sa 7 Vt David H Minton collection The all-cargo version of the 747 is easy to recognize by the fact that the windows are completely removed from the aircraft. This Seaboard World Aircraft is now in service with Trans America. Branitt Airlines Fe ath The series 200 is easy to tell from the series 100 by the number of windows at the top—10. This aircraft, called ‘‘Big Orange’’ because of the color, was also known as ‘‘747 Braniff Place,”’ and for a number of years was one of the most elegant international addresses. Airlines put this version to work on the very densely traveled Tokyo-Osaka and Tokyo- Sapporo routes. This particular use of the aircraft closely parallels one of the early reasons for the 747’s development: to provide for more people on fewer planes. For the cargo version, Boeing went to the heart of the matter and developed an aircraft that could easily carry 100 tons of cargo from point to point. Cargo carriers such as Sea- board, World Airways, and Flying Tigers were early to recognize this capability, and put the Boeing to work. World Airways in particular made much use of both the cargo and 14convertible versions. Other, more traditional carriers began to usc the aircraft to replace their aging cargo fleet, so names such as Northwest Cargo and Pan American Cargo and JAL Cargo became common on the sides of the 747. Available for both regular and special (or charter) flights, these versions of the 747 have been scen at virtually cvery jetport in the free world. Big Top and Megatop Later, as the technology continued to evolve, Bocing developed a bigger and better air- craft. By the time the series 300 was put together, engines had become so efficient that it was possible to carry bigger and better loads farther and faster. The original series 300 was called (by carriers such as Singapore) the “Big Top,” because it was basically a 747 with more advanced avionics and a bigger bulge on the top for the passengers. When Singapore put the series 400 into service, even though the fuselage was the same size, they called it the “Megatop.” It’s not quite a double-deck version of the aircraft, but it is getting close. It is interest- ing to note, with ever-increasing fuel prices, the greater emphasis placed on the upper deck of the 747 as a passenger space. In some early versions of the aircraft, this space was little more than a passenger lounge. But from the series 100, with upper deck seating for 16, has evolved the new series 400, with upper deck seating for 84 in business class and 124 in tourist. Boeing offered carriers a chance to retrofit their series 100 aircraft to series 200—and later, 300—standards. Trying to unravel Boeing series numbers can be quite a struggle. Originally, the air- craft was called, simply, the 747. However, as improvements were incorporated, the new aircraft was called the 747B. This implied that the original aircraft was the 747A. The convertible version of the aircraft was called the 747C, and the freighter version the 747F. However, it was quickly realized that the 747B was a different aircraft from the 747A. After a time (and certainly without any consistency), Boeing designated the new aircraft a series 200 and the original aircraft a series 100. This was something of a compromise < 6 3 6 5 3 3 (Stretched Upper Deck) and the EUD (Extended Upper Deck). The series 300 has about twice the upper windows of the series 200. Seen in the new Qantas colors, this aircraft is on a test flight. 15Many of the series 100 aircraft have been retrofitted to series 200 configuration with the addition of the upper deck seating. This NWO conversion at Log Angeles international shows to good effect how this con- version is implemented. MEGKIS = SINGAPORE AIRLINES © W ocsrsessrs The series 400, the newest member of the 747 family, is easy to recognize because of the extended wings and the upturned winglets for long-range efficiency. Singapore put the series 300 into service as the ‘‘Bigtop.”’ Later, when the series 400 entered service, 1t was called ‘‘Megatop.’’ The series 400 has the same extended upper deck as the series 300. between the designation of the series for the 707 and for the 727. With the 707, as differ- ent engines became available, the series was identified differently. For example, the 707 series 100 and 200 were powered by Pratt and Whitney JT3C turbojets, while the series 300 was powered by Pratt and Whitney JT3D turbofans and the series 400 by Rolls Royce Conways. Thus, to a great extent, you could determine the delivery engines from the 16 Dawid H Minton Boeing Commercial Airplanes< Se a a The Special Performance or SP version of the aircraft is also easy to pick out in a crowd because it is much shorter than the original version, and comes to a sharp taper at the vertical tail. Here, an American Luxury- Liner SP taxis out. series number. With the 727 and 737, however, both of which were powered by Pratt and Whitney JT8D turbofans, the series number came to be a means of telling the size of the aircraft. In both cases, the series 100 was physically shorter than the series 200. With the 727, this never changed. With the 737, the aircraft went on to a new generation of series 300/400/500, all of which retain the original basic shape but which are powered by Gen- eral Electric CFM 56 engines. Putting the Custom in Customer For the 747, however, this has not worked out the same. In a general sense, the series number tells you the size (i.e., the gross weight) of the aircraft. Because most of the air- craft customers use different engines, you will usually need more information than the series number to determine the engine type. The basic features of each series are identi- fied below: Series Wingspan Length Passengers Range 100 19Sft. 8in. (59.64m) 231 ft. 4in. 490 3721nm SP 195ft. 8in. (59.64m) 183ft. 4in. 360 5933nm 200 195ft. 8in. (59.64m) 231 ft. 4in. 516 6150nm 300 195ft. 8in. (59.64m) = 23 1 ft. 4in. 624 5650nm 400 211ft. (64.3m) 225ft. 2in. 680 7000nm 17For the first couple years, nearly all 747s were delivered with Pratt and Whitney engines. Later, to meet specific carriers requirements, the General Electric or Rolls Royce engines were retrofitted. Continental inaugurated service between Los Angeles and Hawaii using the 747, called the “‘queen”’ of the fleet. At the end of each series, Boeing has historically added a two-digit customer identi- fier for each specific customer. This number has remained the same across all Boeing air- craft lines. Thus, for example, 21 is the Pan American designator, and a 727-121 would designate a short-bodied 727 originally ordered and built for Pan American. In reality, because of options and trades, to say nothing of cancellations, such as aircraft could actu- ally be delivered to anyone. Listed below are the two-digit customer designators for all of the original 747 orders. As you will recognize, some carriers never took delivery of their aircraft. Designator 06 12 17 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 29) 30 31 32 33 18 Carrier KLM Singapore Canadian Pacific Pan American United American Continental Eastern Braniff Air France Sabena Lufthansa (Condor) TWA Delta Air Canada Designator 43 44 45 46 47 48 51 56 57 58 73 83 84 86 90 Carrier Alitalia South African Airways Seaboard World Japan Airlines Western Airlines Aer Lingus Northwest Airlines Iberia Swissair El Al World SAS Olympic Tran Air Alaska Airlines Continental AirlinesDesignator Carrier Designator Carrier 35 National Airlines 98 Air Zaire 36 British Airways B4 Middle East Airlines 37 Air India DI World Airways 38 Qantas For example, a 747 series 400 delivered to British Airways would be designated as a 747-436, and so forth. From this more-or-less heuristic scheme, you cannot determine the engine configuration unless you also know more about the carrier. British, for example, has a preference for Rolls Royce engines. In the meantime, new technologies concerning wing construction using composite materials and wing efficiencies using tip fins were being developed. These technologies and others were eventually incorporated into the development of the series 400 aircraft. The series 400 is basically the original series 300 aircraft with a more extended upper cabin and new wing features that allow it to fly more efficiently with the same engine capability. The series 400 gave Boeing the chance to breathe new and current technology into a respected airframe. This new technology would be a balance between new avionics (including digital instrumentation and CRT displays) and the new wing concept. The result was a very extended upper fuselage with a deep upper deck for passengers. This is not truly a full two-deck aircraft, such as the C-124, but rather an extended upper deck for passengers along with a full lower deck. This allows for configurations with multiple cabin, business, and first class passengers. It must be recognized that we have grown so accustomed to the 747 that we fail to notice improvements. The fact is that ““The King of the road” must—and does—compete with itself. With the advent of the series 400, the new life infused into the airframe took the form of intense competition among carriers; as with the series 100-to-200 and the series 200-to-300 upgrades, Boeing has provided for series 300-to-400 upgrades. Besides having no cabin windows, the freighter version of the 747 has a forward-opening cargo nose, as seen on this Northwest aircraft, somewhere in Europe. 19Ly eae y \ ie 5 | ee This flat polar view of the world lends itself to illustrating the tremendous range of the series 400 Boeing 747 centered on major gateways throughout the world. In this view, arcs are drawn from San Francisco, New York, London, Honolulu, New Dethi, and Melbourne showing the normal range of a standard series 400. 20* Lo a8 EASTERN _ = 5 ele = SO erie kl es Although Eastern ordered the 747 early on, none were ever delivered. Eastern’s aircraft instead went to other carriers. However, some aircraft were leased from Pan Am and put into service on Atlanta-Miami- Bermuda routes. This series 100 has the later engines in service. Significant milestones in the development of the 747 are noted below: Milestones in Boeing 747 Development Boeing looses C-X competition to Lockheed. Boeing beings to sell 747 concept to international carriers. Pan American orders 25 747s. First Boeing 747 flown. Series 100 receives FAA Type Certificate. Series 100 put in service by Pan American New York-London. Series 200 first flown. Series 200 receives FAA Type Certification. Series 200 put into service by KLM. 747C (Cargo) (Series 100) version first flown. Cargo (Series 200) version receives FAA Type Certificate. Aug 1964 July 1965 14 April 1966 October 1969 30 December 1969 21 July 1970 11 Oct 1970 22 Dec 1970 Jan 1971 30 Nov 1971 7 Mar 1972 2122 Cargo version put into service by Lufthansa. SR (Short Range) version first flown. SR version receives FAA Type Certificate. SR (Short Range) version put into service by Japan Airlines. SP (Special Performance) version first flown. SP (Special Performance) version receives Type Certificate. SP (Special Performance) version put into service by Pan American. Series 300 first flown. Series 300 receives FAA Type Certificate. Series 300 put into service by Swissair. Series 400 first flown. Series 400 receives FAA Type Certificate. Series 400 put into service by KLM. 14 April 1972 June 1973 July 1973 Oct 1973 4 July 1976 4 Feb 1976 1 May 1976 5 Oct 1982 7 Mar 1983 28 Mar 1983 24 Apr 1988 9 Jan 1989 Summer 1989In Detail MPROVING the most successful airliner ever built has been both a challenge and a joy. Considered by many to be an instant classic, the Boeing 747 was designed from the very beginning to easily accommodate changes and improvements. In addition, it was crafted to be custom-tailored to the specific needs of individual customers. True, the cantilever wings are low in the fuselage and are swept back like a boomer- ang, but they also house the most advanced triple-slotted flaps yet developed. The 747’s engines are not just enoromous; they are the largest and most effective engines yet used on a commercial aircraft. There are several types of engines used on the aircraft, depending on the particular needs of the customer. Listed on page 24 are the major engine types used on the 747 and some of the typical customers for those types. As the 747 has developed, up to the series 400, the range of the aircraft has increased. Thus, as British Airways noted on delivery of the new series 400, except for Australia and New Zealand, all points on its route structure can now be reached nonstop from London! Engines Although the 747 was originally certified with the Pratt and Whitney JT9D-1B engines, these demonstrated unsatisfactory reliability. Subsequently, all Pratt and Whitney-pow- ered 747s were retrofitted with JT9D-3As. Although the Pratt and Whitney engines were developed specifically for the 747, the aircraft was later certified for use with both Gen- eral Electric and Rolls Royce engines. This keen level of competition has ultimately bene- fited the 747 passenger, because the end result has been delivery of an aircraft powered by an engine with substantially reduced fuel costs per passenger mile (one of the most impor- tant yardsticks used by airlines to measure potential profits). Although by no means com- prehensive, TABLE 3-1 identifies the most significant of the engines in use on the 747, as 23Flying in formation with the City of Everett, the original 747, the new 747 series 400 shows its greater upper cabin expansion and wingtips to advantage. Table 3-1. 747 engines and their power and use. Engine Static Thrust (in pounds) Series Pratt and Whitney JT9D-1 41,000 100/200 JT9D-3/3A 43,500 100/200 JTSD-3D 45,000 100/200 JT9D-3W/3AW 45,000 100/200 JT9D-7 45,500 100/200 JT9D-7A 46,250 SP JT9D-7R4G2 52,500 200/300 JT9D-7F 48,000 100/200 JT9D-7W 47,000 100/200 JT9D-70 $2,000 100/200 JT9D-7R462 54,750 300 PW4056 56,000 400 PW4256 56,750 400 General Electric CF6-45A2 46,500 100/SP CF6-50D $1,000 100/200 24 Boeing Commercial Airplanes:CF6-50E 52,500 100/200 CF6-S0E2 52,500 200/SP/300 CF6-80C2 59,000 300/400 CF6-80C2B1 56,700 200/300/400 Rolls Royce RB211-524B 50,000 100/200 RB211-524D 53,000 100/200 RB211-524B2 50,100 SP RB211-524C2 51,600 200/300 SPRB211-524D4 53,110 300 RB211-524D4-B 53,110 200/300 RB211-524G 58,000 400 well as the type of 747 and engine power. Other wide-bodies—for example, the DC-10 series 30—are powered by the General Electric CF6 type engine, while the series 40 is powered by the Pratt and Whitney JT9D type engine. On the other hand, the Lockheed L-1011, which sold to British Airways, is powered by the Rolls Royce 211 series engine. The particular engines are not identified by the series, as has been the case with ear- lier Boeing airliners. The engines are specific to the requirements of the customer, just as are the internal seating and galley layouts. Landing Features Besides the electronic landing equipment on the 747, which will be discussed separately, the landing features can be divided into two major components: wing and flap assemblies and landing gear. The 747 comes with a more-or-less conventional wing—certainly so by today’s standards—but with several innovations. NAT ECOom AL Orange and yellow sun on the tail, National was one of the early users of the 747. N77772, a series 135 named Patricia, was sister ship to N77773, named Linda, during the controversial ‘‘fly me’’ ads. 25The wing is a cantilever type, with triple-slotted flaps at the trailing edge and both Kruger and variable-chamber flaps at the leading edge. The variable-camber flaps, in ten separate sections, are outboard along the leading edge. They do not vary in camber until fully extended, and are made of a lightweight core material (which also has flexible char- acteristics) called “honeycomb.” Although commonly used on aircraft today, when first introduced on the 747, the technology was new. Inboard, there are two sets of Kruger flaps. On each wing there are a total of six honeycomb spoilers, four of which are out- board for flight use and two of which are inboard and for ground use. In addition to the flaps, both low-speed and high-speed ailerons are located on the trailing edges of the wing at conventional locations. All 747s except for the SP have this basic configuration. The SP wing does not feature triple-slotted flaps: rather, it uses an even more conventional single-slotted variable pivot type. Additionally, most of the wing substructures on the SP are made from lighter and/or composite materials, which contributes to the aircraft’s longer range capability. For the series 400, the basic wing discussed above was extended an additional six feet at each tip, and a vertical winglet also extends up six feet. These extensions, together with streamlining the wing-to-fuselage fairing, have given the 747 more efficient performance at higher altitudes and for the longer ranges that it normally flies. When Boeing originally extended the upper fuselage for the series 300, they realized an improvement in fuel effi- ciency of about 12 percent. With the wing improvements of the series 400, an additional seven percent—for a total of about 25 percent—has been added to the efficiency of the original airframe. Of course, all of these improvements must be taken in the context of improvements in engine and engine nacelle designs. In addition, the series 400 wing—as United Airlines In addition to taking over the Pacific route structure, United took over a large number of Pan Am 747s after the buyout. This aircraft, N146UA, was originally registered N537PA and put into service by Pan Am on June 9, 1978. 26well as the entire aireraft—makes better use of more sophisticated composite and lighter weight materials. All of the wing control surfaces are “fly by wire.’ Also, the series 400 has a much more advaneed eockpit, discussed separately, and the horizontal tail can now be used to hold up to 330 gallons (1249 It), of fuel, which gives the aircraft additional range. There are 18 wheels on the 747, two for the nose gear and 16 main wheels. The rea- son tor so many wheels is, of course, to reduce the overall loading at the runway, which is also ealled the sivigle wheel weight. This allows the 747 to operate from most conventional airports that ean handle wide-bodied aireraft. In this regard, the 747 is similar to an “aver- age” aireraft. It is also somewhat “average” for its ground-handling echaracteristies, for whieh the steerable nosewheel is augmented by steerable main trucks. The main gear is mounted both in the wings and in the fuselage, and the fuselage-mounted set are steerable. On reeent 747s, Boeing has used a white epoxy-type paint for corrosion control on the interior and wheel well areas. Electronics All of the 747’s eleetronies are either dual or triple redundant. Curiously, while the more eritieal systems, sueh as the Inertial Navigation System (INS), are triple redundant, as the technology has advaneed, one critical component has dropped from triple or quadruple redundant to double redundant. I’m referring to the flight erew, which has dwindled over the years from four to two, but not without much anguish. It is interesting to note that the early 747s eontain, on average, about a million movable parts, about 135 miles of eleetri- cal wiring, and about a mile of hydraulies. With the advent of the new series 400, some of the wiring has been reduced (by about 30%), but the rest of the load stays about the same. Although the particulars of the aireraft delivered are in accordance with the individual customer's specifications, the basies are easy to diseuss. Basie communications on the 747 * AIR CANADA a FF “ a ‘ (23.5 tee eer: a via aC LB» 5,8 e ‘ 4 y « Z ae +: a hy des = « vas : £7 Semthy, ey he! aly Also an early user of the 747, this series 100, with the bright red tail and cheat ie ied the white maple leaf, was put into service by Air Canada in February of 1971. It illustrates the later style Pratt and Whitney engines. a7 Au CanadaWith the vertical wingtip winglets and extended upper fuselage, the series 400 is pretty easily recogniz Northwest service from the beginning, this series 400 now sports a new paint job to go with the recent Pratt and Whitney PW4000 engines. include standard dual Very High Frequency (VHF) and High Frequency (HF) systems. In normal use, the VHF is used for local airport and Air Traffic Control (ATC) communica- tions, while the HF is used for longer range communications. The aircraft are also pro- vided with a variety of inflight entertainment, public address, and lighting systems. Typically, a combination of two radio altimeters and weather radars are provided to ensure sky location. For earth location, as already discussed, the aircraft is usually provided with triple Inertial Navagation Systems. There are usually three each of the Visible Landing System/Instrument Landing System (VLS/ILS) navigation and two each of the various Automatic Direction Finder (ADF) and marker beacon systems used for landing in mod- ern and primitive airports. The 747 is equipped with the latest in stall warning systems, central data management and warning systems, central instrument warning systems, and ground proximity warning systems. Of course, full automatic pilots and navigation systems are available. The 747 can be fully certified for both Category II and Category III landings. Swissair 747s, for example, are certified for Category IIIA landings, where the decision height is 19.7 feet (6 m) and the horizontal visibility is 492 feet (150 m). Other carriers fly the aircraft with different certifications, depending on requirements. Of course, the aircraft is equipped with a ‘‘black box.” Actually, the black box is not black at all; it is Day-Glo orange, orange-red, or even bright yellow with contrasting stripes. Also, it should not be called a box, but rather boxes. There are two components to each “black box,’ and some larger airliners carry an additional pair of each. The compo- nents are the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR). The 747 is equipped with the latest version of each. The FDR is used to record the flight char- acteristics of the aircraft during the flight, while the CVR records the last half hour or so of the cockpit conversation. The device records conversation inside the cockpit area as well as communications between the flight deck crewmembers and the ground. The most recent half hour is determined mechanically by the tape, since it is only a half hour long and automatically erases as it overwrites. The reason for a half-hour record is that when the requirement for the CVR was promulgated in 1966, it was noted that a crisis in the air rarely lasts more than half an hour. The FDR has been required by FAA regulations since LOST. 28., \ 740 eovacoucee IRAN AIR Airliners via J. Wegg This Iran Air SP illustrates to good advantage the flexing of the outboard forward wing flaps after they have been extended. Against the lower wing surface, they are flat. As they are extended, their surfaces curve, a flexing property of the honeycomb. Swissatr a eS —~ Ren et eee CRI Le pa ee I EEE Sear co This photo shows to good advantage the forward cargo door, which is being used on this Swissair series 300 in Zurich to load cargo, as opposed to the passenger baggage normally put in this compartment. As can be seen, the cargo doors are not plug-type doors and require a secure locking mechanism. 29As the Boeing has aged, these instruments have been updated to meet either the latest in safety requirements or the latest in technology, as the customer order dictates. While this has been particularly true of safety warning and management systems, nowhere has it been more obvious than with the instrument cluster. From the original 747 up through the series 300, an analog flight deck was used. For an analog flight deck (also called a ‘‘clock- work” flight deck), which is the traditional method of instrumenting an aircraft, each sep- arate concern is connected to a separate sensor on one end and to a separate instrument on the other end. Thus, for example, an oil temperature gauge for a four-engine plane would have a thermal sensor in the oil for each engine individually connected to a separate oil gauge for each engine on the flight deck. Given the number of engine characteristics nec- essary to monitor and a four-engine aircraft, this can lead to a large number of instruments for a fairly short period of time. For fuel management and communications awareness, there are a similarly large number of gauges. Likewise, for the actual flight characteristics (including altitude and attitude, direction, and speed), there are separate instruments. Navigation requires its own instruments. By instrumenting the 747 in analog fashion, Boe- ing built an aircraft that required a three-man crew—one to manage the engine instruments (the flight engineer) and two to manage the aircraft, typically, one to manage the actual flying and one to do the rest of the work. During this time, the ordinary 747 had some- thing like 800 instruments and switches for the crew to monitor. By the time work began on the series 400, many advances had been made in cockpit instrumentation. This led to the so-called “‘glass”’ cockpit, wherein the major functions are displayed on a glass screen not unlike a TV screen. That single instrument can serve a variety of functions. It also allows for the incorporation of integrated monitoring and warning systems, wherein a specific function will be displayed either only periodically or With delivery of the new series 400, Japan Airlines adopted a more subdued gray marking, although the bright red crane remains on the vertical tail. Also note the new General Electric engines used to power this aircraft. 30 nercial Airplanes Boeing Commonly when there is something out-of-bounds for a set threshold. Additionally, it allows the individual user to go from dial-type to tape-type displays by simply programming the dis- play driver and not by reinstrumenting the entire aircraft. By doing this, Bocing was able to reduce the number of instrument faces in the series 400 cockpit to around 300, which can be managed by a crew of two. A natural fallout of this type of digital instrumentation has been improvements in the maintenance and on-line diagnostics capabilities of the sys- tem to aid the maintenance crew in fixing problems. Improvements in the Flight Management System (FMC) have also been possible. The series 400 system is much faster and more responsive, and covers a large variety of prob- lems and criteria. Although response times as little as 1/7 of those of previous 747 tech- nology aircraft have been realized (largely because of the integration of such functions as throttle control, which previously was managed by a separate system), the jury is still out on this level of automation. The entire integrated package, as seen from the cockpit seat on the instrument panel, is called the Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS). First presented operationally to the airline community on the Airbus A300 series (notably, the A320), these have rapidly found a permanent place in the cockpit. Among other things, they make it much easier for the pilots to learn the new system, and to migrate from one type of aircraft cockpit to another. The basic format is six Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs), or TV screens. These are arranged on the instrument panel, two directly in front of each pilot and two between each pilot. The screens directly in front of each pilot provide for the primary flight stability and location, or navigation information, and are identical in each pair. The two shared provide the engine information. Boeing ‘Commercial Airplanes a Singapore 747 shows to good advantage the new Pratt and Whitney PW4000 engines and pylons, as origi- nally delivered with the series 400. 31With the new Swissair markings of red tail, white cross, and dark brown and black lower fuselage with a white crown, this red-lettered Swissair series 300 shows to good advantage the SUD (Stretched Upper Deck). Boeing put its own stamp on this type of design by offering much larger screens and more fully integrated systems. The four basic displays that can be brought up on any of the six big screens in the 747 cockpit are flight, navigation (including radar), engine, and sys- tems. Typically, as on the Airbus, the shared displays are used for engine above and sys- tems below, and the displays directly in front of the pilots for flight, on the right, and navigation on the left. Of particular interest on the flight display is the heading, which is displayed at the bottom portion of the screen as an arc, rather than the more traditional number. One instrument shows the Primary Flight Display (PFD), and together with air- speed, the primary information shown on it is called the Electronic Attitude Director Indi- cator (EADJ). The other, a navigation display, is called the Electronic Horizontal Situation Indicator (EHSI). It offers a ‘‘look behind” capability, as well as integration of weather radar with flight plans and approaches. Typically, these displays are used with the PFD to the outside of the aircraft and the navigation display to the center. The two center displays are the Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS). These displays are shared, without change, with the 757/767 cockpit environment. Standard is the vertical tape dis- play, although the round dial display is also available. The lower of the displays provides information about the engines, including compressor speeds, oil pressures and tempera- tures, and engine thrust ratios. The upper display is for the rest of the aircraft systems, including the door positions and the hydraulic pressures and fuel states. On newer aircraft, lire pressure is also shown on this display. Other improvements in the new series 400 over previous 747s have been in the carbon brakes, digital electronics used to control the engines from an integrated flight manage- ment system, fuel in the tailplane for longer range, greater travel for the vertical rudder, and plumbing in both the upper and lower decks for up to 26 lavatories. There are also several crew rest and bunk options offered, from bunks just aft of the flight deck to a crew rest area all the way at the rear of the extended upper cabin.Fam, “ ae: ad tn, WANTS li 4 ‘an i 1 - “Se, 9 Hy, | 5 * tia ale ae ees = nant, As with many carriers, Qantas adopted new livery with the advent of their Rolls Royce-engined series 400 aircraft. In this case, the kangaroo is preserved on the tail, but the overall impact is to increase the contrast between the white fuselage and the red tail, with understated Queens and Northern Territories Air Service (QANTAS) logos on the fuselage. = oe UV Ba! Known as the ‘‘clockwork’’ cockpit, this early series 747 three-man cockpit has approximately 690 dials and lights to monitor and 280 switches, compared to the 300 indicators and 200 switches found in the base- line 747 two-man cockpit. 33The newer wings are of the same basic 747 design, with the improvements discussed above, but are made of much improved composites, which reduce the weight of the wing by about 5000 pounds. One final interesting advancement in the 747 has been in the over- head bins. While the cost of handling baggage has continued to rise, largely because of unions, only in the last few years have carriers begun to realize the advantages to letting the passengers carry their own baggage. There is more than enough incentive for this, and one might even be able to build a convincing argument that the carriers deliberately reduce the number of people handling baggage so that it takes an unbearable time to collect one’s bags! To accommodate carry-on luggage in the 747, Boeing engineers have remodeled the hinging and location of the overhead bins, resulting in an increase in the volume from the previous 4.4 cubic feet to 10.6 cubic feet, although the new bins are provided in 60-inch segments. More passengers (particularly in the upper cabin area) naturally means more passen- ger ammenities, including gallies and rest rooms. This has led to a new rest room in the upper deck, which is somewhat larger and comes complete with a window! Production Problems As the series 400 went into production, Boeing was beset with a number of problems. Boeing was determined to certify the new series aircraft for all three types of engines at virtually the same time. This, combined with the increased electronic sophistication of the new 747, led to production problems. Although both Boeing and the FAA were working overtime to achieve the proper certifications, there were inevitable delays. Many of the delays were due to the fact that although the new aircraft was being certified as a variant of the old aircraft (that is, the series 400 was a variant of the series 300), there were signifi- cant differences. The series 300 was different from the series 200 primarily due to the extension of the upper fuselage. The series 400 retained the basic fuselage configuration of the series 300, but in addition to the changes in the wings, could carry fuel internally in the horizontal tail and had an all-electronic, two-man cockpit compared to the series 300’s three-man cockpit. This change involved as many as 40,000 wires being terminated differ- ently in the new aircraft—a problem of some magnitude. /ilitatia This Alitalia aircraft, in addition to showing the all-cargo version with no cabin windows, also illustrates to good advantage the early style General Electric engines. 34 David H Minton CollectionTo add more problems, some Boeing employees went on strike during the preliminary production of the aircraft. Although Boeing was not at penalty for delays in delivery due to strikes for most of their series 400 customers, they were liable for other delays, and were required to negotiate penalties. At the same time, several carriers were experiencing prob- lems with their flight crews, who were uncertain about the two-man cockpit. In early days, trains had engineers, who worked the controls, and firemen, who shoveled coal or wood for the steam. With the advent of the diesel locomotive, the use of the fireman was unclear. But, after long and painful negotiations, firemen continued to work the new loco- motives. In somewhat the same manner, flight deck crews, while applauding new digital avionics, were quick to point out that if a three-man crew each averages $100,000 per year, then a two-man crew, which has the same responsibility as the previous three-man crew, should average $150,000 each per year! 747 operators were quick to notice this rea- soning and point out that the Direct Operating Cost (DOC) of the aircraft due to higher crew salaries can be as much as 16 percent of the total, including airport fees, fuel, clean- ing, entertainment, and replenishing all of the consumables on board. For airline carriers, who paid more for the higher-technology two-man cockpit, this has been a thorny prob- lem. Such negotiations, shrouded in the number of hours flown per two-week consecutive period and on even-numbered deployment days, are difficult for the average fare-paying passenger to understand. It is not an easy problem. On the one hand, the pilots are quick to point out their tremendous responsibility during individual decisions; but on the other, whenever there is a problem with the aircraft, pilot organizations are quick to spread the blame to as many air traffic controllers and ground handlers as they can reasonably include, through their rather formidable unions. In addition, there is no clear evidence that automation of the cockpit makes the skies any safer, and many pilots are concerned about the loss of basic airmanship skills, such as flying the aircraft. Dawid H Minton 2 eee) a On landing approach, this standard Pratt and Whitney-powered Northwest 747 shows to good advantage the triple slotted trailing edge flaps. 35David H Minton Docking in Honolulu, this series 300 shows the variety of ground handling equipment associated with load- ing and replenishing one of Singapore Airlines’ Pratt and Whitney-powered “‘Bigtops.”’ David H Minton i = Tes SS i — » i Late} — pales : This Qantas SP, docking in Honolulu, shows to good advantage the early Rolls Royce engines used on the Boeing series 100/200/300 aircraft.~ BOEING 747-400 — ’ Dees AN This drawing shows both the advanced 21st century technology Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) instrument panel and each of the three engines available for the series 400 aircraft, as well as many other important details. Flight/QuadrantThe Future Future versions of the 747, outside of the currently produced series 400, are still on the drawing board. However, several ideas remain constant throughout the development of the aircraft, including extension of the upper cabin to carry more passengers and improve- ments in the cockpit management system, including reductions in the flight deck loading. Eventual re-engining of the aircraft, or development of a new version based on the newer technology engines now being developed (Pratt and Whitney PW4000, General Electric GE90, Rolls Royce Trent) is inevitable. We know that it is just a matter of time until the new engines go to 70,000 pounds of static thrust and beyond. Therefore, a 700-passenger very long range 747 is certainly not out of the question. Further off yet, there has been discussion of a 1000-passenger 747. Boeing is in a curious position in this regard. On the one hand, there is no other company currently capable of producing an aircraft that can compete with the 747 in terms of passenger load- ing and range, but on the other hand, Boeing is easily able to compete with itself. This is especially difficult because orders for the aircraft are so deeply backlogged and the ideas for improvement quickly roll off the technology assembly line. Boeing must exercise care not to compete with themselves faster than they can produce aircraft, but at the same time they must be sure to provide all of the necessary support for existing aircraft to survive a long time. Certainly, one of the most interesting 747 proposals has been extension of the aircraft by about 20 feet forward of the wing, including the upper cabin, and about 25 feet aft of the wing, using the ultra-high-bypass engines discussed above. Alternatives include dis- cussions of a full double-decker aircraft, something like the old Stratoliner. Finally, the 747, both old and new versions, continues to increase in range and capability, still setting records. It has always been the case that customers could change one of their orders or options for an earlier aircraft. Thus, for example, if a carrier ordered options on a series 300, they could elect to convert this aircraft, upon execution of the order, to a series 200F. Recently, however, there has been a new trend, where the carrier may take options on aircraft yet to be specified. This trend, combined with the possible new aircraft posed on the horizon, ensures us of many interesting variations of the 747 yet to be built. 38In Uniform T HE BOEING 747 has appeared in uniform in a number of interesting and somewhat unusual ways. In addition to service with the United States Air Force (USAF), it has also flown for the Iranian Air Force (IAF) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and has served as the personal transport of the Imperial Saudi family. Two 747s have been outfitted as Air Force One, the United States Presidential air- craft. United States Air Force Two versions of the Boeing E-4 aircraft have been made, the E-4A and the E-4B. On 23 February 1973, Electronic Systems Division (ESD) of the USAF announced that it would use two 747 series 200 aircraft, which were to be outfitted as Airborne Command Posts. These 747 versions would replace the existing EC-135 Airborne Command Posts, based on the Boeing 707 platform. The plan was to outfit the two 747 aircraft with the original, but updated, EC-135 equipment. These interim aircraft would be known as E-4As. Both of these aircraft were powered by the original Pratt and Whitney engines, with integrated avionics installed on the airframe by E-Systems. Later, as new avionics became available and integrated into the system capability of the aircraft, two new 747s would be delivered and the original E-4As would be retrofitted to E-4B status. Eventually, all four aircraft would be fitted with the newer General Electric F103-GE-100 turbofans, and these 747s are known as E-4Bs. Originally based at Andrews Air Force Base, just outside of Washington, D.C., under the dual command of both the National Military Command System and the Strategic Air Command (SAC), the E-4’s mission has since been placed solely under SAC. As a result, 39the aircraft are now based at Offett Air Force Base in Nebraska. Until recently, these air- borne command posts have been kept aloft 24 hours a day. With the recent thaw in the cold war, the aircraft are no longer flown 24 hours a day, but on a random and intermittent basis. The main deck of the E-4 is divided into six major functional areas, with the corres- ponding mission equipment for each area housed appropriately. These major functions include the National Command Authorities (NCA) work area, a conference area, a brief- ing room, a battle staff work area, a communications control center, and a crew rest area. Below the main deck is housed a technical control capability for the on-board communica- tions and a small but complete maintenance capability. The upper flight deck houses, of course, the cockpit area. In addition, the rear portion accommodates a navigation station and a flight crew rest area. The E-4 is, of course, capable of refueling in flight. Iranian Air Force It has been said that the Shah of Iran read Aviation Week instead of Playboy. Whether or not this is true, it is certain that during the Nixon administration, with the help of Henry Kissinger, the Shah pursued an aggressive policy of outfitting his nation with new and modern high-technology aircraft. As a result, the Imperial Iranian Air Force is the only other national air force that has had the benefit of the great range and incredible cargo- carrying capability of the Boeing 747. Although all of the missions of the Iranian 747s are, of course, not fully known, it is certain that the fleet usually carried inflight refueling capability and was often used to WYTRTUIT LIL a) ee 1 Seen here at Amsterdam in Imperial franian Air Force markings, this 747 shows an in-flight refueling capa- bility. This aircraft is overall silver and gray, with a dark blue cheatline and black titles with the three col- ored national insignia and flash on the vertical tail. 40 Airliners via J WeggAirliners wa J Weg After the fall of the Shah of Iran, the markings of the military aircraft were changed from those of the Impe- rial Iranian Air Force to those of the Iranian Air Force. Except for the change in the initials and the addition of Farsi script, the basic colors of the aircraft remained the same, white fuselage with dark blue markings and the Iranian green/white/red fin flash on the tail. Dennis Cross Although not truly a military uniform, “The Odd Couple”’ performed the duty for NASA of shuttling the shuttle from landing site to launch site. transport both troops and cargo, as well as the royal family. After the fall of the monarchy, these 747s remained on the inventory for a while as Iranian Air Force aircraft, generally being used in the same capacity; the refueling capability was removed from at least some of them. Eventually these 747s were transferred to Iran Air, where at least some of them continue to serve. NASA Before they ever flew, NASA discovered that it would have to solve a unique problem with its orbiter (Space Shuttle) fleet. The orbiters were going to land at Edwards Air Force 41Base, in California, but be launched by a booster from Cape Kennedy (Canaveral) in Flor- ida. Therefore, they would have to be moved from one place to the other by some simple means. Although briefly considered, building a break-apart shuttle was never seen as a realistic solution to this problem. Consequently, NASA took a 747-123 aircraft (which was being used for heavy, wide-bodied aircraft vortex flow research) and created what would come to be known as “The Odd Couple.” (Actually, it was really known as NASA 905, but it was usually called “The Odd Couple,” probably because of a popular televi- sion series of the time.) NASA Dryden Flight Research center built a so-called mate/demate apparatus, which was used to mount and dismount the shuttle from the 747 during the test phase. Boeing performed the necessary modifications to the aircraft, which included mounting the NASA-designed “piggyback” frame on the aircraft fuselage, strengthening the fuselage, instrumenting the link-up capabilities, rearranging the horizontal tail assembly to include the new vertical surfaces on the outboard edges, and much of the flight testing and certifi- cation. The first mated flight was completed on 18 February 1977, with the so-called SCA (Shuttle Carrier Aircraft) lifting the orbiter Enterprise at a takeoff weight of 584,000 pounds (264,890 kg). In this configuration, landings are generally made without the use of thrust reversers, or with minimum use of thrust reversers, to minimize damage to the orbiter. Later, on 13 August of the same year, at Edwards Air Force Base, the first free-fall launch of the orbiter from the mother craft was accomplished from an altitude of approxi- mately 22,800 feet. Originally, NASA planned to have two 747s modified to this configuration, but with setbacks in the space program (caused, in part, by the Challenger disaster), the delivery of . y wl : roe ¥ L Sil FR Seer ee ea — e 2 ® ® ’ Seen on liftoff for its maiden flight, the new VC-25 will become Air Force One when the President of the United States is aboard. It is covered with a protective coat of green paint in this photo, repainted as Air Force One prior to delivery. 42 itary Airplanes Boeing M.the second aircraft was delayed. Finally, in 1988, the second NASA 747 became fully operational. These two aircraft, remain the only way to transport the fully assembled orbi- ter from the landing site to the launch site after a shuttle mission. Air Force One From the early days of air travel, a special transport for the President of the United States has been used. One of the first of these was a DC-4 called the Sacred Cow, particularly when the President was aboard. The first jet aircraft to become the President’s personal transport was a Boeing 707-320 series, which carried the military designation of VC-135. It came to be called Air Force One when the President is aboard. During the Reagan years, it was determined that the venerable VC-135 Air Force One would have to be replaced. For almost three decades, Air Force One had been based on the Boeing 707- 320C platform in a VIP (Very Important Person) configuration. Although various air- frames have rotated through Andrews Air Force Base at different times, the basic aircraft remained the same since it was first put into service on October 12, 1962. ; Mare Aer. : : oe | In addition to all of the complicated communications and military equipment added to the VC-25, the entire fuselage area had to be changed to suit the mission; air stairs and in-flight refueling were added.Eventually the USAF decided on two series 200 747s as replacements; these will be known as VC-25s. These two aircraft are fitted with the General Electric CF6-80C2B1 engines and both have in-flight refueling capabilities. The new aircraft will easily accom- modate a crew of 23 and a passenger load of 70, which is nearly twice the payload of the VC-135, although the crew size is somewhat increased. This is, in large part, due to the increased mission capability of the aircraft. Inside, the VC-25 includes a presidental suite (with office, stateroom, and lavatory), conference rooms, emergency medical capability, and rest areas for the president’s staff. There is also an area for the news media, and two galleys. The upper deck accommodates the Air Force crew, who fly and maintain the air- craft, as well as the medical and communications capabilities. The lower portion of the aircraft, normally used for passenger baggage, on the VC-25 provides the air stairs, auto- mated self-contained cargo loaders, spare parts, extra meals, and specific mission-related equipment. Insofar as possible, the aircraft provides full-up on-board communications, including associated cryptographic equipment, and all associated computers, telephones, faxes, and radios. All of the communications are handled by a combination of Rockwell Collins and E-Systems equipment. Shielding from electromagnetic pulses (EMP), as would be gener- ated by high-altitude nuclear denotations, as well as conventional electromagnetic interfer- ence/electromagnetic shielding (EMI/EMS) are provided. In addition to the problems associated with the delivery of an aircraft carrying almost twice as much wire as a stan- dard series 200, tests of the new cabin cargo doors will have to be completed, as well as full-up testing of all of the on-board communications capability. The first VC-25 rolled out in September, 1989, and was successfully flown 26 Janu- ary 1990, then placed in service in late 1990. Other Uniforms In addition to use as a VIP transport for the government of Saudi Arabia, several 747s have been outfitted to support what is known as the U.S. CRAF (Civil Reserve Air Fleet). After modification, these aircraft are then called C-19A when used in military service. These modifications involved 19 Pan American 747 series 100 aircraft, which were con- verted to make the jets more capable of carrying both troops and cargo in the event of a national emergency. In addition to the conversion directly related to the CRAF program, Pan Am completed approximately $2 million in work on each of these aircraft as well. The basic modifications included a strengthened floor, which involved replacement of the floor beams, and the addition of a new 10-foot-high cargo door on the left side of the aircraft, aft of the wings. In addition, improved cargo-handling capabilities were added to each aircraft. These modifications were accomplished by stripping the passenger interiors out of the Pan Am aircraft, completing the modifications, and then reinstalling the interi- ors and returning the aircraft to passenger service. In the event of a national emergency, each of these aircraft could be pressed into service as either cargo or cargo/troop carriers in about 48 hours. A total of 19 aircraft have been so modified, of which 18 are still in operation, one having been lost over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.In the News ECAUSE of its size and capabilities, the Boeing 747 has been in the news almost since B its very beginning. Newsworthy 747 events include record-setting time and distance flights, but as the 747 appeared in more and more of the world’s fleets, other types of news events also occurred. Due to the natural affinity of terrorists for news-grabbing possibilities using airliners and airliner communications, it is not surprising the 747 has been the target of some of the most tragic terrorist events in our time. And due to the very nature of aviation, airliners will be involved in accidents. Because the 747 is the largest commercial aircraft in the free world and it operates throughout the world, it is no surprise that it appears frequently in the news. Because of its enormous size, an accident involving a 747 can cause as many fatalities as several smaller airliners, so the sheer numbers of 747 fatalities can seem, at first glance, to be quite alarming. The first production 747 to be put into service, N733PA, made the news when chris- tened Clipper Young America on 12 December 1969 by Mrs. Pat Nixon. It was supposed to be put into service by Christmas. Instead, it made the news again when it missed its inaugural flight from New York to London on 21 January 1970. In the wee morning hours of 22 January 1970, N736PA, Clipper Victor, after being temporarily renamed Clipper Young America, was substituted and made the flight. Engine troubles had crippled the original Clipper Young America. This aircraft, one of the first delivered to Pan Am, was originally equipped with Pratt and Whitney JT9D-1Bs, which were not the most reliable P&W engines. Subsequently, when the JT9D-3As became available, this aircraft (along with the rest of the Pan Am fleet) was re-engined and experienced relatively few engine problems. 45Later, Clipper Victor resumed its original name and went on to a terrible tragedy at Tenerife. The original Clipper Young America was renamed Clipper Constitution, while the original Clipper Constitution, N735PA, was at the same time renamed Clipper Young America. Although a bit bumpy for a start, it was the beginning for what would become the world’s most significant airliner, It was first put into service by the same carrier who orig- inally put the Boeing 707—also christened by a President’s wife—into international service. Setting Records Like the SR-71, the recently retired Lockheed Blackbird, nearly every time the Boeing 747 does something different, it sets a new world record, The 747 is a record-size airliner. No other commercial aircraft can carry the numbers of people across the distances that are possible with the 747. Therefore, flights involving the 747 did, of their own merit, set numerous records. Even before the first passenger-carrying flight discussed above, the very first flight of a 747, on 9 February 1969, is considered something of a milestone in the history of flight. After being put into commercial service, the 747 regularly made the news as new carriers introduced it on new routes. In addition, delivery flights to places such as South Africa and Australia commonly set records for time and distance. Flight times of 17 to 18 hours and distances of 10,200 miles became common. Delivery of a South African Airlines 747SP on 23-24 March 1976 required just such a record-setting flight. But aside from this sort of “bookkeeping” record-setting, the 747 was involved in even more interesting flights. Flights around the world, while not exactly commonplace, became possible. These flights were available to revenue passengers. Flying a Pan American 747SP, Capt. Walter H. Mullikin set a round-the-world speed record on 1-3 May 1976. For this flight, Mulli- kin circumnavigated the globe, flying west to east, in about 46 hours, for an average speed record of 502 mph. On 28—31 October 1970, the same pilot, again flying a Pan Am 747SP, circumnavigated the globe via the North and South Poles. This trip covered a dis- tance of 26,382 miles in a time of approximately 54 hours. In January of 1988, a United Airlines 747SP (previously owned by Pan Am) reduced this around-the-world record to less than 40 hours, with just two enroute stops in Athens and Taipei. As recently as 13 February 1°90, a Pan American aircraft with Capt. William Frisbee set a new world speed record for a four-engine, non-SST airliner. Carrying 227 passengers and 17 crewmem- bers, Frisbee flew from Los Angeles to New York, a distance of 2461 miles, in a record setting 3 hours and 45 minutes—nothing like the SR-71, but pretty fast for an airliner. Still in the news as the series 400 with its great Tange and capacity, goes into produc- tion and delivery, nearly every delivery flight to some distant location in Africa or Austra- lia will produce a record-setting flight. Several 747 (or models of 747s) have been in the movies. Thanks to great special effects, in the most recent a model of a 747 was destroyed in the movie Die Hard I]. Other 747s have appeared in movies, as well. Three of the most famous are N9675, of American Airlines, which was featured in Airport 75; N9667, also of American Airlines, which made its debut painted as Stevens Corporation for Airport 77, and F-BPVA, which appeared in La Bonne Annee. 46Pan Am Auris Pan Am aircraft, such as this SP Clipper Constitution, have been in the news for a variety of record-setting flights, including around-the-world flights both over the poles and at the equator. Occasionally a 747 will figure in a catastrophic event. As we will see, with very few exceptions, problems experienced by 747s are usually caused by human actions—either the deliberate destruction of terrorism or mistakes. It should be noted that because of the relative availability of information concerning British and American events, the discussion that follows might seem to be biased against the United States and England. In reality, nothing is further from the truth, but information involving other foreign aircraft, particu- larly those from Middle East countries, is often not available. Because of this, not all of the incidents can be discussed in equal detail. In all, there have been 17 hulls destroyed since the first 747 was built. TABLE 5-1 lists, in chronological order, the major events involving the loss or significant destruction of a Boeing 747 that have so far been identi- fied. Crashes and Smashes The first fatal accident involving a 747 happened to a Lufthansa aircraft on a flight out of Nairobi. On 20 November 1974, the plane was bound for Johannesburg, South Africa, on a flight from Frankfurt, West Germany. According to witnesses, the plane took off in a more-or-less normal fashion and then stalled and fell to the ground. There were 157 per- sons on board; of these, 59 died and 98 survived. This crash was attributed to an incorrect flap setting for takeoff, although the aircraft commander, Capt. Krack, testified he believed that the flaps were properly set. The actual takeoff was witnessed by a Sabena pilot, who testified that he noted not all of the training edge flaps appeared to be in the proper configuration. The next major incident (not counting terrorism, addressed separately in the next sec- tion) involved an Air India aircraft on departure out of Calcutta, India. This 747 crashed 47Date 9/6/70 P2372 11/20/74 6/12/75 5/9/76 S127. 3/20/77 1/1/78 6/30/78 12/27/79 1980 11/18/80 9/1/83 10/18/83 11/27/83 3/16/85 8/12/85 11/28/87 12/21/88 2/19/89 2/24/80 Table 5-1. Major incidents involving 747 aircraft. Aircraft N738PA JA8109 D-ABYB N28888 5-8104 N736PA PH-BUF VT-EBD VT-EFO N771PA EP-ICC HL-7445 HL-7442 N738PA HK-2910 F-GDUA JA8119 ZS-SAR N739PA unk N4713U Carrier Pan American Japan Air Lines Lufthansa Air France ITAF Pan American KLM Air India Air India Pan American Iran Air KAL KAL Pan American Avianca UTA JAL SAA PAA Flying Tigers UAL Location Cairo Benghazi Nairobi Bombay Madrid Tenerife Tenerife Bombay Atlantic Ocean London Iran Seoul Sakalin Karachi Madrid Paris Tokyo Maritus Lockerbie Singapore Honolulu Incident Terrorist bombing, on the ground after hijacking. Hijacked, blown up. Crashed on takeoff; ruled pilot error. Taxi wheel well fire, repaired. Crashed on takeoff. Hit by PH-BUF. Flew into N736PA. Crashed on takeoff; ruled pilot error. Inflight explosion. No. 4 pylon sepa- rated on landing, fire; blamed on previous collision with baggage truck. Presumed. Crashed; suspect pilot error. Missile attack. Crashed. Crashed landing; suspect pilot error. Crashed. Came apart inflight; improper repair. Smoke reported; crashed landing. Inflight explosion. Crashed landing; suspect crew error. Came apart inflight; cargo door failure. into the Bay of Bombay. This incident was interesting for several reasons. For one, the pilot literally flew the aircraft into the bay immediately after takeoff. The incident occurred on New Year's Day, 1978. During the investigation, the pilot, who survived, tes- tified that the attitude inclination indicator had misled him into overcompensating. Indeed 48he did overcompensate, because the aircraft was nearly inverted when it hit the water. The CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) did show that the copilot tried to dispute the pilot’s deci- sion. The copilot based his decision on a variety of other instruments available and the fact that it was a relatively clear morning and the true horizon was readily visible, but the cap- tain elected to disregard all of this evidence and flew his aircraft into the bay; 219 people on board, passengers and crew, perished. The presiding Indian judge ruled that the Cap- tain had been drinking at a New Year’s Eve party the night before, and alcohol, combined with high blood pressure medication, caused him to lose orientation. This, combined with a possible misfunction of a single instrument on the aircraft, caused the crash. There were several accidents which followed, typically attributed to some combina- tion of human error. These included the Avianca crash in Madrid, the KAL incident in Seoul (for which the flight crew was arrested), and others. In several of these cases, the aircraft were on cargo operations and no passenger fatalities were incurred. A recent example would be the crash of a Flying Tigers 747 on approach to Singapore on 19 Febru- ary 1989. The crew of four on board perished. It is thought that because this airport uses two separate radio approaches, the crew might have become confused. In any event, they crashed the aircraft into high ground several miles from the runway. z & — Along with a Pan Am 747, a KLM 747 similar to the one shown here was involved in one of the most serious aviation accidents yet recorded—at Tenerife. 49Tenerife The most serious aircraft accident in history, in terms of fatalities, occurred at Tenerife, in Spain’s Canary Islands. A collision involving two aircraft, particularly when that collision occurs on the ground, is not as rare as one might hope. Incidents involving 747 and some other aircraft or ground equipment are relatively frequent, up to one or two a year; colli- sions involving two 747s are thankfully infrequent. As recently as 20 June 1988, at Vienna International Airport, a South African Airlines 747 collided with a Royal Jordanian 747. The subsequent damage to both aircraft was substantial, particularly the nose of the Royal Jordanian airliner. “Near incidents,’ such as the reported “almost” collision between a British 747 and an El Al 747 just south of Ieeland in 1988, are also relatively common. At Tenerife, however, everything went wrong at once. Tenerife is the largest (although not the grandest) of Spain’s Canary Islands. On this particular Sunday, 27 March 1977, it was foggy and busier than usual. There had been a terrorist bombing at Los Rodeos Airport, on Grand Canary Island. A terrorist bomb detonated at the airport check-in counter and had temporarily closed the airport. Aircraft enroute were diverted to Las Palmas, on Tenerife. Two such aircraft were a Pan Am 747 and a KLM 747. The Pan Am aircraft was a charter flight, carrying mostly retired people, bound from Los Angeles, California, to Los Rodeos. There, the passengers expected to meet up with a luxury eruise ship for a tour of the Mediterranean. The Pan Am aircraft had stopped enroute in New York to pick up additional passengers. The KLM flight had originated at Amsterdam. It was full of mostly younger people, bound for a resort hotel in Los Rodeos. Both aircraft had landed. The KLM captain, in the interest of saving time, had elected to refuel as he waited for departure to Los Rodeos, where he would normally have refu- eled. Because his aircraft blocked the Pan Am aircraft, after Los Rodeos reopened, both planes had to wait until KLM refueled. KLM was then number one for departure, PAA number two. For reasons we will never fully grasp, the KLM pilot released brakes and began to take off without eompleted clearance. This is not easy to understand, because the pilot was one of KLM’s most experienced. The tower, enshrouded in the fog, could not see what was happening on the runway, nor did it have local radar to help locate aircraft. Because of the large number of aircraft diverted from Las Palmas, there was congestion on the taxi- way. It was therefore neeessary for the Pan Am aireraft to taxi partly on the active runway, as had the KLM aircraft before it, to arrive at the takeoff point behind KLM. For Pan Am, this involved going about halfway down the active runway and then moving to the adjacent taxi strip. At the far end of the airport, the takeoff point loeation, the taxi strip was uncon- gested. There, it would have waited for the KLM aircraft to clear, and then made its own takcoff. Unfortunately, it was still on the active runway when the KLM aircraft began its takeoff roll. Although much has been made of the fact that it was supposed to exit at ramp 3 and instead continued to ramp 4, which caused it to be on the active runway longer than it otherwise might, this truly oeeludes the problem. The real problem occurred because of inadequate communications between the KLM crew and the tower. It has been suggested that Capt. van Zanten, concerned with crew service times, cither neglected or overlooked proper departure verification. For a pilot of his experience, this is extremely unlikely. It isalmost certain that Capt. van Zanten, on the KLM aircraft, simply misunderstood his clearance. Because the accident occurred in contained space, tapes and records were available. We know a lot about it. We know that Capt. Gibbs, on the Pan Am aircraft, saw the KLM aircraft about 9.5 seconds before impact. At this time the KLM aircraft was moving about 145 mph. We believe it might have been two or three seconds later when Cap. van Zanten realized that the Pan Am aircraft was in his path. Capt. Gibbs had already initiated evasive action to his left. Capt. van Zanten continued to accelerate. We now believe he realized he was going to lose his own aircraft and was attempting to save the Pan Am jet. At the appro- priate time, he pitched up and tried to hop over the Pan Am aircraft. Experts estimate he needed as little as an additional 15 feet. He did not have them, and his left main gear came in contact with the top of the Pan Am aircraft, just aft of the upper deck. Fuel and fire followed everywhere. All aboard the KLM aircraft perished; 61 survived from Pan Am aircraft, mostly from the right side, away from the collision. [n all, 583 fatalities resulted from this crash, including those who later died from burns. The PAA aircraft was the same Clipper Victor that had started it all, departing from New York Kennedy seven years earlier. Terrorism Acts of terrorism involving the 747—by comparison, probably no more dramatic or fre- quent than those involving other aircraft—still have the ability to grab the news like no other aircraft event. Because of the onboard communications, any hijacking will put the hijacker(s) immediately in the spotlight. Often, the purpose of the hijacking is little more than the opportunity to make a message known, which requires only communication. But more recently, the purpose is often significantly more sinister. The bombing of an inflight aircraft is not an unusual event. Several known or sus- pected incidents can be traced back to the early 1950s, when such an event might occur in Air India aircraft, with their very decorative markings, have been involved in serious incidents including a bombing over the north Atlantic and a crash in the Bay of Bombay. 51order to collect on life insurance. On 20 February 1970, the pilot of a Swissair Convair 990, HB-ICD, reported a cargo compartment explosion on takeoff from Zurich. Shortly thereafter, possibly while attempting to land, the aircraft crashed. All 44 passengers and crew, enroute to Tel Aviv, died. An Arab political action group, which had been formed along with many others after the humiliating Arab defeat in the Six Day War, emphatically announced the destruction of this aircraft their first international operation. With this action, the PLFP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) rocketed to the front page of the world’s awareness. Although yet to be involved in a 747 incident, this group was later to achieve fame in May 1972 Lod Airport massacre. After Swissair, many airliners carrying passengers were—and continue to be—bombed. No bomb incidents involved the 747 untii 30 June 1978. On that date, an Air India 747, VT-EFO, bound from Toronto to New Delhi with enroute stops in Montreal and London, disappeared over the north Atlantic somewhere near the coast of Ireland. More recently, however, the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, captured the world’s attention. Prior to these events, however, there was one other terrorist action involving the 747. This action resulted in the deliberate, complete, and total destruction of a 747 hull. This first terrorist incident involved Pan American N752PA, which was hijacked, along with three other aircraft, in a coordinated effort. On 6 September 1970, Pan American flight 93, outbound from Amsterdam to New York, was hijacked. Two stu- dents hijacked it, originally to Lebanon, but eventually to Cairo. This was early in the terrorist hijackings and, after negotiations, the hijackers were freed. The aircraft was blown up and destroyed. There were no fatalities. In that same incident, a TWA 707, an El Al 707, and a Swissair DC-8 were also hijacked. A security guard recognized that there was a problem with the El Al passengers. As a result, one of the hijackers was captured and another killed and the El Al attempt was aborted. The other three aircraft (TWA N87I5T, Swissair HB-IDD, and Pan Am N752PA) were all taken. Subsequently, on 9 September 1970, a BOAC VC-10, G-ASGN, was also hijacked. The announced reason for the VC-10 hijacking was to free the terrorist captured during the aborted El Al attempt on 6 September. The Pan Am aircraft was destroyed by explosion immediately on arrival in Cairo on 6 September 1970. There were no negotiations concerning the remaining air- craft, all of the passengers were freed without harm, and these aircraft were subsequently destroyed by explosion in Jordan, at El Khana, on 13 September 1970. The organization that took credit for all of this destruction again identified itself as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLFP). This organization continued for several years as the scourge of civilization, in an on-again off-again relationship with the more accepted PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) and today still represents the ultimate mechanical conscience which lacks human spirit or purpose. Much later, in Benghazi, under very different circumstances, JA8109 would meet a similar fate. Lockerbie After completion of analysis of the Air India crash, the Indian commission that investi- gated this event came up with a number of findings that could have had an advantageous impact on international airliner security. Although 329 persons on board the aircraft were destroyed in the incident, it did not capture the world’s attention. In part, this is possibly due to the fact that it did not occur near Christmas. But one should recall that the wreck- age was never recovered; hence dramatic photos in news magazines were not possible. 32Among the findings of the commission were the now-recognized fact that it is very difficult to ensure the discovery of modern plastic explosives using X-ray and sniffer means. As a result, they recommended more exhaustive hand searches. Additionally, they found that the destruction of the aircraft was probably duc to a bomb placed in the forward baggage compartment. On detonation, this bomb probably disabled the aircraft’s electron- ics equipment, including the “‘black box.” The report loosely implicated factions active during the Tamil revolution, which was ongoing at the time. However, because the destruction occurred over the Atlantic, little of the wreckage was recovered. Some dedicated members of the commission remained “doubting Thomases,” as it were, because they could not put their hands through the scars rent in the fuselage side by the explosion. For this reason, among others, the results of the report were not widely disseminated. Although it is probably overly optimistic to imagine that the dissemination of this report could have had a positive effect on the Pan Am flight 103 tragedy, the similarities between the destruction of the two aircraft are noteworthy. This is particularly true with respect to the lack of communications from the aircraft after the explosion. Although it is believed that many of the passengers and crew remained conscious after the explosion, they were unable to communicate because of electronics equipment failures. Generally, on most passenger-carrying 747s, baggage is carried in the forward compartment and cargo in the rear. The electronics bay is located near the forward compartment. One of the find- ings from the Air India incident was a recommendation for relocation of this electronics equipment. But this finding was never widely distributed. On the afternoon of 21 December 1988, Pan American flight 103 was leveling off after late departure from London Heathrow, outbound for New York. Aboard, all was fine. The pilots were probably just into their first cup of coffee when the bomb exploded. The bomb was in the forward hold, and the aircraft separated forward of the wing. There has been interesting discussion about the stability of the rear portion of the aircraft, but it is unlikely that the passengers and cabin crew in this portion of the aircraft had any real recognition of the problem. Certainly they knew they were out of contro] and going to crash. The noise and wind, coupled with the tumbling, would have made the rear com- partments terrible. Passengers located between the sections as they were breaking up would have fallen from the plane. The rear section also separated into at least two major sections prior to impact. In the forward portion, however, there would be another story. There would have been terrible noise and confusion, but there is little doubt that the flight deck crew would have been able to quickly determine that they were no longer flying an aircraft and could do nothing about it. The forward portion would have fallen like a rock. It is enticing to imagine that somehow it would have oriented itself in free-fall, but evidence from the wreckage makes it clear this did not happen. It landed on its side. There was no control and no orientation. Parts of aircraft and humans, along with baggage and cargo, were thrown over an area of 1/2 mile wide and 2.5 miles long across the southern portion of the city of Lockerbie. It is well-known that the citizens of Lockerbie, although 11 of their own were killed, opened their hearts and their arms to the survivors of relatives on Flight 103. In a remark- able display of courage and fortitude, the people of Lockerbie became a focus of strength for those who lost relatives and friends in the explosion. It has often been suggested Pan 33Am and the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) did not. Curiously, this should not be a sur- prise. Like any bureaucracy, in order to continue to survive, both Pan Am and the FAA depend in large part on the ability to ignore events beyond their control. Certainly, Flight 103 falls within this category. It was an event for which we were truly unprepared, even though we recognized clearly that it could happen—indeed had happened to other carri- ers. For this reason, neither the FAA nor the carrier were prepared to deal with the next of kin. Although there is some controversy concerning the details of the actual bomb and how it was placed on the aircraft, we are relatively certain of some details. We are certain the bomb was made of Semtex, a Czechoslovakian-made plastic explosive. The explosive probably weighed about 2.5 pounds and was detonated in what is called a “Toshiba” type device. The name derives from the fact that the explosive, along with the detonator and battery, was housed in a portable radio of the type made by Toshiba, or other companies. (Toshiba has never been implicated in any way in this or other similar devices.) No final announcement has been made concerning the actual trigger device. Three typical types of trigger device are common for these types of bombs: an altitude-detonated device, a timer device, and a remote control device. Although any of these is possible, the timer device is most likely for two reasons. First, it is the simplest, consistent with the checked baggage theory. Second, the aircraft was late getting off at London; had it been on schedule, a timer device bomb would have exploded over the north Atlantic, not very far from the earlier Air India wreckage. Virtually none of the wreckage would have been recovered. In all, 259 people aboard the aircraft suffered and died. Since the wreckage landed in the Scottish village of Lockerbie, there were an additional 1] casualties on the ground. One announced reason for the bombing was in retaliation for the Iranian Air incident, in which the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian Airbus in a combat zone. However, no final or conclusive reason for the explosion has yet been provided. The President’s Commission on Aviation Security (also called the Lockerbie commis- sion) made a number of recommendations. Several positive actions have resulted from this commission. The commission discovered that the FAA, like many bureaucracies, was process- rather than event-oriented, or “reactive” rather than “proactive.” In the words of the commission findings, the FAA had something of a checklist mentality. Prior to the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103, FAA security bulletins rarely required specific action. Now, specific actions are frequently recommended. Transportation Secretary S. Skinner has also named Vice Admiral C. E. Robbins, USCG, as director to the newly established Office of Intelligence and Security. Additionally, security at all high-risk airports has been increased, as well as augmentation to the positive identification of the passenger baggage. Even prior to the recommendations of the commission, the FAA had begun testing the Thermo Neutron Activation (TNA) type of devices at high risk airports. Although there is significant controversy about the effectiveness of this detector, it is known that a vapor detector, also called a “‘sniffer;’ and x-ray would probably not have been effective in detecting the Flight 103 device. Curiously, one of the most effective search methods, rec- ommended long before the Flight 103 incident occurred, is increased hand searches. Unfortunately, these cost more money than automated methods, as well as taking longer. As technologies mature in the detector areas, we can expect to see new devices. Increases in manning at those international airports identified as “high risk” have been put in place,Dennis Cross : r Seay =" —- : = An American Airlines 747, converted with a trapeze, a new tail assembly, and internal stiffening for carting the space shuttles around, gained fame as ‘‘The Odd Couple.’’ Used primarily for returning the shuttle to the launch pad, it can also support training. Dean Slaybaugh Iraqi Airways has among the most striking of markings seen on an airliner. The stylized birds on the tail, both in color and form, are reminiscent of the old Ozark swallows, but otherwise there is no similarity in the markings.Boeing Commercial Airplanes The new series 400, with the flying wingtip, appears somewhat larger than the older series 300, as evidenced by this KLM aircraft on a test flight near Seattle, Washington. David H Minton Qantas, with one of the best aviation safety records in the business, uses the SP for long haul routes. Added to the basie markings are “Official Carrier Brisbane 1982” stickers on this air- craft, which is seen as it arrives in Honolulu, Hawaii, from Sydney, Australia.Boeing Commercial Airplanes Although not one of the early users of the 747, Air Thailand eventually came to use the aircraft for international routes out of Bangkok. Here is one of its new series 400 aircraft. Dennis Cross 747 Braniff Place was one of the most elegant addresses available in Dallas for the many years that Braniff operated ‘‘Big Orange’ on its Honolulu routes.David H Minton collection PeoplExpress used the 747 for travel between New York (Newark) and London on what amounted to a space available basis. You could go to the airport, for a very cheap price, with a no-frills ticket to London if any seats were available. John Whitehead Recently Scandinavian Airline Systems (SAS) changed its markings to a more stylish fin flash under the forward fuselage for each of the member countries: from front to back, Denmark, Nor- way, and Sweden.so that better and more detailed inspections can be completed. Additionally, the United Nations Security Council has called for those nations that manufacture plastic explosives to develop the technology to make the discovery of such explosives simpler. In other areas, the commission closed the idea that somehow government agencies had more information about threats than regular citizens. The commission was also able to make specific recommendations to the State Department concerning warnings to other American international flights and treatment of survivors, which was one of the consistent areas of complaint by the survivors. Of course, as already noted, the State Department and Pan Am were not prepared for the tragedy. But, to the survivors at least, it seemed neither cared. Although in a tragedy such as this, with sensitivities and understanding stretched to the limit, the commission was at least able to suggest specific actions to minimize misun- derstanding and confusion. Rocket Attack Unfortunately, the loss of an airliner full of passengers due to a rocket attack is not all that unusual either. In countries such as Rhodesia, Malawi, and Afghanistan, rocket attacks by various rebel groups, on aircraft such as the Viscount, Skyvan, AN-24, and IL-14, are well-known. In many cases, rockets have been suspected but not proven. Probably the most unique of such events was the deliberate destruction of a commercial airliner by the Soviet Air Force. This occurred in the late evening of | September 1983. Unlike most stories involving commercial airliners, this incident has strange and unusual conversa- tions. While tapes from another disaster might record, ““Twelve degrees flaps, check.” tapes from this one state “Aircraft destroyed.’ Where tapes from another might say; “We're going in, Larry,’ tapes from this case state “I am breaking off.” A 88 8 A KOREAN AIR LINES D 7 a a af is Le Boeing Commerical Airplanes Korean Airlines has the distinction of being the only carrier to have had one of their 747s blasted out of the sky by a Soviet air-to-air missle. HK7445, seen here, was not the aircraft destroyed in that attack, although the two airliners looked identical save for the registration number. HK7445 was, of course, destroyed in a Separate accident in Seoul. 55In spite of the visibility associated with the incident, and all of the drum-beating and sabre-rattling afterward, for the record at least relatively few facts are known. Korean Air- lines Flight 007, a 747 outbound from San Francisco to Seoul, Korea, disappeared enroute, with all passengers and crew. The aircraft, HL-7442, departed Anchorage out- bound for Seoul after an enroute stop. It disappeared with 269 souls, passengers and crew, aboard. Beyond this, little is known with the absolute certainty associated with the recov- ery of the CVR or the ACR. By consensus, we know that the aircraft, after having strayed into Soviet airspace, was shot down by an all-weather interceptor fighter. To this the Soviet Union agrees, although they claim that Flight 007 could not be properly identified as an airliner. According to voice tapes from both the U.S. and the Soviet Union, a Su-15 intercepted the 747, also called a ‘“‘bogie.” The “bogie,” according to Soviet Air Force, would not respond to repeated attempts to warn or halt it. Unlighted on that dark and lonely night just off the coast of Sakalin, Soviet Air Force Major Kazmin carried out the instructions of his immediate superiors and launched an Aphid AA-9 air-to-air missile. It is believed that one or two of these missiles hit the KAL 747, probably on the left engines. What happened next can only be speculated, as the black box was never recovered. Even so, there are many anecdotal accounts of the crash, including those allegedly from Japa- nese fishermen who saw the aircraft strike the water. Some seem to suggest the aircraft was flying upside down, with full power to at least two engines. Several books have been written that claim to identify some deep and mysterious rea- son for the incident. One of the most interesting purports to demonstrate that there was a David H Minton A Japan Airhnes SR version of the 747, which was similar to this series 246B photographed at Toky experienced a pressure bulkhead failure and crashed near Tokyo. 56massive coverup. Interestingly, the book that claims to detail this has a photograph of an aircraft on the cover. The book cover, rendered in rather fuzzy detail, clearly shows a Convair 990, so how accurate this book might be in describing a so-called coverup of a 747 may only be surmised by the reader. In any event, the books differ only in details as to exactly why the aircraft was off course, and causes of speculation have ranged from inten- tional misnavigation by the crew to save gas, to a variety of mistakes. Recently, an Ameri- can court found Korean airlines negligent in this case. However, all accounts agree on the basics: The aircraft was off course, penetrated Soviet airspace and was subsequently shot down by the Soviet Air Force. Tokyo No accident involving a single 747 caused more loss of life than the disintegration of a Japan Airlines flight between Tokyo and Osaka. Involved was one of the Short Range air- craft, specifically designed to trade number of people for range. In other words, it could carry a lot of people, but not very far. This aircraft had suffered a particularly hard landing, which had damaged the aft sec- tion forward of the vertical tail. It was returned for repairs, which, as Boeing later announced (by the time the rest of us guessed) might not have been completely adequate. Although technically the crash resulted from hydraulic failure, which rendered the huge aircraft uncontrollable, the real reason was due to a bulkhead failure. This failure initially caused deterioration of the rudder control, which led to deteriorated roll control. By dis- engaging autopilot, the crew was able to juggle a combination of engine and wing surface controls to gain some measure of real control, although with a marked tendency to fly to the right. Basically, it appeared that they were capable of reducing the oscillations that the aircraft was experiencing and could change the heading. Gradually, as the hydraulic fluid leaked from the aircraft, the remaining flying controls became ineffective. The crew had reversed heading and were enroute back to attempt a landing at Haneda. During this time, however, the hydraulics were failing as fluid leaked from the aircraft, and sometime after they apparently lowered the flaps, they were no longer able to control the aircraft. Flying about 125 miles per hour, it crashed into the mountains south of Tokyo at about 5000 feet. There were no survivors among the passengers and crew. Because Japan Airlines was intimately involved in the inspection process, this admis- sion had the impact of involving the Japanese in the process. Indeed, the Japanese govern- ment did find that Boeing, JAL, and the Japanese Government were probably all to some greater or lesser extent responsible for the accident. One result of this accident has been establishment of a working group in Japan that concerns itself with the problems associ- ated with trying to control aircraft after enroute hydraulic failures. This has included not only recommendations for more and better and more frequent inspection and verification processes, but specific recommendations for the maintenance of aging aircraft. Aging Aircraft The 747 does not fit the category of aging aircraft in the same sense that the 737 or 727 do. By this, I mean that there are relatively few incidents of the aircraft structurally fail- ing, and no instances where such a failure has involved passenger or crew fatalities. As previously discussed, the 747 began as an aircraft that had notable engine problems. 0Besides the inaugural flight already discussed, there were many instances of engine fail- ure, either due to a compressor stage rupture or a fire. After the aircraft were re-engined, these problems diminished. Concerning engine problems, it is interesting to note that a significant number of them have been found to involve the number four engine. Although some effort was made to strengthen the pylon-to-engine structure after 1974, as a result of a specific incident involving a British aircraft, no significant design changes resulted. More common now are either cabin wiring or plumbing problems, or small pieces falling off the aircraft. Pieces falling off aircraft are not truly an uncommon sight, either, and because the 747 is a relatively large aircraft with a /or of pieces, not surprisingly, pieces sometimes fall off it. Particularly common are pieces of the wings, which undergo most of the stress during normal flight operations, and the landing gear. There have been a large number of failures involving wing parts, typically a piece of one of the inboard flaps, but sometimes from an engine pylon or elsewhere on the wing. These can be inspection plates that were not properly affixed after the inspection process, or they can be movable surfaces. On 2 October 1988, a British 747 (G-BDXJ) did land in Hong Kong airport with the port gear door missing, but large pieces like this are relatively uncommon compared to the flap problems reported through the years. The 747 became part of the aging aircraft study because it is a high-use aircraft, several hulls approaching or having already passed 20 years in age. There was a serious incident involving United Airlines Flight 811, outbound from Honolulu International Airport on 24 February 1989. Shortly after the hull was pressur- ized, the aircraft experienced an explosive decompression. The decompression resulted 1 VACSAWALLE eweee amet Syria is the only country that has issued a stamp commemorating airline hijackings. Although none of their aircraft hulls have yet been destroyed, it is interesting to note that they-name their aircraft after specific revolutionary dates of recent Moslem significance. 58 Atrliners via J. Weegfrom a failure of the forward cargo door, which blew out of the aircraft and took a sizable portion of the upper passenger deck and part of the side of the aircraft as well. Nine pas- sengers, still strapped to their seats, werc swept away and killed. The aircraft returned sately to Honolulu, and no one else was hurt. This was not the first time such a failure had been experienced on a Boeing 747. On 10 March 1978, a Pan American Airlines flight enroute from London to New York experi- enced similar problems. In this case, the flight crew found that they were unable to fully pressurize the aircraft. Upon returning to Chicago, they discovered that the cargo door had failed. As a result of this event, the mechanism for the cargo door latching required modifications per FAA recommendations. The particular 747 involved in the UAL inci- dent was required to be modified prior to 30 December 1989. In the case of this particular aircraft, clearly the recommendation was inadequate. Even so, with the incident involving the Aloha 737 (see TAB book No. 20618, Boeing 737), the 747, which is virtually the same age in years, came under the task force micro- scope. Those elements that contribute most heavily to reducing the life cycle of the air- craft, namely landing and takeoff cycles and pollution, are less a factor in an aircraft like a 747 than in an aircraft like a 737. This is because the 747 typically flies considerably far- ther, therefore taking off and landing many fewer times, and because it spends longer at higher altitude, those carbon and sulfur compounds that so greatly contribute to the corro- sion and fatigue of a metal airframe are much less of a factor. But the basic problem—how to make the airframe last for a long time—remains the same. One of the recent impacts of this problem that we are seeing is that established carri- ers with older aircraft are selling them and buying newer aircraft. Many of these older aircraft are going to all-cargo carriers or nonscheduled passenger carriers, many of whom are now flying the older 707s and DC-8s. It does not take long, reading through a yearly accident summary, to see that these jets are more frequently involved in accidents than established passenger carriers. Part of the reason is probably due to the fact that the air- craft are often landing at fields where the crew never previously landed, or fields that have unusual landing considerations, but it would be a misunderstanding not to recognize that in at least some cases, maintenance is a contributing cause. Based on these problems, it will not be particularly surprising to see nonpassenger- carrying 747s involved in future accidents, such as the Flying Tigers 747 that crashed on approach into Singapore on 19 February 1989. The Future With new 747s just rolling off the assembly lines, and with earlier 747s still being upgraded, there is no doubt that we will continue to see them in the news for years still to come. Additionally, with the cost of a new 747 at $125 million or more, and the cost of com- pletely overhauling an aircraft being about a tenth as much, we can expect to see all series of 747s around for some time to come. A good example of this was an Air France aircraft, which was not overhauled until 1989, after a hard landing in which it incurred substantial damage in New Delhi. Ordinarily, there is a good chance that the aircraft would have been scrapped or sold for parts. But the scarcity of jumbo jets, combined with the long wait for a new one, make it profitable to repair damaged aircraft. One of the main delays in this case was caused by the lack of available Boeing engineers, all of whom were tied up with the series 400 development and production. 59Other recent changes in the philosophy of major carriers show that when the aircraft approaches about 20 flying years, it will become more expensive to maintain than a new aircraft will be to operate. For this reason, you will see more and more examples of carri- ers such as Japan Airlines selling their high-time airframes to cargo and nonscheduled car- riers. Considering the youth of the aircraft and the fact that new versions are still on the drawing boards, we can expect to see the 747 in the news for years to come. 60In Scale ECAUSE the 747 has been around and popular for quite a while, there is a rather large number of kits and decals from which to choose if you wish to model it. Identified in TABLE 6-1, by kit number, scale, and markings, are those known to me. In many cases, the same model is offered by a particular vendor in a variety of markings, and in some few cases, the same model is offered in the same or different markings by more than one ven- dor. The comparative rarity of each kit is indicated by a numerical rating, wherein 4 is readily available, 3 somewhat available, 2 hardly available, and 1 is scarce. Because of the large variety of kits available, the comments in the next section will be limited to those kits which are, or have been, readily available, primarily in 1/200 and 1/144 scales, although several interesting models have been available in other scales. 1/200 Scale Although marketed under a variety of different brand names and in a variety of markings, without a doubt, the best 1/200 scale 747 on the market is by Hasegawa. This model has been distributed in several different versions, including Pratt and Whitney engines, Rolls Royce engines, and as series 100, 200, and 300 aircraft. In addition, it has been available from Minicraft and Hobbycraft with the General Electric engines. The specific model dis- cussed here is the origina] series 100, but all of the other versions are quite similar. Comprising 56 parts, molded in both solid and clear plastic, the kit fits well and is easily assembled. The only clear part for the fuselage is the front windscreen. In some but not all kits, there is included a two-piece clear plastic stand. In reality, the “‘clear” is not clear at all, but as with most Hasegawa airliners, smoked. The rest of the parts are in regu- lar injection-molded medium-hard styrene, which will vary in color, depending on the 61Table 6-1. Boeing 747 model kits by manufacturer, scale, and markings. Rarity is rated from 1 (very rare) to 4 (currently commonly available). Maker Academy Academy Academy Advent Airfix Airfix Airfix Airfix Airfix Airfix Airfix Airfix Airfix Airfix Airfix Airfix Airfix Airfix Airfix Anmark Anmark Arail Aurora Aurora Aurora Aurora Aurora Aurora Aurora Aurora Aurora Aurora Aurora Aurora Aurora Bienengraber Challenge Crown Doyusha Doyusha Doyusha Entex 62 Kit Number 1640 © 1640 1641 3402 4318 SK811 08174 08174 909174 908170 908173 08170-2 08170-2 08171-5 08172-8 08173/1 08174-4 08173-1 unk 7553 7567 89C 358 360 360 360KL 361 361 361 361 361-1 362 363 379 383 set 7266 253 100-B4 unk BOO! 8453 Series 100 100 100 200 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 200 100 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 200 100 100 100 100 100 Scale 1/288 1/288 1/288 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/100 1/100 1/288 1/156 1/156 1/156 1/156 1/156 1/156 1/156 1/156 1/156 1/156 1/156 1/156 1/156 1/380 1/72 1/380 1/100 1/100 1/100 1/100 Markings NASA w/shuttle NASA w/o shuttle PAA TWA (golden globes) Qantas (Australian issue) BOAC Lufthansa British Airways/Alitalia British Airways British Airways Braniff “Big Orange” BOAC British Airways Lufthansa Air France Braniff “Big Orange” Qantas Braniff “Big Orange” E4B Flying Whitehouse TWA UAL PAA/JAL Braniff Delta KLM KLM (Netherlands issue) Braniff PAA Continental CP Air British Airways United Airlines TWA Continental CP Air Lufthansa n/a, vacuum formed kit JAL UAL/ANA Lufthansa Japan Airlines TWA Rarity —~FPPRNY HN KE NNNNK KE VNNNNNNNNY HK WDWNNNNNN WF PWWWN YW WWMaker kK Entex Entex Entex Entex Fuji Fuiji Fuyimi General Mills Ikko Ikko KSN/Midon KSN/Midori Hasegawa Hasegawa Hasegawa Hasegawa Hasegawa Hasegawa Hasegawa Hasegawa Hasegawa Hasegawa Hasegawa Hasegawa Hasegawa Heller Heller Heller Heller Heller Heller Heller Heller Heller Heller Heller Heller Heller Heller Heller Hobbycraft Idea IKKO IKKO Kawai t 8453 8496] 8496] 8560 071 072 Fl n/a 251 261 13 14 D001 D002 DO03 D004 D005 D006 D007 D008 DO09 DO10 DO11 DO12 1131 L.037 L.037 037 80037 L.856 L.856 L.856 L.856 L.856 459 463 468 470 856 80459 1131 AP037 251 261 KJPOS Number Series 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 200 200 200 200 200 300 200 200 300 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 200 100 100 Scale 1/100 1/540 1/540 1/144 1/540 1/540 1/400 1/273 1/240 1/240 1/288 1/288 1/200 1/200 1/200 1/200 1/200 1/200 1/200 1/200 1/200 1/200 1/200 1/200 1/200 1/450 1/450 1/450 1/450 1/125 1/125 1/125 1/125 1/125 1/125 1/125 1/125 Wl25 1/125 1/125 1/200 1/200 1/240 1/240 1/1040 Markings UAL TWA PAA Flying Tigers/UAL ANA JAL ANA PAA NWO w/motor NWO w/o motor Pan American Japan Airlines Japan Airlines Pan American Air France Lufthansa Singapore South African Airways All Nippon Airways Singapore (Bip Top) Qantas United Air Lines KLM Pan American Air Canada Air France KLM Air France KLM Air France KLM (Dutch issue) Swissair Air France/Swissair Air France/Qantas Air France/SAS KLM (Dutch issue) Swissair Air France Air France/Swissair Air France Air Canada Northwest Orient Northwest Orient Northwest Orient JAL Rarity mee SH K NFA KH Wee Ne NF NMYNMNA HHH HAHAHAHAHA WWWWHE NRK KF NNN 63Maker Kawai KOGA KOGA KSN/Midori KSN/Midori KSN/Midori KSN/Midori Landex Landex Landex Lodela Minicraft Monogram MPC MPC MPC MPC Nitto Nitto Nitto Nitto Nitto Nitto Nitto Nitto Nitto Otaki Otaki Otaki Otaki Otaki Otaki Revell (Ger) Revell (Ger) Revell (Ger) Revell (US) Revell (Eur) Revell (Ger) Revell (Ger) Revell (Ger) Revell (Ger) Revell (Ger) Revell (Ger) Revell (Spn) Revell (Mxc) 64 Kit Number KJP06 KO-35 KO-81 13 14 747 200 unk unk unk RO-8037 1170 $412 1-4751 1-4752 1-4753 2-3300 159 200 301 311 340 700 723 732 754 OT-2-32 OT-2-33 OT-2-34 OT-2-35 OT-2-36 OT-2-37 O171 0175 0176 3402 3402 4205 4208 4223 4228 4248 4507 4513 4513 Series 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 200 200 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 200 100 100 100 200 200 200 200 200 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Scale 1/1040 1/150 1/150 1/288 1/288 1/288 1/288 1/300 1/300 1/300 1/450 1/200 1/156 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/540 1/200 1/100 1/100 1/390 1/144 1/200 1/350 1/350 1/350 1/350 1/350 1/350 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/144 1/288 1/144 1/144 1/144 Markings PAA JAL JAL/Lufthansa PAA/TAP JAL PAA JAL Korean Air Lines JAL Singapore Airlines Air France/KLM Pan American PAA PAA UAL TWA AA JAL PAA Pan American JAL JAL/Lufthansa ANA JAL ANA ANA PAA JAL Alitalia Lufthansa KLM Singapore KLM Lufthansa (cutaway) Lufthansa TWA (golden globes) TWA/Swissair SAS Swissair KLM Lufthansa NASA w/shuttle Sabena/Lufthansa Iberia (cutaway)- Aerolineas Argentinas Rarity Ne HRP RR RNNNK KK NYNNNNNNNNNRKFKENNNNWWWWWWRNNN RK KH KK NNMaker Kit Number Series Scale Markings Rarity Revell (US) H-136 100 1/144 TWA (golden globes) 2 Revell (Mxc) H-136 100 1/144 TWA (golden globes) 2 Revell (Mxc) H-138 100 1/144 Flying Tigers I Revell (Ger) H-171 100 1/144 SAS a Revell (Ger) H-171 100 1/144 KLM 2 Revell (Ger) H-175 100 1/144 Lufthansa (cutaway) 2 Revell (UK) H-175 100 1/144 Lufthansa (cutaway) 2 Revell (Jap) H-175 100 1/144 Lufthansa 2 Revell (Mxc) H-175 100 1/144 Lufthansa 3 Revell (Ntl) H-176 100 1/144 Lufthansa/Sabena I Revell (Ger) H-176 100 1/144 Lufthansa 2 Revell (Sws) H-176 100 1/144 Lufthansa/Swissair 1 Revell (Jap) H-176 100 1/144 Lufthansa 3 Revell (Jap) H-176 100 1/144 ANA 1 Revell (Mxc) H-176 100 1/144 Aerolineas Argentinas l Revell (UK) H-177 100 1/144 British/SAS (cutaway) 2 Revell (US) VAL 100 1/144 UAL (cutaway) 2 Revell (Mxc) RH-4223 100 1/144 KLM 4 Revell (Mxc) RH-4513 100 1/144 Aerolineas Argentinas 4 Revell (US) unk 100 1/144 NASA w/Atlantis 3 Revell (US) unk 100 1/144 E4B 3 Starfix 201 100 1/293 El Al 2 Toho 34 100 1/150 Boeing 1 Toho 35 100 1/150 Japan Airlines I Toho 81 100 1/288 Japan Airlines 2 USAirfix 6101 100 1/144 Braniff u Conversions AA/ATP 747SUD 300 1/144 Resin upper deck (Revell kit) 4 Airtec n/a SP 1/144 expanded foam (Revell kit) 1 A. Hess n/a SP 1/144 filled resin (Revell kit) 1 Sasquatch SQ-22 SP 1/200 injection (Hasegawa kit) 4 particular kit. In general, the fuselage and tail assembly are white plastic, while the wings and engines are light gray. Although other colors are possible, since they are all fairly light, they take an airliner finish easily. This kit, like others in this ‘‘Loveliner” 1/200 series, provides a number of engineer- ing innovations that are intended to simplify assembly. One of them is that the cockpit windscreen is to be added to the model after assembly is completed. However, the fit is a bit tight, and if you add it after painting, you might want to either mask or scrape the paint away from the inner part of the assembly, as otherwise the windscreen will probably not fit. The fuselage is made of two parts, split down the center, and assembly is straightfor- ward. Little putty is required, which is good, because with the external antennas molded 65in place, it is difficult to sand the model if any putty is used. One of the interesting innova- tions presented by Hasegawa for this model is a fuselage former, which doubles as a nose weight holder. There is no interior detail, although in this scale and through the smoked plastic, none would be visible anyway. Assembly of the wings and engines is also straightforward, with the wings being rep- resented in three parts, one lower and two upper halves; the engines are in two separate parts, with front nacelles pieces including the fans. The engine fan assembly has a ridge around the circumference due to the molding process. The appearance of the model will be improved if this is sanded and polished off before painting. In another of the engineer- ing innovations, Hasegawa has presented the landing gear doors as part of the gear assem- bly itself. Although this leaves the doors way out of scale, on a model of this size the result is not unsatisfactory, and the ease of assembly and painting is great. Through the life of this model, it has been issued with an extended upper deck and other engines besides the original Pratt and Whitney versions, but all of the basic assem- bly stays the same. The landing gear is overscale but quite sturdy, and will easily support the model. One of the shortcomings of molding the landing gear in this manner is that it almost forces the builder to model the plane with the gear down, unless new doors are fashioned. In overall outline and presentation, the model looks very much like a 747, and scales out very well. One of the most prominent features, the front windscreen, is somewhat too deep in the front, causing the overall outline to appear more droop-nosed than it should. David H Minton Converted to an SP before the availability of the Sasquatch conversion kit, which makes the entire job a lot easier, this photo shows the very fine detail on the Hasegawa 1/200 scale kit. 66David HH Minton You might wish to correct this by puttying and painting the correct outline, or by com- pletely filling in all of the windows and using decals. If you take this latter route, be sure to glue a strip of plastic in behind the cabin windows before you fill them with putty, or you can be sure that the putty will come out of at least some of the windows during the course of finishing the model. Decals for all of the Japanese versions are excellent; they are thin, adhere well, and contain all of the necessary fuselage door and window outlines. Other versions are not as good; although the Minicraft version has decals made by Scalemaster, they are not as com- plete as the Japanese versions in terms of exit markings and choice of registrations. 1/144 Scale Several different 1/144 scale models have been marketed, and I will only discuss the three most common ones here. Nitto. Considering the excellence of their 1/100 scale model, Nitto’s 1/144 scale model is terrible. The model is also probably the same one marketed by both Toho and Entex variously at 1/150 and 1/144 scales. It actually scales at closer to 1/150, and the overall attention to detail and the outline are simply abysmal. This model represents the series 100 with the three-window upper deck and General Electric engines. It comprises 87 parts, molded in clear and white plastic, with some versions of the kit having black plastic wheels. Some versions also come with a separate clear plastic two-piece stand for supporting the model while in “flight,” either with the gear up or down. Although it might seem that the model has a lot of parts, a full 27 of them are clear parts, including four landing lights, one front windscreen, and a variety of cabin window Possibly the worst model of the 747 ever made, the 1/144 Nitto kit only vaguely resembles the actual 747, particularly around the nose and engine areas. The kit decals, although thick, can be used. 67parts. Of the remaining parts, 28 of them are wheels and gear, eight are gear doors, and 16 are engine parts, four for each of four engines. The fit of the parts is not very good, with filling and sanding needed at almost every joint, except where the landing gear glues to the gear well. In overall outline, the fuselage is truly astounding in its inaccuracy. Although the attempt is to model the early three-window upper version, there is no satellite bulge pro- vided, and the outline of the cockpit is so inaccurate as to make the model more closely resemble an ATL 98 than any 747! Although there is a wide variety of decals and mark- ings available for this model, including from other kits, it is not a 747 to seek out. Airfix. For some reason, Airfix also made a pretty bad model of the 747, and has continued to produce it through the years. Presumably it is a good seller. In addition to the Airfix label, the kit has been made available through USAirfix and MPC. The model rep- resents the series 100 with the three-window upper deck. Certainly it is considerably bet- ter than the Nitto kit, Airfix having achieved at least an approximation of the correct fuselage outline. There is a total of 126 parts, usually molded in clear and white plastic, although some kits were marketed in light gray. Some versions of the kit, particularly those marketed in the UK, came with a two-piece black plastic Airfix model stand. Although there are 35 clear parts, including all of the cabin windows and the front wind- screen, all of them are thick and unclear in appearance. The front windscreen, which is the only clear part that must be used, is particularly thick and incorrectly rendered, being set much too deeply toward the rear of the aircraft. From an engineering point of view, as a model, this kit actually has only one interest- ing innovation, which is present on all Airfix airliner models. This innovation is called a punch tool, and it is used to punch out the cheat line decal after it has been applied to the model. If, however, you later craft your windows with Krystal Kleer or some similar white the fuselage outline of this 1/144 scale kit. With effort, it can be made acceptable. 68 David H Mintonglue, you will probably find parts of the decal floating in your clear windows. One way around this is to paint the decal residue into the window outline using Pactra Aero Gloss thinner or some similar solvent. The most obvious problem with this model is in the engine nacelle area. Although each assembly is made up of four parts in a more-or-less conventional form, they look terrible. Perhaps the engines were modeled with the thrust reversers deployed, or perhaps the Airfix engineers attempted something unusual with the engines. They are molded with left and right halves, with front nacelles and afterbodies, and are made to resemble the early Pratt and Whitney fans. Each left and right half includes the engine pylons, which are the same for all four engines. They are also grossly incorrect for all four engines and should be modified. The engine front part, which includes an integrally molded fan, also has a spurious groove completely around the circumference of the engine. This must be filled and sanded smooth, making a uniform metal finish on the nacelle even more diffi- cult than might be expected. In summary, the engines and pylons are incorrect and will require significant filling, reshaping, and sanding of each to achieve anything that looks even approximately correct. Many of the remaining parts are simply detail pieces, and most do very little to add to the appearance of the model because the original detail on the model is so vague. For example, 11 separate parts are provided for some of the cabin and cargo doors. Because nowhere on the model is the fit particularly good, you can expect to spend a significant amount of time filling, filing, and sanding all of the joints, including the cargo doors, which are especially accurate. The same is true for the wing-to-fuselage joints, the tail-to- fuselage joints, the engine pylons, the engines, and for all of the cabin doors. There is also an interior bulkhead fitted, presumably to prevent fuselage deformation and to contribute to the fit. On the contrary, it is slightly oversized, and will have to be filed down to be used without itself warping the fuselage! The flap tracks are provided as individual parts for each wing, and although in the most general sense they resemble the real thing, the fit is so bad that you will need to spend a lot of time worrying with them before gluing them to the wing. Similarly, the wing-to-fuselage joint, which is supported by a plastic tab of adequate size for a model about half the size of this one, will need work. The wings will fit the fuselage at a variety of angles and positions, with a multitude of possibilities for wing mis- alignment. As with all of these 747 models, if you are going to position the model with the gear down and sitting on the ground, you will want to be careful to achieve proper align- ment of all of the relevant parts so that the wheels will all touch the surface. Thanks to the poor fit of the Airfix model, and the ill-fitted slots, this job is almost impossible, so plan extra time to get it right. This kit is most often presented in soft white plastic, although it has also been seen in other colors. Because the plastic is relatively soft, it does not take a very good metal finish and you might want to consider primer. However, because it is light in color, at least it is possible to get a fairly good airliner finish on it. The decals provided with most versions of the Airfix kit are generally usable, al- though, as discussed later in this section, there is a variety of aftermarket decals available. Revell. Without doubt, the Revell kit is the best 1/144 scale 747 on the market. In addition to the various versions marketed by Revell Germany, Revell Brazil, Revell Mex- ico, Revell Japan, Revell Europe, and Revell USA, this kit has also been marketed by 69Advent. It has been produced as a variety of versions in the series 100 and 200, with both the three-upper-cabin-window and the ten upper-cabin-window-arrangements. It com- prises 72 total parts, including one clear front windscreen. The remaining parts are in rel- atively hard white plastic. As a result, the model takes any metal or painted airliner finish easily. There is also a white plastic four-piece stand. If the stand is not used, there is an optional support for the rear of the fuselage to hold the model properly on its gear. As usual, if the model is to be displayed on its gear, take care to align everything so the air- plane sits properly on the wheels. Twenty of the parts are for the engine nacelles, including the pylons; another 27 parts are associated with the landing gear, including 18 wheels. The overall fit of the parts is adequate, with a bit of filler and sanding needed on most of the main joints, particularly the upper fuselage joint near the upper cabin. The windows are drilled out, and although there are no clear parts for the windows, some of the decal films have clear portions for the windows on the cheat lines. You will probably not want to use any of these, instead punching out the decal and using Krystal Kleer or the like, because the clear decals are not very clear, nor are they very strong. The engines are made up of the left and right halves, with the fan in front, and left and right nacelle and pylon halves. The center portion of the nacelle is the same as the outer portion of the engine, which although not correct, can be made to look acceptable with care. The landing gear is rudimentary, but strong enough for the model: it may be posi- tioned in either an up or down configuration. David H Minton Without doubt, the Revell kit is the best 1/144 scale kit available in terms of scale and detail. It also comes with a wide variety of very usable decals. This model was completed with Revell of Germany kit decals. The cheat lines were painted and the windows filled in with Krystal Kleer. = 70The overall shape and appearance of the inodel is quite acceptable and the model scales out very close to 1/144 scale in all dimensions. The decals provided with most ver- sions of the model are complete and thin enough to be easily usable, although some of those from the South American countries have a slightly yellowish film, which looks bad on a white crown. There is a great variety of decals available from other sources, as dis- cussed below. 1/156 Scale The Aurora kit can be used to build a model in this scale, if you are interested in modeling one of the early “‘box scale” airliners. This model is called “‘box scale’’ because it dates from the days when models were scaled to fit the size of the production box and not to any set scale associated with model collecting. This is probably the first model of the 747 that was widely available, and although the molds were later cleaned up and the model reis- sued by Monogram, basically no improvement took place throughout the mold’s life. The only changes were in the decals and the box art. It is made up of 63 total parts, although some kits also came with a two-piece clear plastic stand. Also, there is a clear part for the front windscreen. The solid plastic, which makes up 62 parts, is usually light colored (stark white through light cream to gray) and is pretty hard, so it will easily take a metal finish. The cabin windows are hollowed out, but no clear parts are provided. The fit of the parts is typical of an early model, and there is usually at least some flash present on most of the pieces. In addition, the seams may be somewhat uneven. The fuselage is two major parts, left and right half, including the vertical tail. The engines are made up of four parts, left and right halves, including the pylons. The pylons are the same for both the inboard and outboard engines, which is incorrect, and you will want to correct this problem with scrap plastic. The engines themselves are only generally like the GE engines on the early production aircraft, and both the nacelles and the after- bodies are pretty rough. The fit of the wing-fuselage joint is worse than most of the rest of the model. The model will want a lot of weight in the nose if you are going to sit it on its rather rudimentary gear. With all 747 kits, which have five landing gear, alignment is important to get the model to sit correctly on the gear, but with the Aurora offering, this is especially critical. Decals are a problem, insofar as the only 1/156 scale decals available are from the original kits. Although the original decals were in some cases fairly good, in many other cases they were pretty bad, and by now, typically useless. In any event, the original decals for most models provided only the most basic of the markings, including the logo and a cheat line. Actually, however, the model scales out with the fuselage closer to 1/156 and the wing and tail assembly larger, about 1/150. This makes the model pretty close to 1/144 overall, and you could probably get by using 1/144 scale decals for many marking choices, save for the door and exit markings. 1/125 Scale The basic Heller kit, which is also used as the basis for several other 1/125 scale models, can be used to make a satisfactory model in this relatively uncommon scale. The model itself is made up of 139 parts, including 30 clear parts and 109 solid parts. Those models made in France are usually in a medium-soft light gray plastic, which makes it relatively 71easy to put the aircraft livery on, but relatively difficult for a good metal finish. A primer might help to get a uniform metal finish on this type of plastic. Although the fit is accept- able throughout the model, the thick and slightly misaligned trailing edges and oversized parts are a persistent problem. Virtually every seam, except for the leading edges of the flying surfaces, will probably need at least a little putty and sanding, unless you received an unusually good press job. With time and patience, however, the overall outline and appearance of the finished product is quite acceptable, particularly given the amount of detail included on the model. Control surface details are engraved lines, and only the most prominent surfaces of the fuselage are provided as raised lines. Many of the parts make up the details of the main and wing landing gear assemblies. There are a total of four, each of which has at least a main gear strut and four wheels, as well as several ancillary tubes and reinforcement struts or side stays. Of all the models available, this one probably has the most detailed landing gear assemblies. Additionally, for the main gear there is an additional square part at the top, which makes the entire assembly stronger. Other engineering innovations do not necessarily make the job easier. Probably most annoying is the fact that the fuselage itself is made up of four parts, split vertically down the center in the conventional fashion, but split horizontally across the vertical axis at about the center trailing forward flap location. Although this technique somewhat reduces the possibility of fuselage warpage, it creates more joints that need to be filled and increases the possibility of misalignment. It is notched at the cabin window location, and, in general, is not an easy assembly to achieve. I recommend assembling the entire fuselage at once, rather than trying to do it as two major subassemblies. There are separate wheel well assemblies for both the main and nose gear, so be sure to get them before you glue the fuselage parts together. It will take a considerable amount of weight in the nose to keep the model on its gear, although a clear strut is provided to glue to the lower fuselage for stabi- lization if you prefer that method. The engines are made up of five parts each, which include the engine assembly itself (left and right halves), the engine nacelle (same), and the fan. The engine sits between the nacelles, and the sidewall of the engine assembly is, in fact, the corresponding part for the engine nacelle. This is neither accurate nor particularly pleasing on the finished model, but with careful fitting and painting can be made to look acceptable. The front windscreen is separate, but unlike many of the Heller airliners, it does not include the upper part of the fuselage. Although the fit is not exceptionally good, it is not as difficult as some of their other airliners. Decals are a problem, unless you want to use one of the usually French schemes which come with the model. There are very few 1/125 decals, so for something diffcrent, your best bet would be to adapt and use decals from anothcr kit or source. 1/100 Scale The Nitto kit, which was available in United Airlines (current colors) markings, is a series 100 version with the three-window upper deck and Gencral Electric engines. It has also been marketed by Otaki and Doyusha in various other markings. It is molded in white and black medium-hard plastic. There is a total of 402 parts, including 39 clcar parts. The front windscrccn comprises three scparate parts, with side picces for each pair of side windows and onc part for the main front center picce. There is a four-piece black plastic stand, which is fitted with two upper portions to allow for adequate support for the modcl. 72