Death of the Quadjets
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ค. 2024
- How do! :D
With the recent end of production for the Boeing 747, and the demise of the Airbus A380 in 2021, I'd like to look back at the legacy of a type of commercial airliner which was once the very staple of international travel, the four-engined jet airliner or Quadjet, a configuration born from necessity during the infancy of aviation, but now, with the advancements of technology, is facing a protracted demise as fuel efficiency and environmental considerations become order of the day.
All video content and images in this production have been provided with permission wherever possible. While I endeavour to ensure that all accreditations properly name the original creator, some of my sources do not list them as they are usually provided by other, unrelated TH-camrs. Therefore, if I have mistakenly put the accreditation of 'Unknown', and you are aware of the original creator, please send me a personal message at my Gmail (this is more effective than comments as I am often unable to read all of them): rorymacveigh@gmail.com
The views and opinions expressed in this video are my personal appraisal and are not the views and opinions of any of these individuals or bodies who have kindly supplied me with footage and images.
If you enjoyed this video, why not leave a like, and consider subscribing for more great content coming soon.
Press the Join button to get access to new videos a week ahead of schedule by becoming a channel member for just £2.99 a month!
Paypal: paypal.me/rorymacve?country.x...
Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/rorymacve
Thanks again, everyone, and enjoy! :D
References:
- Wikipedia (and its respective references) - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
It is always a surprise to be reminded how little smoke modern jets produced, compared to older jets from even the eighties.
definitely a Conspiracy imo... 😉🤣
Yes reminiscent of a coal fired chimney belching out black smoke.
Like the original B52’s
@@lewdachris7721 Or Concorde, phwoar, if the afterburners weren't on it could smoke out an entire city :D
I know the smoky take offs of original 707s and DC-8's was from the water injection. They had large water tanks aboard that injected water on takeoff to boast power temporarily, creating smoke. But yes it is great how quiet, clean and efficient planes have become. Imagine someone from 1960 seeing an A380, or 787 etc?
I realize jet engines are more reliable today, hence allowing passenger jets to cross the ocean with only two engines. However when I'm 35,000+ feet above the Atlantic, I find myself believing one can never have too many engines onboard.
Twin jets are unable to carry heavy loads. In other words; for a 150 ton cargo load you need four powerful engines (747-8). Twin engined 777 will never be able to come even close to that. Since I am fortunate enough to fly the 747-8, I can tell you one thing: It's way safer to fly a quad over the big ponds. Any light twin (777) pilot would agree with me.
An ETOPS crash anytime soon, from down under to the US? Of course, do the math. The insurance companies did it, too. They calculate with one twin engine widebody crash every five years.
Good luck and goodbye.
Nice video, thank's. ✈
Planes are still the safest form of travel, and engines are getting even more advanced and modern, so the chances of them failing are very small. Plus being at 35.000 feet even with no engines you can glide down to an airport safely, most planes are built to be able to fly with only 1 engine too.
Bring back the 60 Minute Rule, bring back the Flight Engineer and give him four engines to look after.
@Uncle Joe Cheap-skatery by both the airlines & manufacturers. "Hey have you heard? Three is just as good as four!"
The two times I've been to the US have been on 747s. I live in Australia. I know engine technology has improved a LOT and that modern twinjets are more than capable of flying long distances, but honestly - I just feel that much safer with 4 engines when crossing the Pacific.
Ah, the 747 will always be the queen of the skies. So sad that's disappearing fast. Hardly see them anymore. I know we have to progress, but man, what a beautiful aircraft. I'll always remember both flying on one to Toronto and LA and standing underneath them as they nearly landed on my head at the end of Heathrow's runway.
I remember being at the rental car place at LAX and watching all the 747s come right over my head. This was in 2004 or 2005. The glide slope was directly over the rental car building and they were so low it's almost like you could reach up and touch them. I remember seeing Korean airlines, China airlines, qantas, etc..
As long as the USAF continues to require the president (AF1) to fly quad jets, there will be a place for the 747.
I fly to Europe somewhat often and it's always nice to get on a 747-800. Great plane and very comfortable.
Do to crew shortages as a result of plandemic, the 747s seem to be making a comback. Just the other day a Lufthansa 747 landed right next to me as i was driving on I95 by the Newark International. What an awesome sight!! Especially as i haven't seen one from Lufthansa there in few years.
@@maciekkra539 LH has daily flights to Frankfurt from EWR. They are also now flying their 747s to Munich which I thought they typically did not, maybe they have been this whole time idk. Interestingly, they're bringing back the A380. It seems that LH is expecting a busy year coming up.
There is something reassuring about flying in a quad-jet. Especially on long haul flights across the large oceans of this world. I know twin jet reliability has improved greatly, but we still have engine failures, and losing 50% of your engines is always worse than losing 25%.
Absolutely - Quantas will be running SYD-SCL on a 787 again soon, and I can't imagine what it would be like to be on that flight if it had an engine failure over the southern ocean. 6 hours on one engine, knowing that if it failed too you're as good as dead, is a pretty terrifying prospect.
Twin jets are unable to carry heavy loads. In other words; for a 150 ton cargo load you need four powerful engines (747-8). Twin engined 777 will never be able to come even close to that. Since I am fortunate enough to fly the 747-8, I can tell you one thing: It's way safer to fly a quad over the big ponds. Any light twin (777) pilot would agree with me.
An ETOPS crash anytime soon, from down under to the US? Of course, do the math. The insurance companies did it, too. They calculate with one twin engine widebody crash every five years.
Good luck and goodbye.
Nice video, thank's. ✈
Agreed, absolutely!! Also add that a 50% engine loss puts more strain on the guys in the cockpit as you are doomed to the worst assymetric power for the rest of the flight, and only half of the reverse thrust available on landing. Going from quads to twins automatically halves your redundacy in preventing your trans-Atlantic airliner from becoming a heavyweight glider & then desperately trying to maintain optimum forward motion with altitude enough to make the nearest air strip.
That is, while intuitively attractive, not exactly true. A twin-jet can lose 50% of its engines (so all engines on one side) while a quad-jet has more problems in that situation. Because of the asymmetry a quad-jet becomes more difficult to handle if a common cause disables all engines on one side. Scenarios could include a bird-strike event on one side or some uncontained engine failure scenarios whereby the failing engine disable the adjacent one or it’s fuel supply. Add to that the doubled probability of engine failure and quad-jets ain’t looking that attractive anymore today.
@@swissone_ A quad can fly on two engines, at max takeoff weight. But then, like on any twin jet, we have to land at the nearest suitable airport.
Regards from the 747-8 left seat. ✈
Went on a trip earlier this year, and I splurged a little, just so I'd get the opportunity to fly on a 747. I felt I *had* to, before the opportunity vanished and they were consigned to the pages of history.
Consigned to the pages of history....Concorde was a white elephant that deserved to be banished to the history books as no carriers abroad wanted it, whilst the 747 became the symbol of commercial aviation all around the world, a profitable design that was instantly recognisable, even as a silouhette. The 747 deserves a continued existence.
@@majorvonhapenallthetime8602 Add to that is the use of the 747 as Air Force One.
You’ll probably still have a while before their truly gone, Lufthansa still has their 400s and the new -8 and they seem to have found a long term use for them, you’ve probably got a good decade or more
And next year, they’ll have the A380 again.
@@majorvonhapenallthetime8602 A lot of American politics too, little Americans upset that Boeing's and other SST proposals failed. BA Concorde's made a profit.
The death of the Quads make me so sad. When the last 747 rolls off the production line I will legitimately cry.
Me too buddy.
what a crybaby
@Grumpy Ol' Bastard That date was also a date where a 747 crashed and killed 230, so pretty unfortunate day
I still love the 747. Whenever I see one I always stop and watch it in awe.
Had a similar experience. Back in Nov 21 had to fly home for dad's funeral. Was in Minneapolis airport and heard and FELT a large rumble. Glanced up to see a light blue streak go by, and immediately knew what it was. Didn't know Biden was coming to Minnesota for a rally. Brought my daugther to the windows to show her Air Force One taxing to the Air Gaurd on the other side on the runway. Massive, monstrous... beautiful. Stood there with many others in the terminal for minutes, to take it all in.
@@jasonkiefer1894 it was nice that a bad time (the funeral) turned into a great bonding experience with your daughter. My condolences about your father.
ETOPS also has another name. Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim.
I mean, that's also certainly true for any airplane flying over an ocean regardless of engine count :-p
#lol
👍
It’s tough because I would pay 5 times more to have the space of an A380 or 747
@@philipbrailey it's funny you'd say that because from a passenger experience, there's very few ways to actually feel that space as airlines are only going to give you a certain amount of it. So if you're in coach, it pretty much feels the same on any wide body aircraft. The only thing that you might be able to enjoy is a quieter ride on the upper decks.
To me the Boeing 747 is a really graceful looking aircraft and will always be my favorite airliner.
one interesting detail not often mentioned is that all contemporary twin jets have overpowered engines compared to tri-and quad transport jets: this is because twins still need to be able to climb out at the V2 speed at a certain climb gradient when an engine fails during take-off. As twins still need to confront the same drag when taking off with one engine inoperative, they effectively lose about 60% thrust in this scenario.
The regulatory V2 climb gradient is almost the same for 3,4 engine jets, so an engine failure during take off in a quad jet is much less dramatic.
Also, I do believe that a lot of these design and performance regulatory requirements for class A aircraft that are still used (take-off V speeds, minimum unstick speed, design manoeuvring speeds ect) originate from the original certification process of the D.H. Comet by the UK CAA, but I might be wrong.
True. The contemporary twin has much greater thrust surplus than the equivalent tri or quad-jet. However, those excesses have been capitalized in cruise segments.
Can't ever have too much power
@@gerardmoran9560 They do cruise quicker, though aerofoil advancements have as much to do with that as extra thrust.
@@rexbentley8332 Eh... seat-mile cost and all...
You should look at Flight 411 from Athens in a 747-200 for "less dramatic".
So glad I had the chance to fly aboard a BA 747 on a trip to Europe in 2017. I must say that the Airbus A350 I flew back in was delightful as well, but there's still something about The Queen of the Skies.
I remember flying in a 747 with Air France as a kid. Although it was incredibly uncomfortable (AF not known for good interiors) I was obsessed with the stairway until the attendant told me to go back to my seat...
I was unfortunate enough to take AF 747-300's (or was it 200's?) flights several times, in the late 90s and eraly 00s, from YUL to CDG. At that time, on that route: the worst carrier.
@@__Dude_ yeah, having flown them twice ... That was enough. Paid for a seat upgrade and it didn't print to my ticket...
The 747 was definitely one of the best examples of 20th century technology. Versatility, suitability for purpose and the ability to be modified gave it its long life. The other piece of technology to rival its service history was the Pennsylvania Railroad's GG-1. Great video. Thank you.
However, it shows that it ultimately, could not compete with 21st century technology
Fantastic! Wonderful documentary, thanks! Its so sad to me to see the quads go. For me, the A340 was one of the most elegant passenger planes made, and the A380 was the absolute king of the skies. Now all we have are boring twins. But like most things in life,things were always better before. Anyway, thanks again for the analysis!!
I think the new 777 is really interesting, and it has the largest most powerful turbofans ever built!
@@sc1338 - Yes, technically the big twins are interesting, but for pure bravado, cant beat the quads. Having said that, I have to agree w you a bit about the 777. I had the privildege of seeing one very up-close at Shannon Airport in western Ireland (which is a TINY airport with a loooong runway, so you get to see the big boys up close. That is, until airport security came and asked me what I was doing :D). And I have to say that the 777 is BIIIIIGGG and BEEEFFFY. You just dont reallize how impressive it is until you see it from about 30 yards away. He's a big boy! :)
If ETOPS was never a thing, would trijets beat out quadjets or vice versa?
Excellent video..very well researched....well done!..I learned so many things i didn't know....fantastic work here...must have taken you hundreds of hours to make this SUPERB video!..and AWESOME narrative..one of the best youtube vids i have ever seen on aviation related content.
Your other topics are pretty good but aviation content from you is a treat
Thanks for the BAe 146, I flew that ones and it looked weird with 4 engines on a small plane. With the high wings and 4 engines it looks a lot like an military transport.
The 747 was the reason why i fell in love with planes. I remember most airlines featuring 747s on their TV commercials as a kid and i wanted to fly in one. Finally got to fly in one in the late 90s when my family went on holidays to Japan, a JAL 747-200 from Vancouver to Tokyo. At the time, 80% of the planes parked at Narita airport were 747s, mostly from JAL and Northwest Airlines in bowling shoe colors. Planning a trip to Europe and would like to get a ride on a Lufthansa 747-8
There are some inaccuracies presented here. The Airbus 300 was never designed to compete with the quad jets...it initially was not even supposed to fly in oceanic airspace. There are two distinct advantages that the 747 Freighter has, 30% more volume than the 777 and the nose loading capability. In fact, the 747 can easily carry the 777 engine in a normal pallet position (actually 2 positions) whereas the 777 can only carry its own engine in a "floating" configuration where it must be strapped down and takes up at least 6 positions. On the Freighter side the 747 has a couple of niches and will be around for quite a bit longer.
There'a also the Beluga and A380, though the Beluga is only operated by Airbus I think, and cargo operators aren't in a hurry to buy even bigger aircraft for some reason
@@233kosta Beluga is too slow and does not have the range of the 747. Had Airbus made a Combi 380 with all Cargo on the main deck this may have proven quite popular.
@@firstlt2 Pretty sure they built the Beluga specifically for their needs, so it's unsurprising that it doesn't meet anyone else's
@@firstlt2 Beluga just flies between the various Airbus factories in Europe.
@@firstlt2 I don't know if the A380 has enough payload to make it a viable combi freighter... Too much of its MTOW is used by its own weight.
My dad used to take me to Farnborough in the 1990s, and the promo clips from that era really got my nostalgia flowing, especially 17:16
Love your history of aviation video especially the BAC 2-11 and 3-11 story. Amazing work!
Wonderful zero BS video. A textbook example for othrr producers. No inflamed opinion no hyperbole. Finished with a single sentence and not even a "thanks for watching folks". Amazing.
I flew on a Northwest Airlines BAE 146 in 2000 from Detroit (DTW) to Des Moines. I remember seeing the plane at the gate and being surprised. It was a very pleasant flight and it was definitely more interesting than flying some MD-80 variant I assumed we'd board.
Many thanks for a truly excellent historical report! Great videos, too!
@24:54 twinjets "with a capacity not too dissimilar to that of the gigantic 747 and its kin" ... but the thing is that the biggest twinjet the B777X isn't actually selling very well. Surely part of the story is the airline industry's move away from hub and spoke, and the need for airlines to increase frequency on longhaul routes as competition mounts. Emirates was the only airline that wanted a neo A380 - one hub and spoke airline just wasn't enough to keep the quad jet flying.
What also hurt the A380 is that the first model released was the A380-800. Which is the smaller of the two planned variants. An A380-900 was supposed to follow but never did. However because the design was meant to accommodate a larger aircraft, the A380-800 is actually overbuilt and heavier than it needs to be. I believe the wingbox was to be common between the two variants and is therefore much stronger than it needs to be for just the -800. So this hurts the fuel economy and payload the A380 can carry.
I will say that the best long haul flight I took, Sidney to San Francisco was on a 747. I booked business class and flew in high style in the hump on top.
Excellent production! Very useful and informative❤❤😊😊
I'll definitely miss the A380 and their amazing business class. Never been in a flight so smooth.
I think using the upper deck of a 747 for passenger service is a great idea for a cargo aircraft. I would use it any day even though service catering and whatnot might not be Business Class standards. Who Cares, if you need to get somewhere fast and a seat is available I'm up for it!!! The cabin crew would be less stressed one would think too. Fewer potential A-holes to cause trouble!!!
Kind of like a lorry with seating above the cargo area in a way!
Going from London to Houston in 1991, I was seated in the upper deck in a very new 747-400. All business class. It was absolutely the best 747 trip, wonderful for that long flight, like a private cabin. And so much room. The service was even better than the usual biz class, because we had a dedicated flight attendant, for just 4-6 rows, or 8-12 people (memory! ack), but I know what you meant. My point is that you wouldn't need much crew in your scenario; just the minimum for safety. But, even if no service, it would be worth it.
The best thing, then, besides the wonderful quiet of so few people and farther from the engines, was that it was completely smoke free. It was in the days of the smoking section, but unlike all the main deck, smoke never reached us.
But cargo aircraft have their own airports or terminals and their own schedules. Changing either to accommodate a handful of passengers isn’t going to make much business sense.
@@francesconicoletti2547 Easy, cargo schedule is leading, tickets are available on request if, as and when schedule permits. As for terminals, a small bus from and to the GA side of the airport shouldn't be much of a problem for the self loading cargo (flight crew also has to get to the plane).
They did this with 747 Combi models where parts of the lower deck could be converted to cargo space. KLM used these until 2021. I'm not sure of other airlines having them though.
That was a very good, clear video and I enjoyed it very much. I come from an aviation family and I used to fly single engine. Too old now. My dad trained pilots during world war two and ended his career with Canadian working on those huge beauties. I wish I could afford to make one into a house!!!🙃
Once you fly on an A380 - especially in business class, you'll never want to fly on anything else.
I recently went FULL Business Class with Emirates from NYC to Maldives.
JFK Business lounge, Dubai Business Lounge and Business Class seats on the plane. FULL ALCOHOL SERVICE and dining. I enjoyed the flight MORE than I enjoyed Maldives.
I only ever flew on one 4 engined Jumbo jet, this is in Australia as we're a long bloody way from everything & the thought that you could lose at least 2 engines but with a good crew, just be delayed a bit was comforting, now that happens you have to pick the right god real quick, such a shame 747's still aren't in passenger use.
I had no idea the Airbus A380 was no longer in production. Incidentally I flew on an A380 from Auckland to Melbourne and back in 2013.
The pandemic put an end too it.
@@macjim It was looking like there wasnt going to be many more ordered before the pandemic either.
Already started scrapping A380's .
@@macjim Airbus announced they were ending production of the A380 in 2019. That plane was doomed to fail from the start, even though it didn't seem like it at first. The pandemic just put it out of its misery lol
They will be in passenger services well into the 2030’s
The second plane I ever flew on was a BA 747-400. It was brand spanking new, probably had only been on a few flights. It was a Heathrow to Toronto direct flight and my seat was in the area right behind the flight deck. Best part was that we had our very own bar cart! It as a far cry from the older 747 we had on the flight out, which was pretty care worn and most of the entertainment systems didn’t work.
A great documentary on this facet of aircraft development and history!
I still have a bit of a soft spot for the quads, especially the DC-8, although I only ever got to fly on it once. Still hope to fly on the A380 before it too disappears.
I flew on a 747 Combi NRT-AMS in 2015 - didn't realise at the time it would almost certainly be my last 747 flight. Also took an RJ85 LCY-AMS around the same time shortly before they were mostly withdrawn. I'm sure I'll get to go on an A380 before they're withdrawn, not so sure about A340, would really have to go out of my way for one of them now.
@@tomkandy
If you do intend to check out a variety of Quadjets I can recommend a trip with Lufthansa, especially once they have reactivated their A380s. I'm actually due to fly on one of their 747-400s from Vancouver to Frankfurt next month; you can also take an A340-300 from Calgary.
Their 747-400s are horrible as a passenger
@Trolly McTrollface you’re projecting yourself onto others, hopefully you don’t have kids
A380 is sublime. So smooth and quiet.
I would like to have taken a flight in a Concord before they were grounded, they were always my favorite of the quadjets.
I've always wanted to travel on a 747. Finally managed to book a flight... For April of 2020. Needless to say I still haven't been on one.
Lol... you still have a chance with Lufthansa or Korean. But hurry!
Not that I'm particularly infatuated with the airframe, but it's going to be a real shame when the 747-400's become just a story.
There is, nor will ever be, a flying experience like the 747. The unique profile, the leap in size, and that walk up the spiral staircase into the ultimate world of cool, the upstairs lounge.
Well-done. Inevitable. What a shame.
Flew A340-600 (South African) in 2017 and 747-400 (Asiana) in 2019 aware it might be the last opportunity.
We have deregulated and discounted commercial air travel to such an extent only the A-350 and the few 777s left are tolerable long haul.
You were lucky.
One of the weirdest passenger quad-jets was the Avro RJ100. I remember these puny things; they were inofficially known as "Jumbolinos" and super noisy. They could apparently land anywhere, though, as they had a very sturdy landing gear.
Well Done, on nicely made video which brought back memories of the 1970s onwards.
I remember seeing my first 747 flying in at O'hare International Airport when I was 10. I remember just being amazed at how graceful it was flying. The 747 will be flying cargo for a long time. As airliners probably not.
There were a couple of other quad jets, though pretty obscure. The Baade 152 from East Germany and China's Shanghai Y10.
True, though neither entered commercial service, though probably rated a mention alongside the Canadian aircraft.
THANK YOU FOR A VERY TIGHT AND INFORMED PRODUCTION, SUPERB PUNCHY NARRATION WITH HUMAN VOICE..........
ALWAYS PREFERABLE TO THE DIGITAL VOICE NARRATION CONSUMING THIS PLATFORM.
IN 1977 I FLEW A BOEING 707 AND PULLED IN BESIDE A 747 AT JAKARTA AIRPORT THAT WAS A WOW MOMENT FOR ME
BOTH QUADS , SO EXTREMELY JUXTAPOSED AND CEMENTED IN MY MEMORY FOREVER !!!!!!!!
The Swissair A340 and now Swiss A340, latter still operating after refurbishment in 2022 (!) was always my favourite. Smooth glide and ride, very low cabin noise and plenty of space even in economy.
You didn't ask me to subscribe so I did.
Flown in an Air Wisconsin BaE 246 and a UAL 747-100. 747-100 in the middle row in the last row. That was awful, but looking back now I'm grateful to have that opportunity.
Years ago I flew on a TWA 707 from Ontario, Cali. to LAX. I recall the pilot remarking we'd be "cruising" at 4000ft. It took longer to start the engines than we had time in the air, lol. It was a feeder flight my parents booked to save the drive into LAX. Those were the days before deregulation, but even still, it's a wonder that equipment scheduling *ever* made sense. Of course then too, TWA is long gone, so perhaps that says something.
The CEO of Boeing always insisted on travelling on aircraft with four engines.
When asked why, he replied "Because there aren't any that have six engines".
@Uncle Joe Until the Mriya came along. But sadly this year...it's gone.
With my father working on developing programs to create fuel tank designs for the A380 during development, I’ve always held a childlike wonder about the 380s and it was sad to see the last one to be made fly from the factories in Toulouse, and much like steam locomotives, even if they aren’t profitable, they sure are amazing to watch lift off in person
If Russian airspace stays closed for a long time, there might be a need for quad-engine aircraft for the Northern route from Europe to Japan - because they won't have the alternate airports available required for twin-engine operation.
Could that mean the reopening of assembly lines of the A340 / A380 / 747?
Was watching an A380 takeoff from my local a few days ago and thought it's only a matter of time before they're no longer a sight
I haven't been on a plane since the coronavirus outbreak but my last flight Istanbul London with Turkish in 2019 was 2 engined, some manner of Airbus.I believe that my last quad jet was in 2016 Singapore to London with Singapore Airlines and an A380.
Could you upload your videos as podcasts? They are so soothing to listen to and they help me sleep. Thank you.
i will be glad i had the chance to fly on these gigantic beats. the A380 especially, there wasn't any turbulence that could rattle that thing
Well, turbulence doesn't always occur
The 747-8 production line is still in operation at this writing. The last -8s are to be delivered this year. you make is sound like they will all be parked shortly. I suspect they will be flying on for at least another 20 years unless you don't consider a freighter a viable operation for an airplane.
All airplanes are freighters, some the freight walks on, some the freight rolls on.
Unless another cargo aircraft is developed with the carrying capacity and nose door of the 747, I personally think that the 747 will go on to become like the DC-3 - rarely seen, but indispensable for the few missions its still required for, and only really replaceable by another of its kind.
@@davidshepherd265 I flew the L-188, B-720, B-727, DC-8, B-747, MD-11 in that order. They were all good airplanes but the 747 was the greatest by far. What a sweetheart!
Well the current airforce ones are 32 years old . The new ones are not yet in the air. I suspect they will be among the last 747s flying .
@@francesconicoletti2547 These airplanes were built with slide rules, before the term "designed obsolescence" was created. I don't believe their goal was to just build it good enough to last for 20 or so years but to build one as good as they could.
I've flown on what I presume to be a 707 from Winnipeg to Toronto as a kid in the 1970s (I have a memory of the airline being Transair, and that long-defunct airline apparently used 707s). And in 1991 and 1992 I flew with Cathay Pacific on 747s from Vancouver to Sydney and back via Hong Kong (at the old airport where you could look out the windows and see skyscrapers directly beside you). That's my only direct experience with quadjets.
You mention the BAe 146. I don't think I've ever seen one in real life; I don't think too many were used in Canada. I gather it saw some use in the States. It apparently had a good reputation for reliability (as well as the quietness you mention in the video) but I gather that, being quadjets, the fuel consumption and maintenance costs were too high for the number of passengers it could carry. Plus, it has to be said, it is one of the ugliest jetliners ever made.
The 367-80, the KC-135 and the 707 are all superficially identical but the fuselages are all different in width at 132", 144" and 148" respectively, Boeing had wanted to use the 135's fuselage (and 5-abreast seating) but that would have meant paying the US government back some of the development cost, but then Douglas launched the DC-8 with a 147" fuselage width allowing 6-abreast seating making Boeing choose the 148" wide fuselage.
This is fantastic, both from a historical and technical point you narrate with aplomb and thank you once again Sir.
The mere fact an A350 -ULR can fly from virtually anywhere in the world to virtually anywhere else means that the Quad Jets are dead.
The A350 is small enough to land on runways the A380 and 747 can't. Not to mention being easier to service.
Living in Salt Lake City, the sky is dominated by twinjet regional airliners. In fact, I see more FedEx and UPS trijets flying over my house than quad jets. Even when visiting the airport, I rarely have ever seen a single quad jet, aside from occasionally rerouted transcontinental flights (and KC135s from Hill Airforce Base)
I've never heard anyone refer to 4 engine jets as Quad-Jets, amazing video though, gives a lot of information
Really?
@@sc1338 yeah, usually people call them 4-engine jets, idk 74Gear is a pilot and he said he hasn't heard anyone refer to them as quad jets
@@Eqvixity sometimes people call them "4-holers" and tri-jets "3-holers"...
Does anyone know what the within-wing turbojet engine placement like the Comet's was called? Been looking everywhere for a list of aircraft with this style and a tag at the least would be helpful...
The general term for that part of a wing or other aerodynamic surface is the "root". So it would be accurate to say that the engines were in the root of the wing, but I don't know whether that was the terminology used for the Comet.
I love how airlines worldwide keep dreaming of bigger and bigger jets, without for one second, thinking if possibly the insurance might not cover that amount of passengers. Basically the cause of death for the Airbus 380.
It’s really sad. But needed.
I really enjoy your "retro" soft British broadcast style of presentation. 👌 😎 Keep up the excellent work as the content is outstanding as well.
Flew on an absolutely maxed out A380 earlier this year. It remains astonishingly capable, comfortable, refined etc.
Great informative video 👍👌🙏
Haych. Love it!
Air travel is one of man’s greatest human achievements.
Another great one Rory!
The A350 ULR is the strongest argument against the Quad Jets. The 787 is the second best argument. My problem is, after flying on the A380-800 with Emirates and with Asiana in Business class...everything else SUCKS.
One of the big turning points for twin-engine aircraft was the 767, and how Boeing, upon seeing the success of the A300 with Asian carriers not covered by the FAA 60-minute rule, pushed forward with massive lobbying and investment into ETOPS, and funded the extension of small airfields in the Pacific for them to be used as oceanic diversion fields, such as the WW2-era Henderson Field in the Midway Atoll. The reliability of the A300, 767 and then the 777, plus lobbying pressure by Boeing later led to massive increases of ETOPS diversion time limits to 3 hours and more, which previously many people thought was crazy for an aircraft with only one engine left operating. However this extension has the effect of opening up vast areas of oceanic & polar airspace for twins, And Airbus didn't expect it when they designed the A340, with the sales slogan "4 engines 4 long haul" and was looking to take some business away from the 747 on thinner routes, but still maintaining the 4-engine direct routing advantage. With ETOPS time extensions the A340 lost most of that advantage to the 777.
Still the A340 was a derivative of the A330 and so Airbus didn't spend too much money on it, plus the A340 benefited from the sales collapse of the MD-11, so Airbus didn't do too badly there. The A340-500/600 however was a wrong bet, with the goal of serving direct ultra-long haul routes for premium passengers (Singapore-NYC etc.) a la 747SP. However the fuel price rises in the late noughties, the ETOPS extensions making the 777 more competitive with more direct routings, and passengers (esp. In economy, all business class never worked out) not wanting to be stuck 17 hours in a metal tube made the -500/600 a sales flop.
This tale coincides with the death of the very large aircraft (VLA), because with low-cost carriers (LCCs) passengers are shown to be able to endure significant hassles and discomfort in the search of a low fare. This meant that cheaper and more readily available narrowbody 737s and A320s are starting to ply the trans-Atlantic trade instead of 787s and A330s. This meant more choice for passengers and more price competition, as LCCs with cheap narrowbodies can put some real heat on the big-boy flag carriers. Also stopovers gives passengers more options and more price competition between airlines, because a direct flight may only have 2 airlines operating, but if you add a stopover somewhere there may be 10+ airlines operating, with much more price competition, and governments love stopovers as there may be potential for some tourism spending. Long-haul narrowbodies like the A321XLR are going to profit massively with this change, at the expense of VLAs such as the A380 & 747, or even the A330 and 777. A330 lease rates have plummeted recently as older widebodies struggle to compete with the longer-range narrowbodies, and so no airline wanted them.
Improved range of narrowed bodied jets pretty much killed off smaller widebodies like 767 which were once the staple of medium haul flights such as coast to coast flights in the US
Until so far my last 747 trip was KLM 601
30th march 2018.
Upper deck.
My last a340 was 13th november 2019
AF 499. Got blown into waters of maho beach.
Flew on D-AIMG when it was out the box in october 2011 on LH462
I get sentimental when its quad jets.
And your Mile High stats?
I will only do It on Virgin Atlantic, that Is extra special...
I took the other direction of that flight - KLM 602 - in 2019. I debated between the upper and lower decks, and went with 1A in the lower because it was one of the 3 single seats in Business. I booked specifically because I had never flown on a 747 - or been to Amsterdam - before. It was wonderful!
Ruaridh how about making a brief episode only on the 880 and 990?
Well done
Yes, oh yes, to good ol' Boeing quad jets. I was a navigator on 1950's KC-135A Stratotankers. Powered by water injection P&W J57 turbojets. Thanks for your well produced vids, Ruairidh MacVeigh.
I hate to say this but, I really like the Quadjets because of the looks they created on an airliner. They seem more charismatic than the Twinjets.
Probably, if the newest Il-96 model could enter service, surely it became the last Quadjets ever to be produced.
Hopefully there is manufacturer that bring back the long-range Quadjet or even Trijet airliner with the same fuel consumption and reliability as the Twinjets but much more faster, even though I'm not fans of aeroplanes.
That seems impossible, why would you use a four very fuel efficient engines two replace two less efficient engines? If it’s so fuel efficient why have four, if you can just replace the two. Which is the most points for Twinjets being better these days, having bigger engines to give more power and engine fuel efficiency. Plus we don’t see any faster aircraft like the 990, Concorde, and Tu-144 due to engines use so much fuel to go from subsonic to transonic to Supersonic especially in afterburner. That’s why usually some fighter jets don’t go faster than supersonic unless really needed, just staying in cruising speed to conserve fuel.
The Concorde can outlast any fighter jet due to their huge fuel tank. Same reason why it got decommissioned, due to being fuel hungry that it might not be worth it compared to more fuel efficient aircraft with more capacity.
@@TheRandCrews yeah whatever
Why impossiblying something BTW?
I just share my dream even though for somebody else says impossible hahahaha
Nice xplanation 👍🏽
@Uncle Joe nice xplanations
Twin jets are unable to carry heavy loads. In other words; for a 150 ton cargo load you need four powerful engines (747-8). Twin engined 777 will never be able to come even close to that. Since I am fortunate enough to fly the 747-8, I can tell you one thing: It's way safer to fly a quad over the big ponds. Any light twin (777) pilot would agree with me.
An ETOPS crash anytime soon, from down under to the US? Of course, do the math. The insurance companies did it, too. They calculate with one twin engine widebody crash every five years.
Good luck and goodbye.
Nice video, thank's. ✈
*sniffs, tears up* you know it was my dream to fly the A388 As captain or even Pilot Flying, it was said to be as agile as a 737, lands and take-off like it, climbs and flies like it, BUT ITS A GIANT Dragon of a bird... i would say here you have an albatros that isn't to fat to land normally, though landing may feel smooth, they are not the weights are immense but the landing gear works perfectly, actually portructing its hydrolics after being extended cocked and locked increasing pressure, as soon as it lands and all 4 mains are ground contact it dampens it quickly reducing the pressure a bit,ever seen an a380 bounce? i havent but it could hapen and ussually is a go around because ome shorter runways,airbus made sure that the gear designers in canada who allso makes landing gear for all planes in the worldmakes sure that at 4main contact minus the 8 wheel sensors incase of crab but the high side must contact before reducing hydrolic pressure and letting the giant plane sink onto its landing gear as either the armed or manual speed brake and reverse trust is trying to be applied braking action of mnual brakingor autobraking is felt, kinda like the 737 with it's VERY LOW gear, so after landing you get that sinking feelingas it sets itself on the ground, because withan overweight landing we are talking about 380 to 500 tonnes easilythe gear needs to be able to do an overweight landing, provided the pilot increases lift and speed, and trades it of at touchdownt for ground spoiler max THR reverse MAX- esppecially as the outboard engine cant to thrust reverse, most runway, unlike 18R and 36L at schiphol or extra wide runways, elsewhere, the thrust reverses outboard are dissabled, because the A380-800 is but their shortest planned version back in 1994 my birth year when the plans forthis incredible built plane' s design came close to fruition,Mayve if they made an A360 instead a direct competitor against the B777X AND CURSE BOEING i bet the folded wings, and shit costed so much they cut corners like Chicago does and many engineers from seattle just went to airbus instead because of safety concerns of the 777 max and the 737, any boeing engineer watching this?
Please reply to this question who runs the company:
A:Chicago sharehoders
B: Chicago shareholders, conceptengineers and actualy production plant engineers from seattle together
C: Engineers
I think A, atleast with airbus it is B.
Thanks for the insight.I've often wondered how long it would be before quadjets dissapeared.true,the make great freighters,but even then,few cargo airlines use them,most going for twinjets like the B757 & A300-600 .
Ruairidh, You always have the best research for your videos.
Fun fact, the 60 min rule was never lifted, and it’s still today the official standard. While ETOPS is a special authorization, even when it is in fact the global defacto “standard”
Actually it's been strengthened as ETOPS now been replaced by "Extended Operation" rule which also applies to 3 or 4 or even more enginers.
16:23. Really nice video but one correction. The screens in the 747-400 were CRTs, not LCDs. Keep up the good work!
That made me wonder too, sounds right what you wrote.
Great video shame they have to finish but as you say it's down to economics. My favourite is still Concorde.
Would like to see sometime on this channel a video about english Zeppelin history. I remember that Britain has planed to have a fleet of flying airships between their colonies in the time before WW II.
We did. The prototype, the R101 crashed in northern France on its first flight to British India.
That sunset at the end. So sad. 😭
Great video. I love the Ford Tri-Motor. In the US we have one that has been preserved that tours the country giving (well selling) rides.
I also love the way your narration sounds like a WWII BBC radio news presenter.
23:03 what a cheeky smile! : D
Fantastic video. You have a "classic voice" for content like this, you're like the Mark Felton of transportation
hearing of the venerable 747s retirement is trully the end of an era how ever the Trip 7 Dreamline and whatever form the 797 will take along side incredible advances in A320s 330s and 350s mean this next era of aviation is trully one filled with choices.
The modern engine can easily see 30k to 80k hours of lifetime on wing reliability. The GE90 (Boeing777) can easily carry the plane on just 1 engine and has the thrust of 4 Boeing 737 engines combined.
Dual GE90 747!
@@CTMKD GE90-115B B777....GEnx-2B67 is on the 747 - 8
Excellent video again 👍🏻👌🏼
Do 2 twin engine aircraft burn more fuel than one quad engine aircraft?
don’t be sad that they’re going, be happy that it’s happened
Looikng at what has happened at Luftansa in recent days, stories of the death of the A380 might be somewhat premature. Even though production has now ceased, the Jumbo will also be flying for some years to come.
How do you?! lol Very well, thank you sir. I appreciate you making this. Learned a lot.
Was the VC10 *actually* more expensive to fly than the 707? BOAC claimed it would be as part of their reason to refuse buying it, but what about the plane when it went into service? The VC10 became famous as the preferred plane amongst passengers in the fleet because of its speed and comfort, so it had higher load factors than 707s. And it was much prettier than the Boeing…
Funny how you mentioned the Me262 when talking about Jet Propulsion yet failed to mention the Junkers JU-52 which had three propeller engines.
Death of the tri-jets and now death of the quad jets - i think that they will live forever - what was more amazing than the under appreciated Lockheed L1011 Tristar? Your analyses don't take into account peoples love of these objects that you are consigning to the grave - the beauty of design; the cleverness of them and the sheer engineering brilliance for the time.