Talk:Boeing 747

747-100

B741s had the 6 window as an option, British Airways flew theirs with up to 12 or more. It's all based on what was located in the upper deck, a bar, a lounge, a suite, or more seats. some B741s also had the SUD option 2A02:C7C:9B27:1600:40DE:88FF:FED2:2320 (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

In the "747-300" section, the article already mentions that the SUD was introduced in the -300 but was also available as a retrofit and as an option on any new build -100 and -200.

The "747-100" section mentions 6 windows (3 per side) and also mentions 10 per side if used for passenger seating.  Stepho  talk  06:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

in the earlier 747-100s 6 windows wasn't really optional but on later 747-100s it was optional and 6 windows was a option on the 747-8.user ישראל אייזנמן 204.128.182.34 (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Unclear engine options description of 747-300

I found that in the description section of 747-300 variant, the engine option part was said "The -300 could be equipped with the same Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce powerplants as on the -200, as well as updated General Electric CF6-80C2B1 engines."

However, on page 24 of the document from Boeing about 747-100/-200/SP/-300, which is also the document used as reference 325 in main article, it mentioned that CF6-50E1/E2 that was equipped on 747-200 also equipped on 747-300, which does not mentioned in this section.

Since the article was protected, can someone help to correct this part to make it more clear that mentioned CF engines equipped on 747-200 also available on 747-300? Thank you! 137.122.66.45 (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

It gets a bit confusing when you look at the type certificate. According to FAA TCDS A20WE Rev 64 (the latest revision as of this post), the 747-200 and -300 variants are certified for the following engines (engines compatible with at least one -200 model and the -300 are in bold):

• 747-200B:

• P&W JT9D-3A, JT9D-7, JT9D-7A, JT9D-7F, JT9D-7J, JT9D-70A, JT9D-7Q, JT9D-7Q3, and JT9D-7R4G2
• GE CF6-50E, CF6-50E1, CF6-50E2, and CF6-80C2B1
• RR RB211-524B2-19, RB211-524C2-19, RB211-524D4-19, and RB211-524D4-39

• 747-200F:

• P&W JT9D-3A, JT9D-7, JT9D-7A, JT9D-7F, JT9D-7J, JT9D-70A, JT9D-7Q, JT9D-7Q3, and JT9D-7R4G2
• GE CF6-50E, CF6-50E1, and CF6-50E2
• RR RB211-524B2-19, RB211-524C2-19, RB211-524D4-19, and RB211-524D4-39

• 747-200C

• P&W JT9D-3A, JT9D-7, JT9D-7A, JT9D-7F, JT9D-7J, JT9D-70A,JT9D-7Q, JT9D-7Q3, and JT9D-7R4G2
• GE CF6-50E, CF6-50E1, and CF6-50E2
• RR RB211-524B2-19, RB211-524C2, and RB211-524D4

• 747-300

• P&W JT9D-7R4G2
• GE CF6-50E2 and CF6-80C2B1
• RR RB211-524B2-19, RB211-524C2-19, RB211-524D4-19, and RB211-524D4-39

However, Note 6 of the TCDS states that certain engines can be intermixed with slightly different models "with appropriate limitations noted in the FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual". - ZLEA ^T|C 20:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2026 and 1 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dvd 02 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Enzo Casati, Alex Meuche.

— Assignment last updated by TheColdBike (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Why can't City of Everett be marked as "developed_from" for the Boeing 747?

Houtyuhn (talk · contribs) left this question on my talk page. I have moved it here so that others can comment.  Stepho  talk  22:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Isn't the Boeing 747 prototype City of Everett and the Boeing 707 prototype Boeing 367-80 the same principle? Why can't City of Everett be marked as "developed_from" for the Boeing 747? Houtyuhn (talk) 8:42 pm, Yesterday (UTC+8)

|developed_from is meant to show a different but similar aircraft that this one was developed from. It does not include prototypes when the prototype is essentially the same as the production aircraft.

Your example of the 367-80 shows this. The 367 was developed from the B29 by adding another deck. The 367-80 was developed from the 367 by adding a swept wing and jet engines and a lot of other major changes. The 707 was developed from the 367-80 by increasing the width. While the 367-80 was a prototype of the 707, it was also different enough that it is not an actual 707.

The city of Everett was the prototype of the 747 but it did not differ from the production 747 in any substantial way. It was the first of the 747 series rather than a step leading to it.  Stepho  talk  22:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs is right. The Boeing 367-80 is often treated as a distinct type from the Boeing 707, which was structurally different from the former with its wider fuselage. City of Everett, on the other hand, is essentially just another Boeing 747. Production 747s were not developed from City of Everett because no significant development was deemed necessary for production to begin. As such, it was not even given a distinct model or variant designation from production aircraft. - ZLEA ^TǀC 00:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Iranian hull loss

For the Iranian military 747-100 that was recently targeted and destroyed, should it be in the same section as the Korean Air Lines Flight 007 that was shot down? Surely both count as unusual incidents resulting in hull loses.  Stepho  talk  04:17, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The difference was that one was a military aircraft lost due to enemy action, while the other was a civilian airliner shot down due to a combination of mistaken identity and a navigation error. We don't usually include combat losses of military aircraft as such losses are considered a normal part of warfare. There are sometimes exceptions for singular and unusual circumstances, but ordinance hitting a parked military aircraft has been a regular occurrence since the beginning of aerial warfare. - ZLEA ^TǀC 04:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

If this was a military article then I would agree. But this article is for a mostly civilian aircraft, even if a few of them are used by the military. Since all the other accidents, incidents and hull loses are gathered together in one section it is weird to have one sitting out by itself. Better to keep all the hull losses together as incidents.  Stepho  talk  09:00, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

If this was a military article then I would agree. But this article is for a mostly civilian aircraft, even if a few of them are used by the military. A military aircraft is a military aircraft, regardless of the original intent or typical operator of its type. The terms "accident" and "incident" have very specific meanings in the context of aviation, and combat losses typically do not meet either definition. Therefore, to include them in the accidents and incidents section would be misleading. - ZLEA ^TǀC 21:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with ZLEA. Including a combat loss would be at least confusing, or misleading if you will. ContextCreator (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll also point out that "Hull loss" is not just any event in which an aircraft is destroyed, but rather an aviation accident that damages the aircraft beyond economic repair, resulting in a total loss. Events like combat losses and aircraft disposal (such as scrapping) are not accidents, and therefore are not typically considered hull losses. - ZLEA ^TǀC 23:31, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Note that I said military article, not military aircraft.

To my knowledge, no other military 747 has been destroyed in combat. Unlike fighters and bombers which are often destroyed in combat.

So it is still weird to have every other unusual hull-loss (ie, not count scrapping due to economics and wear and tear and similar) mentioned in one section and this single hull-loss way off by itself.  Stepho  talk  04:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Note that I said military article, not military aircraft. I am not aware of "military article" and "non-military article" being a meaningful distinction in the context of accidents and incidents sections. I certainly have never heard such before. To my knowledge, no other military 747 has been destroyed in combat. No, but that changes nothing. "Singular and unusual circumstances" means the circumstances of the combat itself, not the aircraft types involved in said combat. It means circumstances so unusual that it clearly wasn't intentional and is unlikely to be repeated intentionally, such as (a hypothetical example) a clearly accidental air-to-air kill with an unguided bomb. So it is still weird to have every other unusual hull-loss mentioned in one section and this single hull-loss way off by itself. It would be weird if it actually met the typical definition of a hull loss. But as I already explained above, it doesn't because it doesn't meet the definition of either "accident" or "incident" in the context of aviation safety. - ZLEA ^TǀC 00:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Add back the details of all the variants

I don't get why details about each variant of the 747 is "too much details." Each variant has different statistics, so I believe we should add back all the different statistics. ~2026-26840-87 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Good question. Go read WP:NOT. I think a mass of stats, many of which only have fairly small differences, is one of things we definitely don't need. I think it's fine to have one set of stats and then an explanation of the key differences between the variants. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Article too long

Since this article has gotten too long with all the details written lately, perhaps we should make a separate article for the operational history? It's the longest section and seems to be the reason for the "too long" tag. ChonkyTomcat (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Add clean up and/or summarize tags first. This gives others notice and clarifies where help is needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Just added a split suggestion tag on the operational history section for now. It's the only section that needs to be addressed at the moment. ChonkyTomcat (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed for splitting the operational history section to its own article.

Also, the lead is far too long. It should be readable in far less than 30 seconds to give the reader a quick understanding of the article. Most of the details in the lead can be removed or simplified.  Stepho  talk  23:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I've backed up the operational history section in my sandbox in preparation for the page split. Will begin creating the page once all the citations have been fixed. ChonkyTomcat (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)