IIRC, Boeing and Airbus both looked into the super-size market; the Boeing design was exactly that - a 747 with the upper deck stretched back to the tail; Airbus came up with the A380 - and paid dearly for the all-new design with major components farmed out to every major EU country.
For anyone who’s interested, the Museum of Flight (in Seattle) has the City of Everett on static ground display. This is the first 747 that ever flew; it’s a historic aircraft. You can walk all around/under it, get a good close-up look at it.
et al ‘hump’ posts…
The 747 has had the hump lengthened twice over the years, on the 747-400 and most recently the 747-8. A beautiful airplane aesthetically, IMO the 777 might be able to beat it in interior technology and comfort, but the 777 is so generically stale from the outside that it approaches brutalist.
Slightly more than a 747-200 and slightly less than a 747-400.
A 747-8 holds about 22 more tons and can fly 500 nm further. There’s no way to compare load differences because a 747 can nose load very long pieces of freight.
the 747-8 was originally designed as a wet tail extended range plane but at some point in production they realized it couldn’t handle certain engine-out scenarios so they rolled off the assembly line with the system deactivated. I’ve heard the problem was fixed but I can’t say for sure. To compensate for it some carriers ordered them without belly floors to save weight.
Like the 380 there are limitations to where a 747-8 can land. The 747-400 had winglets but the 747-800 wings are tapered out farther. Some airports require a chase car before and after landing for what I assume is a FOD check.
Wet Tail???
rear fuel tank(s.)
Sorry, as jz78817 said, fuel tanks in the horizontal stabilizer part of the tail. Should have spelled it out.
Now, try FOD! 
And belly floors, when you get a chance to explain it.
(I know, Google is my friend…but I prefer you folks, if you don’t mind).
Foreign Object Damage. Think Concorde departing Paris. Crew on a aircraft carrier will walk the deck collecting all sorts of stuff that would cause major engine indigestion if it got sucked into the whirling innards.
That’s why you still see 727s flying
I seem to remember that the 747SP[sup]*[/sup] carried fuel in the vertical stabilizer. I’m having a hard time confirming that, but found references to the A340-600 and Super VC-10 also having tanks in the fin.
- An odd bird; it was a shortened version of the 747 that was optimized for long range. Only 45 were built. I’ve never seen one in person, but in pictures it’s kinda funny looking.
OK, I thought FOD was a known acronym. Ramps are often walked for FOD because stuff falls off vehicles driving around.
Belly floors are somewhat self explanatory. 747 freighters are fully automated topside and in the bellies. Containers or pallets are moved via motorized conveyor systems. In the bellies they are loaded via the automated system and manually locked in place. There is a track system that moves the containers along 2 center sections. In planes with no belly floors there is nothing to walk on except the tracks.
the topsides are designed to handle 2 rows of containers in various configurations with walk ways on both sides. So they have floors spanning the whole deck.
There is 3rd bulk belly in the rear that will always have a floor. That’s where fly away kits (spare parts) and tires are stored as well as any misc freight that can be hand loaded.
Thank you both for those definitions.
I remember the 747SP well – it sure looked stubby.
Between the 777 and 787, Boeing has excellent products for the more reasonably-sized widebody market. They were right to bet on more mid-haul and point-to-point routes. I don’t think a whole lot of airlines are interested in operating Supers outside of a few flag carriers.
I read that one of the problems on the horizon for Airbus is that there appears to be nearly no market at all of for used A380s. The airlines that have them are the airlines that wanted them, and of course the airports available for use are limited also.
The A380 has very little freight capacity. One of the aspects that has kept the 747s desirable is that Boeing offered an extra powerful new engine refit for $1 M. each - to improve freight capabilities with a full load of passengers and luggage. If you want to see lines of 747s, just Hong Kong’s airport and also look across the runway to the freight area. I would say that internationally, almost all the active 747s are used by airlines that also wants significant freight capacity. I don’t know whether the Combo still exists, but I was on a flight which was one-third race horses (on the passenger deck), and still full of passengers, luggage and freight.
Interestingly, Canada suddenly decided to buy two new Boeing C-17s as B. has 10 on hand with no buyers in sight and is going to terminate production.
Finally, I read that the life the B-52s will be extended to 80 years (2032). That’s giving the DC 3 a run for the record and I would not doubt that 80 will be extended if they have any remaining to cannibalize.
I have flown Singapore, Emirates and Thai air A380s; of course SAL was superior w/Em just behind and Thai was a packed bus. What amazed me was that Em. has a bedroom back by the tail for the Stews to sleep on double crewed flights. But I did not see on on Thai air and asked the Chief where they slept. He said if you can believe it, they bought this biggest aircraft and then they make up crawl down a ladder into the freight hold where we sleep.
Seriously? In a thread about airplanes?
The end of the 747 has been speculated for some time, but yesterday Boeing made it official. Boeing will no longer build 747s beyond 2022, when all the current outstanding orders will be filled.
Probably as air freight planes; I can’t imagine there’s anything out there that can out-lift or out-capacity them, save other super-jumbo type planes such as the A380 or those big Ilyushins.