
Joe Sutter, who guided creation of the Boeing 747, has died - NaOH
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/business/joe-sutter-dead.html
======
WalterBright
The 747 is an amazing engineering achievement. Even more than that, it's an
amazing business achievement. The 747 was an "all in", "bet the company"
program for Boeing. It took many, many years for the company to break even on
its investment, but after that the 747 was a money-making machine for Boeing
and for the airlines. When I worked at Boeing in the early 80's, every time a
747 rolled off the assembly line a gigantic paycheck went into the company.
(Just walking down the assembly line in the Everett plant was more fun (for
me, as an aero nerd) than an E-ticket ride.)

Airlines loved the 747, because it was a money-making machine for them, too.
Nobody could compete with the 747 for decades.

The 747 provided the technology and the money to develop the 757, 767, etc.

~~~
acemarke
Absolutely random note: I had never heard the phrase "E-ticket ride" in my
life until earlier today, when one of my dad's buddies mentioned it while we
were out golfing and explained the context. Just a few hours later, I see it
here. Amusing.

~~~
gregpilling
E ticket, is a reference to how Disneyland used to price rides. The most
exciting rides like Space Mountain, required an E ticket; this was before the
pay-once-ride-anything plan was introduced.

I went to Disneyland for the first time in 1979, and the E ticket was in use
then.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_ticket](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_ticket)

~~~
WalterBright
Disneyland was another of those totally game-changing innovations like the
747.

~~~
Bluestrike2
The outsized effect of Disneyland on the American psyche has always fascinated
me. In a lot of ways, Disneyland is synonymous with the idea of the family
vacation. I remember reading a fascinating article a few months back about a
column Elie Wiesel wrote about his trip to Disneyland [0]:

> I don’t know if a Garden of Eden awaits adults in the hereafter. I do know,
> though, that there is a Garden of Eden for children here in this life. I
> know because I myself visited this paradise. I have just returned from
> there, just passed through its gates, just left the magical kingdom known as
> Disneyland. And as I bid that kingdom farewell, I understood for the first
> time the true meaning of the French saying ‘to leave is to die a little’
> [partir, c’est mourir un peu]

For a theme park--of all things--to create that sort of effect on its visitors
is nothing short of remarkable.

0\. [http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-
culture/206125/elie...](http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-
culture/206125/elie-wiesel-visits-disneyland)

~~~
rangibaby
> Disneyland is synonymous with the idea of the family vacation

Hoo boy

[http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/read-john-
hughes-o...](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/read-john-hughes-
original-national-811591)

and the no-celebrities-harmed film adaptation "Vacation".

------
hodgesrm
Joe Sutter did a lecture on the Shuttle disaster investigation at the
University of Washington shortly after leaving the committee. He gave a
memorable explanation of the risks of flying the Space Shuttle, which he
described as an experimental vehicle with 700 flight safety-critical parts
[1]. "Safety-critical" means that if the part fails you lose the aircraft.

Sutter claimed that thanks to redundant design the 747 had _zero_ flight
safety-critical parts. I have never been able to confirm this independently
but it has stuck with me ever since. Anyway, he instantly cut through the
prevailing NASA propaganda that the shuttle was the beginning of regular
travel to low-earth orbit. It was a great talk by a great engineer.

[1] [http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/faa-
definitions.ht...](http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/faa-
definitions.html#F).

------
qq66
The 747 is one of mankind's crowning achievements. It's not only a technical
marvel but an aesthetic one -- it looks truly beautiful while an A380 looks
like it just got punched in the stomach. Along with the massive network of
airports, air traffic controllers, mechanics, regulators, pilots, engineers,
forensic analysts, financiers, etc... I think that commercial air travel is a
more impressive achievement than the moon landing and the 747 its glorious
peak moment.

~~~
jdale27
What a great comment. I went through a period in my life where I hardly
traveled at all, and more recently I've been traveling frequently for work. I
still feel the same childish joy every time I feel the plane leave the ground
-- we're actually flying!

And the fact that basically on a whim, I can buy a ticket, show up at an
airport, wait a bit, sit on a plane for a while, and then basically show up on
the other side of the world in a few hours, what it used to take humans
months, or even years, to do, when it became possible at all.

So yeah; from someone who's a geek about it, but outside of the aviation
industry: it's cool.

~~~
rdtsc
> I still feel the same childish joy every time I feel the plane leave the
> ground -- we're actually flying!

I aways remember this bit by Louis CK about flying. It is just so true.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4)

~~~
mercer
I'm a grown man and I still often ask if I can sit by the window (if I can't
make sure I'll be assigned a window seat for a reasonable price)!

------
cletus
It just so happens I randomly caught a documentary about the development of
the 747 recently. From an engineering perspective it's amazing. A few tidbits:

\- it went from an idea on a gold course to engineering prototype in 2.5 years
in an era almost without computers

\- Boeing had to build what I believe is the world's largest building to make
them

\- Boeing saw the 747 as a stopgap while their main focus was on the (doomed
SST so Sutter had to try to go any resources. With the SST's cancellation and
huge development cost it almost bankrupted Boeing.

\- all of this was before simulators so they basically had to build one and
take off and see how it flew or even if it flew.

\- for much of the development there were no engines powerful enough to fly
it, eventually a Pratt and Whitney prototype was used that had a nasty habit
of exploding for over a year of flight testing before they figured out why.
Nowadays engines are so reliable that the four engine design is essentially
dead and many planes will serve their entire life never having their engines
replaced.

\- the distinctive (now iconic) design with the cockpit and upper deck bulging
at the front was to fulfill a dual purpose as a cargo plane. You open up the
nose and still get the full body height to load and remove cargo.

\- when Boeing agreed to make it (because of a Pan Am request) they had no
idea what it would look like.

I think the show was an episode of Mighty Aircraft. Well worth watching.

RIP joe Sutter.

~~~
TimMeade
Sounds exactly like the documentary on Smithsonian.

[http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/shows/747-the-jumbo-
revolu...](http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/shows/747-the-jumbo-
revolution/0/3407070)

------
bambax
> _Adam Bruckner of the University of Washington’s department of aeronautics
> and astronautics later described the 747 as “one of the great engineering
> wonders of the world, like the pyramids of Egypt, the Eiffel Tower or the
> Panama Canal.”_

Absolutely true. It's one of the most beautiful machines of the world, and
unlike the Eiffel tower or the great pyramids, it serves a purpose; it's a
tool, and the nicest one.

One morning in 1992 I drove a friend to JFK; when he departed, I spent the
rest of the day watching 747s take off and land; I just couldn't leave the
spot. It was a great day.

> _In 1986 President Ronald Reagan appointed him to a panel investigating the
> explosion of the space shuttle Challenger._

Richard Feynman was a member of this panel; I wonder if the two got along
well?

------
hackuser
It's well know that the 747 is extraordinary in terms of engineering. Why?
From the naive perspective, it's the-same-thing-only-bigger. I'm not quite
that naive, but I'd love to hear an authoritative analysis rather than the
popular wisdom.

I would guess that engines powerful and efficient enough to fly a plane so
much larger than any predecessors, and to fly it further, would also be a
significant achievement.

------
matthewmcg
His book, _747: Creating the World 's First Jumbo Jet and Other Adventures
from a Life in Aviation_, is a good read.

------
helloworld
So much happened in aviation between the Wright Flyer's first flight in 1903
and the 747's in 1969. Since then, at least from a passenger experience
viewpoint, relatively little has changed.

Is that because most new technologies eventually reach plateaus? Or have
unique factors -- like environmental concerns about supersonic travel -- held
back progress in aviation?

~~~
blakeyrat
Maximum speed and capacity aren't increasing because those aren't problematic
factors. Right now the most important place for improvement is in fuel
economy, and at that modern planes are doing much better than their 1970s
equivalents.

The 747-400 costs $47.34 per nautical mile, the 787-8 only $27.35. Sure it's
not as visible to the passengers (except indirectly in the form of cheaper
tickets), but that is a _huge_ improvement in an important metric.

~~~
brookside
Doesn't a 747 hold twice as many passengers though?

~~~
hodgesrm
The 747 takes only about 50% more passengers in most seating configurations.
However, that does not make it cheaper or more efficient to operate because
it's harder to fill the plane especially when flying from smaller airports.

Meanwhile many 747s are only in service now because fuel prices are relatively
low. Once the prices go up they will likely be replaced by 777s or other
models that are easier to fill up and cost less to operated.

I confirmed this recently with a United Airlines 747 trainer who was booked on
the same 747 flight as I was. He loved the plane and didn't want to fly
anything else.

------
gregpilling
a good quote from him (and the article) "“You know things are going to
happen,” he explained, “and sometimes it’s going to be severe. You still
should be able to come home.”

------
gumby
What boggles my mind is that the 747 and Concorde were designed with slide
rules and built by hand without CNC. Not just the airframes but the motors and
everything else. They must have had some simple computer simulation, but not
much.

I don't want to return to those days but if we had to build software that way
it would be much more reliable. It would take longer and have much less
functionality too of course.

------
TimMeade
He did an amazing feat in such a short time in accomplishing the design. There
is a fantastic documentary shown on the Smithsonian channel ever few weeks
about the design of the 747. If you are interested in this kind of thing, it
is well worth the 2 hours watch time. Joe is in it both in current day
reflections and footage from the design period. RIP.

~~~
TimMeade
[http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/shows/747-the-jumbo-
revolu...](http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/shows/747-the-jumbo-
revolution/0/3407070)

------
paulpauper
I wonder what the limits to airplane size are? Would it be possible to make a
version that seats thousands of passengers

~~~
gumby
A lot of them are system issues: you need a LOT of passengers going point-
point, and you need the airport infrastructure.

Consider the A380: it can only fly into airports that have been modified/built
for them; takes forever to load/unload passengers, and only works for a few
long haul routes. Most airlines are losing money on it (few are in the
Qantas/Emirates mode) and thus the order book is not strong. I doubt anyone
will build a larger plane.

------
bootload
Love how the 747-400 has a max cruising speed of mach .761 (939km/h). That is
fast.

~~~
jacquesm
And that's of course airspeed, going in the right direction with the jetstream
in your back you can go well above 1000 Km/h.

~~~
bootload
_" going in the right direction with the jetstream in your back"_

Indeed, I often think the choice of jet for AF-1 was chosen for that reason,
Mach 1 capability.

------
madengr
So did they increase the passenger capacity from 360 to 500 without increasing
the size?

