How an instrument landing system(ILS) can autoland aircraft.

At the end of a flight, there is always that feeling of excitement. The flight was pleasant enough, with some nice views along the way, but now you are ready to get off and rejoin planet Earth. You look out of the window and glimpse the layout of the world you are about to become part of, perhaps seeing some expected landmarks.

Now that you are lower it becomes more interesting as there is more to see close up. The usual hubbub of activity and announcements as the crew prepares the cabin for landing is going on around you as you continue to enjoy the view. Gradually, however, more clouds are appearing and your view becomes more and more interrupted until eventually, all you see are variations of white and grey. You wonder to yourself, can the pilots see any better than I can? How are they going to land this thing without any visibility? I assume this aircraft uses an instrument landing system(ILS) to get us down. Maybe even autoland.

We've all no doubt heard about instrument landing systems and the ability to autoland an aircraft. But what does it mean?

Why do we need ISL and autoland?

Some parts of the world have a greater need to be able to autoland an aircraft. For example, the United Kingdom and much of North-West Europe are very prone to thick fog. This is mainly due to the cooler air condensing over the warmer waters of the Gulf Stream. In the U.K. the thickness of these fogs, famously the "London Fogs", was further exacerbated by soot in the air and visibility was literally down to a few feet.

This has improved since the Clean Air Act came into force which forbade the burning of smoke-producing fuel. Driven by these conditions the U.K. Government created a unit to investigate the feasibility of an autoland system in the mid-1940s. The flight delays and cancellations caused by these weather conditions were very disruptive and costly.

The Sud Aviation Caravelle was the first aircraft to be certified to Cat III autoland on 28 December 1968. These categories are determined by the number of backup autopilots an aircraft has. Generally, three are required as backups in case one or more fail.

So what do we know about how an aircraft can be brought to the ground safely using technology? Well, we need several different pieces of technology on the aircraft as well as on the ground. Let's look at the ground first.

At most major airports, some or all of the runways will be equipped with an ILS or Instrument landing System. This system very basically comes with two radio beams. One of those beams is located beyond the far end of the runway and is responsible for sending a signal directly down the centreline of the runway. This beam is used for directing the aircraft horizontally left or right until it is lined up with the runway centre line.

The second of the two beams is located next to the touchdown point of the runway, so the point where the aircraft wheels should first settle on the runway. This beam is directed up at an angle of 3 degrees, as this is the angle at which aircraft approach a runway to land. This beam is the benchmark for letting aircraft know whether they are too high or too low in their approach.

The Hawker-Siddeley HS.121 Trident followed the Caravelle with a (CAT IIIA) and CAT IIIB in 1975.

How does ILS work?

You are perfectly correct if you observed no beams in the sky on your last approach in the fog or any other time for that matter. That is why pilots have an instrument on their panel called a VOR or Very high-frequency Omni-directional Range.

This is a very important instrument and one of its many uses is to show a representation of the ILS radio beams as two needles. The horizontal needle will move up and down to represent the horizontal 3-degree glideslope. The other vertical needle will move left and right to represent the aircraft's position relative to the runway centre line. The pilots can then orient the aircraft correctly for the approach and "fly the needles" for a safe landing.

In addition, some airfields may have marker beacons along the approach path to the runway so as to back up the ILS information as far as the centreline and distance to go is concerned. There is usually an outer, middle and inner marker and these will light up on the instrument panel to confirm the progress toward the runway.

The ILS is a great system for getting aircraft lined up and approaching at the correct angle and heading for landing. If a pilot is flying the aircraft, however, they will expect some visual clues to start presenting themselves while the aircraft is still at a height where last-minute corrections can be made or the landing can be aborted.

Put yourself in the pilot's seat of a Boeing 747 on approach to Heathrow. It's foggy, and Tower Bridge was the last thing you saw before you popped into cloud and then fog. You dutifully fly the needles nicely lined up and as your altitude decreases you slow the aircraft, drop the undercarriage and run out all the flaps. The aircraft's manoeuvrability now takes on the attitude of a breeze block, so you need to be sure you are on the centreline and glideslope as the ability to correct your position is severely diminished.

As you pop out of the cloud, you expect to see the Hatton Reservoir ahead of you but there it is over to the right. You are nicely lined up for the Southern Perimeter Road, landing on which is not approved. So you go round and try again.

So what happened there? Well, two things really. Firstly, as you get closer to the ground, the accuracy of the radio beam signals is diminished due to ground and other factors. The second was the fact that the aircraft flying more slowly near the ground is far less manoeuvrable as the lessened effect of flight controls due to less air passing over them. The controls become sloppy and need more exaggerated movements to achieve the same result. Any last-minute corrections to go over further to the right would be met with disaster as there would be no time to get the aircraft correctly lined up again in a stable descent.

So this was the problem. ILS is a great system, but not good enough to land in near-zero visibility conditions.

This brings us to the aircraft systems that are used in concert with the ILS signal to achieve a safe landing in visibility conditions that in the past would have required the pilot to seek out their alternative landing airport.

An older-style analogue VOR instrument shows the needles neatly crossed in the middle to show the aircraft is in the correct space horizontally and vertically.

Autoland and the radio altimeter.

Autoland is a system that takes control of the aircraft's approach and landing using autopilot. During the autoland process, the autopilot will still use the ILS as described above to fly the needles, however, in addition, it will also reference the radio altimeter. What is that I hear you ask. Well, as you probably know the standard altimeter is little more than a barometer measuring air pressure. The higher up we go the less air pressure becomes at a fairly uniform rate, so we assign different heights with air pressure. This works fairly well when you measure in thousands of feet, however, you need something a little more accurate when you are flying near the ground.

A radio altimeter is very much like a boat or submarine depth sounder, it sends down a radio signal directly beneath the aircraft and then listens for the remnants of the signal to come back and then measures the change of phase between the sent signal and the returned signal. This gives the height above the ground directly below the aircraft. The radio altimeter is only used at the beginning and end of the flight as beyond 2,500 feet it becomes ineffective. Above that height, the instrument will have a flag pop up saying Off so that it doesn't confuse pilots during flight.

On approach using autoland.

So back to our intrepid crew landing a 747 at Heathrow. Tower Bridge disappears behind us again for our second attempt.

This time you've made an early decision that autoland might be the way to go. You select this setting on the autopilot panel and as speed reduces you run out the flaps again and dangle the Dunlops. You now have the best seat in the house while you watch the aircraft line up precisely on the needles, horizontally and vertically. At 2,500 feet the radio altimeter leaps into action and your co-pilot starts reading out the steadily decreasing altitude. You picture Kew Gardens below you and start further reducing speed. By Hounslow, you need to be in a steady flight configuration at around 1,000 feet.

ILS coupled with autoland enables aircraft to continue operating in all types of weather.

This is where the radio altimeter earns its right to be on the instrument panel.

Because of its high accuracy, you will be depending on it to flare the aircraft for a soft landing at the correct moment. The flare is when the aircraft nose is raised just prior to touching down. This serves to arrest its downward movement to something that the landing gear can cope with when slammed down onto the ground.

This is one of the trickiest parts of flight and one that pilots train and train for. Flare too early and you can stall over the runway and come down like a ton of bricks. Flare too late and well, the same effect really. Being able to flare at the correct moment is made much easier if you can see the ground.

We won't be able to see the ground which is why we are using our trusty autoland.

Through 1,000 feet and you constantly scan your instruments to check for anything that looks out of place. Meanwhile, you are subconsciously taking in your co-pilot reading off the altimeter readings.

Still pea-soup out there. Approach speed now we are on short finals. Then you hear your co-pilot calmly call out THIRTY FEET! Right on queue, the aircraft nose raises higher to bleed off the speed for the touchdown.

As the spoilers pop up and brakes come on with reverse thrust the autoland will still use the ILS to maintain the aircraft on the centreline of the runway until such time it is manually disconnected.

Another flight managed to operate on schedule regardless of the visibility conditions.

Aerial Firefighting with Fire Fighting Airplanes.

It seems to be the new normal now that each year brings devastating fires that are getting harder and harder to fight. Like anything, bigger problems need bigger solutions. To support the brave men and women who risk their lives to fight these fires, often coming in from other countries to support their brothers and sisters in need, we have seen in recent years new tools come into play.

A few years ago smaller planes, like the twin-engine high wing Canadair CL-215 would skim across lakes or other bodies of water, scooping up that water to then dump it on inaccessible fires. We also had helicopters such as the Sikorsky S-64, an example of which was owned by Erickson Air-Crane called Elvis which was loaned to Australia in the early 2000s. Aerial Firefighting is now moving to the next level with firefighting airplanes.

With bushfires becoming more ferocious and harder to fight from the ground, organisations are turning more and more towards larger firefighting airplanes. Firefighting airplanes are not purpose-built, however, with so many airliners now being retired, there is a ready source of large aircraft that can be converted. Unlike the current trend in air travel where large jets are becoming all but obsolete, for firefighting airplanes, bigger is better. So now we are seeing those older airliners that we used to travel in getting a new lease on life.

The biggest is the Boeing 747, "Queen of the Skies". Yes, the airliner that was the world's largest for most of its life is now finding a second life as the air defence to back up our on the ground firefighters. Like ground troops in a war, when the going gets tough you call in air support, and you want to be sure that they can bomb the hell out of the enemy. Well, this is the biggest, no doubt.

Global Supertanker Boeing 747-400.

The Global Supertanker, Spirit of John Muir, is the world's largest VLAT or Very Large Air Tanker, holding almost twice as much water or fire retardant as its next closest rival. This Boeing 747-400 started its life as an airliner flying for Japan Airlines before retiring to its next role as a freight-carrying aircraft for the now-defunct Evergreen International. The seats already long having been stripped out, the fuselage now accommodates two large identical tank systems giving the aircraft an effective payload of 20,000 gallons of water, retardant or gel. The tanks are pressurised and can deliver in one burst or in 8 segmented releases. The delivery can take the form of a blanket or drizzle out like rain which comes out through four outlets under the fuselage.

Spirit of John Muir can reach anywhere on the U.S. mainland within four hours and with a load time of 30-35 minutes can be deployed very quickly where needed. The aircraft was a great asset in South America during the recent Amazon jungle fires, really living up to the John Muir legacy.

Flying the Global Supertanker takes very special skills. Normally you would see the likes of a 747 taking off from a big city airport, climbing to cruise, and then descending to some other big city airport at the other end of the journey. The skill required to fly the VLATs is more in line with that of an air-force bomber pilot skill set.

Each sortie is critical and the retardant or water must be delivered to a precise location to be effective. This means that delivery runs are often at a very low level, around 200 feet above ground in difficult terrain and smoky conditions. Not for the faint of heart. Having said this, accidents have happened to other firefighting aircraft and in some cases, airmen gave their lives in service of others.

Since 2006, converted McDonnell Douglas DC10s have been used in aerial firefighting.

10 Tanker Air Carrier operates a fleet of 5 converted DC-10 aircraft. These converted airliners can hold around 12,000 gallons of water or retardant and have been deployed all around the world as required.

This BAe 146 aerial firefighting aircraft is ideal for its slow-speed abilities. Here we can see the tail air brake is deployed to allow it maximum time over the target.

So we can see that the toolbox at our firefighter's disposal is taking on whole new proportions as we try to stay ahead of our changing weather patterns. It is heartening to see some of our old favourite airliners getting a new lease on life and returning them to the usefulness they once enjoyed.

It is, however, even more, heartening to see serious force being brought to bear in the fight to save lives and our precious environment. Never underestimate the bravery of those on the ground and in the air that fight for our benefit.

Is this finally the end of the Boeing 747 Jumbo?

Just over 50 years ago on 09 February 1969, Boeing made history as the world's largest jet airliner, the Boeing 747 named City of Everett, climbed off the new purpose-built runway into Seattle's grey sky. Thus began our love affair with what was to be dubbed the Jumbo Jet.

US carrier Pan Am was the launch customer for the Jumbo and scheduled their first service from New York to London for 7:00 pm on 21 January 1970. The service was to be flown by an aircraft named Clipper Young America. On departure from the terminal in New York, however, there were technical difficulties around one of the engines overheating. The aircraft returned to the terminal and a replacement aircraft was flown in. The replacement 747 which was called Clipper Victor, was substituted and renamed Clipper Young America. The first commercial service of the 747 Jumbo departed New York finally at 1:52 am on 22 January.

Pan Am under the stewardship of Juan Trippe was a force to be reckoned with during that time and their need for a larger aircraft than the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 was a driving force in the eventual design outcome of the 747. Boeing was not completely convinced that a passenger aircraft of this size had a market. To this end, they created a design that would work well for freight airlines, which is where they saw the biggest market potential. This is of course why we have the distinctive bubble on top of the fuselage where the flight deck is located. The bubble enabled the 747 to be produced with a nose door for loading cargo with clear access to the fuselage unencumbered by a flight deck blocking the access. This may well have been a stroke of genius as we now see Boeing still producing the 747-8F, the freighter version.

Including the current 747-8, there have been 1,555 Boeing 747s delivered since that historic flight back in 1969. The 747, "Queen of the Skies", changed the world of travel and became the symbol of air travel. Appearing in songs and movies and just generally winning our hearts, the 747 has been a favourite for many years.

KLM Boeing 747-400 departing from Amsterdam. KLM has been retiring their 747s and don't anticipate the type to ever fly again under a KLM tail.

50 years is a long time in technology. Of course, the various models of the 747 have all come out with improvements and technology updates, but other technologies have also improved and eclipsed the need for a very large four-engined airliner.

Whilst Boeing is seeing a tapering off in interest in the passenger Jumbo, they at least still have the cargo version which has around 17 outstanding air-frames still to be delivered. Spare a thought for Airbus and the Airbus A380. You could say they came a little late to the Jumbo, or Super Jumbo party. By the time the first A380s were being delivered, the aviation scene was already changing, with newer technology large twin-engine airliners such as the Boeing 777, Boeing 787, Airbus A330, and Airbus A350 taking on long haul services. ETOPS certifications enabled these giant twins to fly the routes previously reserved for the 4 engined giants. The writing was on the wall.

Lufthansa Boeing 747-8 (D-ABYU) at Frankfurt Airport. Lufthansa was the launch customer for the Boeing 747-8i (International) and currently have not announced plans to retire these newer aircraft.

These changes were already well underway before the current economic market created by Covid-19 took its toll on travel. Airlines that still carried the Boeing 747 in their fleets already had firm plans in place to retire the type in the very near future. This, in many cases, was projected to happen over the first years of the 2020s, however, the effects of Covid-19 on global travel have prompted these airlines to bring forward their 747 retirement plans.

For example, Virgin Atlantic will be retiring its 7 747s very shortly. Consider that its 747 fleet has an average age of 20 years, whereas the rest of its fleet, excluding these 747s, has an average age of 9 years. This represents a significantly higher cost in maintenance for aging older technology aircraft. Lufthansa has also brought forward the retirement of 5 of its 13 Boeing 747-400s. It is worth noting that Lufthansa is one of the few airlines that bought the newer Boeing 747-8i. At the time of writing, this aircraft would still be retained by the airline. British Airways which has a large fleet of 28 747s will be working toward complete retirement of the type by 2024.

British Airways have 28 Boeing 747-400s in its fleet and are working toward retiring them all by 2024.

QANTAS for its part was looking to retire its last 6 747s by the end of 2020. The current travel climate has caused them to re-evaluate that schedule. Of the 6 mentioned, 3 have now already made their way to the aircraft graveyard in the Mojave Desert, California. The remaining 3 were scheduled to operate routes to Johannesburg, Tokyo, and Santiago until the end of 2020. It is now widely believed that the remaining 3 will follow their sisters to Mojave this month, June 2020. Foreward QANTAS schedules show that the aforementioned routes will now be flown by the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. The "Flying Kangaroo" on a 747 tail, once a very common site will be no more. By the end of the year, the only place you will be able to see a QANTAS 747 will be at HARS(Historical Aircraft Restoration Society) at Shellharbour Airport, just south of Sydney. Well worth a visit.

QANTAS Boeing 747-438. Once such a common site in our skies, soon to be no more.

I know I've had some of my most epic and memorable flights on the 747. Down the back or up the front is always a wonderful experience. Whether it be a brand new 747-200B of Air New Zealand or a really tired old QANTAS 747-400, you always felt like you were on a real airliner, the grand old Queen of the Skies. I know I will miss seeing them and being able to get on one.

Do you have any special memories of 747 flights you have taken? Feel free to share them below.

How long are airliner types produced?

I'm sure the recent announcement by Airbus to curtail its production of the Airbus A380 Super Jumbo met with disappointment by many. It doesn't seem long ago that we were all excited by this brand-new groundbreaking aircraft. It promised to be the new Boeing 747 to take us into the 21st Century. I remember, only a few short years ago, being able to boast that I had actually flown on one and sharing that experience with those who hadn't.

It seems too soon to be thinking about this aircraft ceasing production in only a couple of years from now.

That got me thinking about how other airliners have fared in the past. Don't they usually get produced for longer periods than that of the A380?

Modern Airliner production number of various airliners animated over sixty years.

Like any marketable product, an airliner has to fit a niche in that market. There has to be a demand for that product. In the case of an airliner, it has to be able to generate an income for its owner so that it can make a profit. Much like a car manufacturer, they have to produce a product that is appealing to the potential customer and operates within parameters that the customer expects. These parameters include environmental concerns, but, more particularly economical concerns.

In these days of higher operating costs, it must be shown that the product has addressed these higher costs with technological solutions.

In the case of the A380, it seems technology was part of its undoing. Don't get me wrong, the A380 used state-of-the-art technology in its design and materials, and is a great example of where aviation technology has evolved to. It is more about other aviation technology that has also evolved into a very high standard of reliability. The jet engine.

There are vast differences between the production numbers of the the airliners we have chosen. It is easy to see that the sweet spot in the market is the small twin-engine jet space occupied by the Boeing 737 and the Airbus A320. Of course these airliners form the back bone of airline domestic operations as well as short haul international. Whilst many of these airliners are still being produced and will grow in number, others like the A340 or Boeing 717 were superseded.

Jet engine technology is now of such a high standard that restrictions that were previously applied to aircraft with two engines flying long distances over water have been lifted. Each new engine that is brought to market has to go through a certification process along with the aircraft they happen to be attached to. This is a standard called ETOPS which stands for "Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards", or if you prefer, "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim".

So what has this to do with our poor, not-so-old, A380? It benefits from the same engines, right? Absolutely it does, it can be sure that all four engines will keep spinning happily throughout every flight. However, waiting in the wings(and with wings) are the big twin-engine jets, like the Boeing 777, Boeing 787, Airbus A350, and Airbus A330, to name a few. They can now fly the same routes as the A380, and some of them even further. The larger of these can carry about two-thirds of the capacity of the A380, so they're not that much smaller either.

This Boeing 777 of China Southern Airlines illustrates the power and size of the giant jet engines that power it. These airliners are becoming the long-range flagships of most major airlines today and are certainly the way of the immediate future.

So why do airliners want larger twins instead of the glamourous Super Jumbo? Economics and logistics. The economics part is fairly straight foreward. The A380 is expensive to run. Four hungry engines to feed and of course all the additional spares you have to keep on hand to ensure the aircraft doesn't miss a beat if something needs replacing. If the engines aren't turning you're not earning. To make the aircraft turn a profit, it has to fly almost full all the time, which is a hard thing to achieve with over five hundred seats to fill for every flight.

The logistics side relates to where it can fly. When the A380 was about to be introduced, main airports around the world had to make major improvements to runway strength and terminal gates so as to be able to accommodate the new aircraft. Whilst this development has been done, it means that there are many airports around the world where the A380 cannot land. Airbus worked on the hub and spoke theory. They envisaged the A380 carrying large volumes of passengers between main centres from where those passengers would then connect to regional centres using local commuter airliners. The reality now, however, is that the aforementioned twin jets are capable of flying the long-haul routes once dominated by the four-engined jets, and are capable of landing at many more airports. The trend, therefore, is to be able to fly non-stop from almost anywhere to almost anywhere else.

It may surprise you learn how long or how short a time some of our iconic airliners were produced for. Those with an end date of 2018 are still in production at time of writing.

The story is similar for the Airbus A340. Its four-engined configuration was designed for those long-haul overwater flights. It enjoyed a measure of success, particularly with Asian airlines, but was also overtaken by the twin-engined jet eventually.

If we go back and look at the early jet airliners like the Boeing 707 and the Douglas DC8, we can see they dominated the skies for quite some time. During a time when fuel was cheap and restrictions around noise and pollution hadn't really found their teeth yet, they were the intercontinental airliners of the day. As soon as the oil crisis of the early 1970s happened, they were no longer viable.

The Douglas DC 8 enjoyed 14 years of production, in which time 556 of the type were produced. Before the introduction of the Boeing 747, this and the Boeing 707 were the intercontinental airliners of the day.

Airliner manufacturing companies spend billions on research and development for each airliner type we see. They evaluate the selling ability as they need to know they can recoup the money they have spent, as well as of course make a profit. In the case of the A380, it is obvious that this hasn't happened. Airbus anticipated selling 1,200 of the type and has not even made a quarter of that number. This hurts the bottom line and will ultimately cost jobs.

The life of the airliner type is very dependent on the manufacturing companies keeping up with the latest technology and market trends and to a large extent, predicting the future.

Airbus announces the end of A380 production.

European aviation powerhouse, Airbus, announced, not unexpectedly, that they would cease production of the A380 Super Jumbo.

The huge double-decker A380 was set to revolutionise air travel in the new millennium and give stiff competition to the Boeing 747 Jumbo. Able to carry over 500 passengers across long distances, the A380 looked like a sure bet in that niche market. Launched in 2008 by Singapore Airlines, the future looked hopeful with orders from many of the world's prestigious airlines. Notably, Middle Eastern airline giant, Emirates, ordered a whopping 162 airframes. Airbus expected to sell around 1,200 A380s in order to recoup development costs, and of course, turn a profit. The actuality is that they have not even achieved a quarter of this target. As of the 31st of January 2019, 234 A380s have been delivered with 232 in active service. Of these 106 are with Emirates.

Where did Airbus go wrong? Like anything in the commercial world, the economics no longer stack up. The high price of the aircraft, coupled with the extensive upgrades required at airfields, before they can accommodate the Super Jumbo, led to very high overheads. Aviation, like most industries with an accent on technology, is ever-changing. It can be very difficult to predict future trends, and Airbus is not alone in this. Boeing also got burned by this trend with their 747-8i. Designed as the descendant of the much-loved 747, it met with a very lukewarm reception and has since ceased production. Boeing at least could fall back on the original failsafe of the 747, by creating a freighter version of the 747-8. This has done slightly better. The bubble on the original 747 was to enable a freighter version to be loaded through an opening nose door. They didn't have faith that the passenger version would sell, so took an "each way bet".

The focus seems to be now moving toward the long-range twin jets. Both Boeing and Airbus have a wide range of offerings in this space, which offer airlines a wide choice across their whole network. The economics of filling one very large aircraft to the point of profitability can very challenging. With slightly smaller aircraft, routes can be flown more frequently and economically. Today's giant twins like the Airbus A350 and the Boeing 777-9, are coming online and are enabling airlines to offer non-stop services between cities where it has not been possible in the past. Airlines, like QANTAS, are rethinking their strategy and proposing services that to date have not been possible.

An Airbus A380 destined for Emirates takes shape in the Toulouse factory. When production ends for the Super Jumbo in 2021, there are an estimated 3,500 jobs that will be at risk.

Only a few days ago QANTAS announced that they would no longer require the remaining 8 A380s in the order book. Virgin Atlantic also withdrew their order of 6, as they no longer wish to take up the A380. The final crunch came when Emirates announced it would reduce its order of 162 by about 20 aircraft. Once the balance of the Emirates and A.N.A. orders are fulfilled, there is no further backlog. Airbus anticipates closing production in 2021, which could impact up to 3,500 jobs. Not only will this affect Airbus, but also the many suppliers who create components for the giant aircraft.

It seems the A380 came along just a little late in the day. The focus of aviation has changed once again and it seems the day of the giant 4 engined Jumbo is over.

Long Haul Flights

Getting to far-flung parts of the world has been a challenge to mankind for as long as history stretches back. Knowledge of riches and resources beyond what can be found locally has driven us to find new ways and routes to far-distant corners of the planet. What virtually anyone can achieve on today’s long-haul flights in a matter of hours would have taken months, if not years in the not-so-very-distant past.

Whether it was the Vikings setting off for lands unknown, the Chinese doing the same, or the Portuguese circumnavigating the Earth. We have always been driven to new horizons by the prospect of the exotic worlds that lie beyond and how they could enrich our lives.

We still live by those same principles. Instead, however, of intrepid explorers setting off for journeys that may take them from their homes for years at a time, or forever, in many cases. We have business travellers completing those same journeys in a matter of hours and making trade deals. We have holidaymakers making those same journeys to find the sun, or a great shopping deal not available at home.

Those journeys are now so common as to seem mundane to many. While travelling over routes that were once only for the brave and those willing to risk life and limb, we now quibble over the quality of food, the entertainment system, or how much legroom we have. How quickly we adapt.

Today we are seeing records tumble every few weeks as airlines propose and begin ever longer “non-stop” routes. These are made possible by the latest long-range airliners, such as the Airbus A350, the Boeing 787,  Airbus A380, and the Boeing 777. Emirates launched their super long-range route from Dubai to Auckland, initially with the Airbus A380 but now with the Boeing 777-200LR (LR=Long Range), a distance of 14,200 kilometres. That is around 16 hours, depending on the wind.

The Emirates flight is impressive but that record is set to tumble as Qatar Airways is about to launch a Doha to Auckland non-stop flight which is 300-odd kilometres longer than the Emirates flight. Also announced are United Airlines' non-stop flights from San Francisco to Singapore, and Singapore Airlines flights from Singapore to Los Angeles.

So how did we get around the world before the advent of today’s modern airliners?

The simple fact was, that travel was for the rich in most cases. Yes, there was the opportunity to travel relatively cheaply by ship if you travelled in the lowest class. This kind of travel was usually once in a lifetime as you emigrated from one country to another. Long-distance aviation was another story.

The difficulty for early international travel was to create an aircraft that could carry a usable payload for a long enough range. There has always been a trade-off between carrying enough fuel to reach the destination versus carrying enough payload (passengers) to make the trip profitable for the airline.

Flying Boats

uring the 1930s on both sides of the Atlantic, aircraft makers like Boeing and Short Brothers decided that the future of long-range passenger air travel lay with the flying boat. These large chunky machines were generally powered by four propellers affixed to a huge wing atop the fuselage. Inside the accommodations were laid out as if the travellers were on a first-class sea journey.  Cabins could be set up for seating during the daytime, and as sleepers for night-time. There were even dining rooms so meals could be taken in a civilised fashion.

Boeing 314 Clipper.

Little wonder that a trip from the UK to Australia would cost as much as an average annual salary. The cabin may have been first class, but it was quite an adventure never the less. One of the reasons for choosing to land and take off from water was the ability to fly to places, or via places, where no adequate runway was prepared.

These lumbering behemoths may have been able to lift a luxurious cabin and its occupants into the sky, however, their range was severely limited by today’s standards. At little better than 1,000 kilometres, they had to hop their way across the globe which made for very long journey times. For example, a trip from Sydney to Singapore which today takes between 7 and 8 hours, involved a journey time of four full days with three overnight stop-overs. This was not too dissimilar to travelling by ship where you got to see some of the world along the way.

Land-Based Propeller Airliners

War always brings advances in technology and for aviation, this was certainly the case. A new generation of land-based propeller airliners emerged making use of advances in engine reliability as well as many more airfields that were now available.

These airliners started to resemble what we see today as far as cabin layout is concerned. Gone was the cavernous and opulent interior of the flying boat to be replaced by a more practical cabin seating both economy and first-class passengers in most cases. Airliners of this age were more streamlined and were capable of higher speeds than the lumbering flying boats.

A preserved Super Constellation “Connie” comes in to land. The long nose-wheel and curved fuselage were designed to keep the longer propeller blades clear of the ground, whilst the triple lower tail enabled it to still be stored in the standard hangars of the day.

Perhaps the pinnacle airliner of this age was the Lockheed Super Constellation, a very sleek aircraft almost resembling a dolphin in shape. With a cruising speed of 295 knots (547 KPH), she had a maximum range of 4,700 Nautical Miles (8,700 Kilometres). For the princely sum of around 2.5 times the average annual salary, one could travel from Sydney to London in no less than 64 hours. The journey would involve 8 stops, such as; Darwin, Singapore, Calcutta, Karachi, Cairo, and Tripoli. The journey, lasting 3 days, would involve overnight stops in Singapore and Cairo.

Engine reliability was still an issue and it was not uncommon for a delayed propeller airliner to arrive with only 3 of its 4 engines running.

In addition, these aircraft were all susceptible to weather conditions. The Super Constellation had a service ceiling of 24,000 feet which means it was not able to climb above weather as we expect today’s jets to do. This could lead to delays as pilots awaited weather systems to pass over, manoeuvring around them if they were already airborne

A New Sound in the Sky

The late 1950s saw the introduction of the Jet Airliner age. Aircraft like the Boeing 707 and the Douglas DC8, each with four jet engines mounted beneath their swept-back wings, started to be the mainstay of intercontinental travel. With a much higher speed than the propeller airliners, these jets dramatically cut down travel times. The Sydney to London trip could be done in half the time at around 30 hours.

The jet airliner age brought faster speeds as well as the ability to fly above most weather. This QANTAS Boeing 707 sported the V Jet insignia where the V stands for Vanna, the Latin for fan. It was powered by the newer generation fan jets.

The problem of range was still there though. These jet flights, while being faster, still required multiple stopovers along the way to refuel. The Sydney to London route would require 5 to 6 stops along the way.

Enter the Jumbo

In 1969 passenger aviation changed dramatically. Boeing launched their most audacious design yet, the Boeing 747. This aircraft, dubbed, the Jumbo Jet enable several hundred passengers to be carried all in one aircraft. One result was a drop in the cost of flying which brought it within reach of the common person.

Pan Am Boeing 747 May 1985. Pan Am was the driving force behind the development of the Boeing 747.

Whilst the size and carrying ability of the 747 were impressive, one of the great features that attracted airlines was its range ability and speed. It could fly further and faster than the DC8 and 707 at a cheaper seat/mile cost. This opened up the ability for intercontinental airlines to offer faster and cheaper journey times to faraway destinations. If we go back to our Sydney to London route, the early 747s reduced the stopovers to 2 which were typically Singapore and somewhere in the Persian Gulf like Bahrain. The journey time was now in the low 20 hours.

There was even a shorter version of the 747, 747SP (Special Performance)  which had an increased range due to the reduced weight. This was requested by Pan Am and Iran Air so that they could service some of their longer non-stop routes such as New York to the Middle East and Tehran.

Later versions of the 747, such as the 747-400 were built with newer technology engines as well as winglets for extra lift which enabled them to fly the world's longest routes as they have been doing to this very day.

It’s Twins!

Jet engine technology has now reached a point of reliability where a shutdown during flight is almost unheard of. An aviation standard called ETOPS (Extended Operations or Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim) governs the certification of twin jet airliners to fly long distances over water or remote territory. These certifications have been gradually granted to the large twin jets we see in our skies today.

It took a while to gain acceptance that twin jets could be used on long over-water intercontinental routes. Airbus had an each-way bet with their A330 and A340 models. They are essentially the same airframe, but one has four engines and one has two. Their adage was, “four engines for long haul”. The A340 proved popular at first and boasted a long-range model that flew some of the longest routes in the world. It was quipped that it was a flying tanker with a few passengers along for the ride.

Once ETOPS approval was given to the large twin-jets such as the; Airbus A330, Boeing 777, and more recently the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus A350, the economics of the four-engined airliner just didn’t stack up anymore.

Today

Today it seems to be the age of the twin-engined airliner which is capable of meeting and surpassing the performance, reliability and economics of all previous airliners. What used to take 6 weeks by ship, 4 days by flying boat or 3 days by Super Constellation is now possible in around 17 hours.

Airbus A350 XWB is the new high-tech twin jet airliner from Airbus.

When we expect to be able to go and explore any part of the world in the few weeks of holidays we are allocated, or go and close a business deal on the other side of the world, this is a huge step forward.

On the other side of the coin, one has to wonder what is lost when you no longer stop along the way. Have we lost the adventure that makes travel exciting? Will we no longer look forward to the journey itself as we complain about the food and watch the same shows we watch in our own living room?

It seems long-haul flights have become as exciting as a trip to the mall.

Boeing 747 8, are we falling out of love?

Our love affair with the Boeing 747 goes back 4 decades to those heady days of aviation when fuel was cheap and Juan Trippe and the boys at Pan Am asked Boeing to build them a much bigger airplane.  Never has an airliner captured the imagination of the public, appeared in so many movies, and made travel possible as much as the venerable Queen of the Skies.  We have seen her grow through 5 main variants, the 100, 200, 300 400, and SP.

Of all these, the 747 400 has been the most successful.  We know her well with her stretched upper deck bubble and winglets.  Never a real beauty but certainly majestic, she was seen at every major airport in the world.  With 442 produced she was the flagship of many of the world’s airlines.

It has now been 10 years since the last 747 400 Jumbo jet was handed over to China Airlines.  A decade.  It is also a decade since Airbus entered the Jumbo airliner market with their A380 Super Jumbo.  Of course, the A380 had been in development for many years already and perhaps its coming prompted orders for the 747 400 to diminish in anticipation.

Two Boeing 747 400s of Air France, one climbing out while the the other taxis.

So where was Boeing?  

The 747-400 program was winding down, but it seemed like there wasn't a successor waiting in the wings to take over.  There were a few attempts at tempting the market with a full two-decker version and a few other variations, but nothing concrete that the market wanted.  As we know, in the end, a significantly stretched version of the old 747 shape was decided upon and flew for the first time 5 years after the last 747 400 was delivered.  

The Boeing 747 8 comes in two versions; the Boeing 747 8 Intercontinental and the Boeing 747 8 Freighter. Boeing was hedging their bets by appealing to two arms of the market, just as they did with the first 747 which is why we have the bubble cockpit on top.  This allows a nose door to be installed for straight-through cargo access to the main deck.

So, why are we falling out of love with our Jumbo?  

Well, more particularly, why are airlines falling out of love? The correct question might be why haven't airlines fallen in love with the Boeing 747 8?  Sales have  been very soft, certainly for the 747 8 Intercontinental, the passenger version.  But, let's not think it's all about Boeing.  Airbus have also been experiencing a challenge with their A380 sales, with not one new customer being added in the last 3 years.  They need to build and sell 30 aircraft a year to make it an economically viable product.  This challenge is further exacerbated by the fact that second hand A380s are starting to come onto the market with airlines like Malaysia Airlines and Thai International talking of selling some of their 3 year old aircraft.  This will seriously undermine the prices of new aircraft.

An Airbus A380 in flight in Dubai in November 2006.

So what are airlines doing about their long haul high volume routes?  It's almost as if they are hedging their bets to see which way technology goes.  We know that the skies are starting to belong to the big twins.  Airliners such as the Boeing 777, Boeing 787, Airbus A350, and Airbus A330 are now becoming the mainstay of many of the world’s airlines.  But still, they seem to want a Jumbo in their fleets.

In the last few years we have seen major airlines like British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Thai International and QANTAS to name but a few, go through major refurbishment programs on their 747 400s.  QANTAS for example has completed a $250 million program to update and upgrade the interiors of 9 of its 747 400s.  The selling point being, that now the 747 400 seats are just like those on their Airbus A380s.

So are airlines waiting to see what happens with the Jumbo market?  When you consider that the list per unit price for a Boeing 747 8 Intercontinental is US$357.5 million and the cost of an Airbus A380 is US$318 million it makes sense to spend $250 million and have 9 airliners.

Lufthansa was the launch customer for the Boeing 747-8I. The passenger version of the 747-8 is known as the 8I where I stands for Intercontinental.

It seems the end of the age of the Jumbo four-engined airliner may be not far off.  Airbus and Boeing will pull the rug at some stage if they can't sell them and concentrate on their cash cows; the Boeing 777, Boeing 777X, and the Airbus A350 XWB.

We would love to hear about your experiences travelling on a newly refurbished Boeing 747 400.  Do they feel new, do you feel this is money well spent by the airline?