You are confusing yourself about those "Mach" numbers.... do some homework first on Mach numbers.... The fastest aircraft ever flown so far, is the SR-71 Blackbird @ Mach 3.5...
Actually, that's still incorrect. On record, the SR-71 record speed is set at 2,193.2mph, or mach 2.86. The mach 3.5, is a reported speed from a pilot who was outrunning a missile in Libya, 1986. It was never marked as an official speed because it couldn't be verified. Both are the SR-71 though. Also, it's not the fastest manned aircraft ever flown. That goes to the rocket powered North American X-15, at mach 6.7. The SR-71 was an air breathing, jet powered engine, and is the fastest of that type of aircraft
@@FtdFacts Dude, your name is FTD "Facts", blame yourself before putting inaccurate stuff out there. Research involves fact checking and technical accuracy, otherwise it's just reading.
@@77l96 so then why are people retiring and hanging up their 747s as well then. Lufthansa put the 748 into storage. So why? It's not that the a380 is bad because it's a full double decker. It just was brought into a world that doesn't need or want a jumbo. Just like the 748. That's why they sold bad. The only reason why that old as s 747 and new 748 is flying is because of cargo. Also the fact that the airlines have a huge bias for the plane. Just like you! If it were around 40 years ago the Boeing would of sh#t ita pants. And now people like me who see what's there and bot what we want to see have to defend a another engineering marvel from people like you who attack the plane all the time. All because its foreign.
I’m biased to the 747 as it was my childhood. I’ve travelled to many countries and many places and the aircraft that I have most loved to fly is the 747.
Great info! One suggestion for future videos like this: When you're talking about the data of each aircraft it would be super-helpful to have it displayed as a visual reference somewhere on the screen. Many of us cannot remember the numbers (fore and aft) that quickly to make a good comparison. Thanks for all you hard work and cool videos! Take care.
Aviator Adam, I’m not lieing those are the facts! why don’t you look into what’s what! As a Boeing employee I think I would know. All I’m saying is FTD facts needs to do a little research!
2:20 Lockheed C-5 Galaxy not C-6 At the time the plane was made, the company was known Lockheed, not Lockheed-Martin I beg to differ when you imply that the C-5 Galaxy's design elements went into the 747. The biggest difference is in the skeleton of the plane. The C-5 Galaxy has its wings mounted high and the top of the plane is like the skeleton of the plane with weight hanging under it. The 747 is the opposite. Wings hang low and weight is placed above it. 2:35 Joe Sutter, not Suitor was the engineer. (wrong) "Pan American Airplanes" --> (right) Pan American World Airways --> (commonly known as) Pan Am (wrong) Pratt Whitney --> (right) Pratt & Whitney 9:22 Airbus A380-800F (freighter) was offered but not a single one was ever built. The reason the 747 has its characteristic hump is because from day 1 it was designed to have a freighter variant. That is also why its cockpit is on the 2nd floor -- so that its nose could be lifted up. The Airbus A380-800F (freighter) was poorly conceived and executed, which is why not one single model was ever built. The Airbus' cabin is on the 1st floor so it would be impossible to have a raised nose. And even if an A380-800F was ever built, they could never fill the entire plane up because the weight of full cargo containers with goods would exceed the max payload of the plane.
Your video has so many errors that it seems that you were not careful to be accurate and by extension you lose credibility with your viewers. I don't say this to be mean but to help you see this from the perspective of your viewers. The info may be great but once you lose credibility it will no longer matter what you got right. It is really worth your time to be more careful to be accurate in the small things.
@@77l96 I would not agree with the 757... The plane is hell to fly in! The 727 is a meh, nobody even knows why it was made and the fact that it burns fuel like there is no tomorrow. The 707 was iconic at the beginning, but it quickly became outdated within a few years, so it is a so so. The rest I agree with.
@@Yassified3425 Im am sure if you knew it you would not comment like that. The 727 was a machine made for addressed the demand for shorter flight lengths from smaller airports, airports who the 707 could not take, descending quickly to avoid obstacles. The the new 757 replaced in favor of new, fuel efficient, and quieter plane able to do the same job, but on a better way. And the 707 without forgetting at it, open the doors of the turbine engine and revolutionized air travel. Already fulfilled its purpose, the 3 have been withdrawn from operations but are in history for starting a new generation of use.
@@Singh-mt2ex is Truth is have is problems all thanks to evil man's who just ruined. But the 737 family is still is one of the most successful flying machines ever made. The fact that it's designed have been still made for more than 50s year prove it was done correctly. In fact, If it was a truly useless aircraft, then the new Max wouldn't earn the 5,000+ orders it has for the future. And yes, the Neo is more capable, but the 737 is still, after all, capable of doing the job it was made for: a short-body fuselaje plane for medium-long, short-haul flights.
agreed, the A-380 was to 80% a prestigious product. That there are not many global air routes which are booked up with 800 passengers was clear from the beginning when the A-380 was designed. That the B-747 never changed the fuselage design might have been irritating that there is no more any further development. That Boeing stopped researching on more efficiency. Car bodies always change and are considered more efficient when new models come out. But aeronautical research might be different than car industries. Still, the 747 is a fabulous plane, but doesn't it look like a little bit old-fashioned, antiquated?
Wow, for quoting facts, you got some things right, some things flat out wrong and a lot of useless blather in the middle. First, the C-5 did come before the 747. Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed all submitted proposals for the air frame while Pratt & Whitney (aka Pratt) and GE developed the engines. If you get into the history a bit, the Air Force preferred Boeing's design, but Lockheed produced the lowest cost bid. The first high bypass engine (HBP), the T-93 was the first HBP engine and it powered the C-5, while the Boeing 747 went, initially, with the Pratt JT9D. To say that the Boeing design was based on the C-5 is inaccurate. The design Boeing submitted to the military was the platform upon which the 747 was built, but that is where the history between the two aircraft ends. You got the variants mostly correct; however, the 747-100 was the first, followed by the -100B and -200/200B/200BM (for upper deck passenger and freight) variants which featured higher thrust engines, increased fuel and greater max takeoff weight. The 100SR variant went to JAL and ANA for their high density domestic markets; those aircraft carried over 550 passengers. The 747SP was next in the late 1970s coming again at the request of Pan Am for longer range missions. The -300 was the first stretched upper deck version (my uncle was an engineer on that project) and came in three flavors including a combi version. KLM opted to have a refit of their 747-200s into stretch upper deck versions instead of the newer -300 model. The 747-400 came in the early 1980s and featured winglets and higher thrust engines...both a passenger and combi version were produced as well as an extended range (ER) and two freight versions (400F and 400ERF). The 747-8 was Boeing's response to the A380. The aircraft was stretched, given a new wing and flaps and the GENX engines which were vastly more efficient than those on the -400. The problem for both Airbus and Boeing with their large aircraft was the success of the Boeing 777, in particular the Boeing 777-300ER. Airbus claimed it could carry more passengers at lower cost than the 747-8. This was correct, but neither aircraft could beat the economics of the 777-300ER. The 747-8F, however, has found a niche in the cargo market and will, I suspect, be around for a while because of its ability to carry a lot of payload a very long way. The A380 design does not permit the kind of payload size afforded by the 747-8 (also the nose loading is a huge advantage). The only reason the 747 got built was Pan Am. It was a leader in its time and brought jet travel to the masses. The only reason the A380 got built was Emirates ordering a stupid number of the airplanes. Your statement about future variants of the A380 is inaccurate. The program has been cancelled. There are only a handful of airlines that operate it and over the next few years, that number will decrease. Air France is removing them from their fleet entirely, Lufthansa is swapping A350s for A380s and British Airways has done the same. The economics of the airplane are simply not what Airbus promised. The issue with the 747 is not that the aircraft doesn't do what Boeing promised, it just wasn't enough to overcome the 777-300ER. Now, we are seeing a similar problem with the 777X, as the success of the Boeing 787 family (the -9 variant in particular) has called into question the need for such large aircraft. The A350 is a higher tech 777, but it is not as wide, so if you think that ten abreast in the 777 is horrible, just wait for it in the A350. The trend going forward will be for smaller aircraft that are more efficient and can be optimized for different missions while mitigating the cost of different variants in airline fleets. This has killed the A380 as a passenger aircraft and as a freighter, it was dead on arrival, as no airline would order it, given the necessity to have specialized loading equipment to utilize the upper deck...and the floor that separates the upper and lower decks are structurally required (aka can't be removed for oversize cargo). In fact, perfectly good A380s are being chopped into razor blades because there is NO second hand market for that airplane. It is that much of a pig. The 747 was and still is a marvel. It is a unique flying experience. The A380 is huge, but the only advantage is the wider cabin which only is useful if you want to add an eleventh seat to the width capacity of the airplane. That has been vetoed by airlines that own it because nobody wants 700 people in an aluminum tube. It took me about an hour to write this and my facts are solid. You produced a video which has some facts wrong, context missing and generally was a lot of useless information. I won't be back.
Channel is called FTD Facts but gets almost every bit of terminology in here about aviation dead wrong... if aviation isn’t up your alley please leave it alone.
watchgoose lol that’s funny theses days when Boeing’s negligence on the MAX only becomes more apparent by the day. Also the military is rejecting deliveries because of sloppy work
The US Air Force asked for several companies for proposals for a heavy transport aircraft. Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed where chosen to submit airframe proposals, with Lockheed's proposal was the one chosen becoming the C-5 Galaxy. After losing that competition, Boeing chose to develop it's proposal into a passenger aircraft that could later be made into a cargo plane (since at the time it was expected that supersonic planes would come to rule passenger travel.) By the way, C-6 is a military version of the Beechcraft King Air.
Whit the 777 dominating the long haul market and the 787 coming, the most likely is that no. In fact, Boeing already new this would happen. Whit oil getting expensive, maintenance of 4 engine growing ECT, the jumbos era have it days counted. One of the main reasons they didn't put much of the resources to make the 747 better than the a380.
@@77l96 not in the airlines. The 748 is lucky it was designed to be a freighter. But in the airlines nobody even wants a quad jet. The 748 intercontinental will most lies be scrapped or converted to a freighter if possible. They're both dead for airlines. The a380 might outlive the 748 intercontinental because of Emerites. But they're both dead. FedEx said hell no the the 748. Ups said yes but only for prestige. It's more once they get that ROI from that planes they will start shooting her down flying on a 747 will be hard flying on a a380 wont be. I'm giving the 748 intercontinental 14 years and the a380 15 years. For the 748 freighter I'll give her 20 mabey. The 748f sounds like it's being useful until you realize only 137 have been made. Most of the cargo airliness aircraft are twins. In truth a 777 holds only 40000 pounds less. It's the better cargo plane
Both are awesome creations. One is queen and the other one is King. I love them 😍❤️ both. I flied both. They are awesome creations. But the sad part is we won't be able to see the king from 2020. It's hurts 😭 😔☹️ me a lot.
Can tell you're no expert but I appreciate the research you did on both of these aircraft. It still was an interesting watch, lets see if any larger passenger aircraft are made in the next few decades haha
These idiotic americans is going on an aviation war now americans think there better than europe ok the airbus a380 and the boeing 747 are the best planes in the world both of them are the best you dont need to be angery at europe both planes are amazing
What its pretty sad they are now falling together the queen and king of the skies rhere gonna be out of production in 2026 well utleast its still pretty long anyways the airbus a380 and the boeing 747 are the most uconic aircrafts in the world they are the best and safest and most efficient sorry if I got that wrong there also they are the most awsome cool looking airplanes in the world again they are the best
Well, in terms of buying planes, especially big planes, one of the deciding factors is availability of replacement parts. With the 747, there are a lot of them in use, and therefore parts are easy to get. With the A380, this isn't the case. Also the reliability of the planes need to be considered. 747s have a great track record. So, there you have it!
He said Boeing was considering a larger plane but decided it was to expensive, that is not really true. Boeing knew the market was going to move towards shorted flights and smaller planes. Boeing was goading Airbus with their stretch 747 (larger than the -8) until Airbus was committed to building the 380. Boeing knew the 380 would never be profitable.
@@Yassified3425 wow, that was 2 years ago dude. True though, I was working on the 737 next generation at the time. The 7E7 was already on the drawing board to eventually become the 787.
Why are the Boeing 747-8 photos that you show in your video very little? You show a photo of a Boeing 747-400 even though you're talking about boeing 747-8 🤔😎
First, the C5 galaxy is made by Lockheed Martin, not by Boeing. So unless its the engines you are talking about, they don't really share anything development wise. Second I would buy the 747 first. After all it can carry more cargo, in full coach config it can actually carry over to 600pax, its faster, it has a longer range, it is actually far more fuel efficient, and if my airline no longer could operate it as a passenger plane I could convert it to cargo or just sell it to one as it is a highly coveted after market aircraft. Also, the 747-8 can still fit into airports and gates to which the A380 can't making it more adaptable. The A380 would work great on trunk routes, but apparently they have a hard time competing against one another.
Regan Wagteveld you didn’t know that the space force was actually started in73 and they had a seven four variant with blackbird engines called the super mallard. True story. And it had vertical take off and landings. I read about it in Mad Magazine.
you forgot to mention why the 747 had the hump and its original purpose as a plane. Also, the SP version is a shorter body variant therefore cannot have a larger capacity
If airbus wasnt around there would be no competition and therefor nowhere else companies could buy planes from. So Boeing could just do whatever they wanted and never have to really worry, innovate or try to keep its company running. Usually when that happens the customer is disadvantaged immensely. Just look at cell phone makers, there is so many they are all constantly pushing the boundaries doing different things, different tactics and different ides and we benefit greatly from this as new features become standard over time allowing newer features and those older features to stick to lower price models. If it was just one company they would never bother, so we probably wouldnt have phones with half the features today. Healthy competition between companies outputs amazing products and services for us all.
@@Jockuptown actually no , In your comparison there’s actually an American tech company that is ahead in the market without substantial innovation and acts however it wishes , Boeing is similar
Damn, another example of a young person who does a narration without checking with an adult. IT'S PAT NIXON. IT'S PAT NIXON. IT'S PAT NIXON. It is a shame that so many talented young people put in so much work on videos and then mis-read the narration.
BOEING 747 vs. AIRBUS A380 - SIMPLE QUESTION! 1. How many 747 crashes do you see? 1970s = 4 Crashes 1980s = 8 Crashes 1990s = 5 Crashes 2000s = 4 Crashes 2010s = 4 Crashes Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_hull_losses 2. How many A380 crashes do you see? 2007 - TO DATE = 0 Sources = en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Airbus_A380 Let's just look at total FATALITIES then, shall we? 1. BOEING 747: 3,722 deaths 2. AIRBUS A380: 0 Sources: www.quora.com/Whats-the-total-number-of-people-who-died-in-Boeing-airplanes-in-a-plane-crash Of course, we shouldn't deny the fact that the 747 was made earlier in the days we didn't understand that much of flying.
Yes and why dont you point out that the worst air accident in history involved two 747s on the runway in 1977 caused by a KLM pilot that was in such a hurry that he took off with out clearance and destroyed both airplanes killing hundreds. Nothing to do with the aircraft itself. Not to mention 747s destroyed from terrorist acts. Is that Boeings fault too?
@@supersixjones8905 not to say crap but, the a380 had no fualty crashes. The 747 on the other hand. 1 crashed from the fuel tank blowing up due to a spark in the center tank because of an ac unit. And one crashed because the engines flew off. I only named 2 but there are alot more. So how about you get that f#cking bullsh#t you saying out this chat
@@thetransponder7186 NOT because of an ac unit, because the center fuel tank was empty and heated by the unit and a spark from chafed wiring ignited the fuel vapors. That airplane was 25 years old and headed for the scrap yard soon. El Al crashed due to corrosion of the fuse pins, which is a maintnence issue, NOT a design fault. If you are going to compare the safety of an aircraft developed a half century ago to today , then you are the F#vking idiot here you stupid POS. I ask again, you referenced the 1970s accidents, how in the F6ck is Tenariffe the fault of the 747? Tell me you dipshit.
@@thetransponder7186 And by the way, Ive been an aircraft mechanic nearly 40 years and have studied all of those accidents carefully so you dont need to waste time trying to educate me . Come back when you start seeing A380s that are 25 years old old flying cargo into third world airports and see how "safe they are" oops! I guess that wont happen since it is being scrapped following its impressive 15 years of production will it? I suppose the a380s will continue to be very safe sitting in the scrap yards while 747s are still making money,hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@thetransponder7186 what is a "FUALTY" crash? learn how to spell and give me the list of 747 crashes that were a DIRECT RESULT of an ORIGINAL design fault of the airplane. Not a result of poor maint. or improper repairs , but original design faults.
This is an excellent comparison. But, there is one thing that you said wrong...the AirBus A380 has a faster top speed than the B747 8. The A380 has a top speed of 1377km/h whereas the 747 8 only has a top speed of 922km/h. Note that point.
Little corrections: It's the Lockheed c5 not c6 And it's PanAmerican airlines not airplanes The 747sp was not only used in iran. American airlines and United used it as well. Mach 8.9 and 9.3 seems just a little fast for a passenger airliner :) Otherwise great video. I really enjoy your aviation content.
The 8.9 and 9.3 are probably accurate. In fact AF1 can reach near super sonic speeds and during testing the 747-8 actually managed to reach MACH 1 for short periods of time.
5 ads in a 12min video. That's not cricket
Matthew Martin 6 with the sponsors
Download Ad blocker.
Literally paused the video to look for this comment
@@Lyfe_on_My_Terms op for
@@gordonou7065 Matthew Martin? The author of Fancade its a Martin Magni!
Plural is "Aircraft" not aircrafts
Also what is a C6? C5 Galaxy
Sometimes bruh
Mach 9.2.... hehehe
Temple of Ridicule haha he deleted his comment
NO ITS NOT THE PLURAL IS AIRCRAFTS
A c5 galaxy is a huge cargo plane used f or the airforce it is also the biggest cargo plane in the world
I appreciate all the research you did but an enthusiast can tell you're not the most informed in this topic.
IKR
Rude comment
@@lmd499 no it’s not idiot
Wait isn't Mach 9.2 considered hypersonic??
Martyaraj Saha It’s mach 0.92 not 9.2
Hypersonic is more than Mach 5, technically Mach 9.2 is hypersonic.
@@ScienceBeCurious Yes, but he did say 9.2
i knosw right
Hyper Boeing, faster that gotta go fast
You are confusing yourself about those "Mach" numbers.... do some homework first on Mach numbers.... The fastest aircraft ever flown so far, is the SR-71 Blackbird @ Mach 3.5...
Actually, that's still incorrect. On record, the SR-71 record speed is set at 2,193.2mph, or mach 2.86. The mach 3.5, is a reported speed from a pilot who was outrunning a missile in Libya, 1986. It was never marked as an official speed because it couldn't be verified. Both are the SR-71 though. Also, it's not the fastest manned aircraft ever flown. That goes to the rocket powered North American X-15, at mach 6.7. The SR-71 was an air breathing, jet powered engine, and is the fastest of that type of aircraft
SUPER common mistakes, so don't feel bad
X-15?
That is still incorrect, I believe the hot air ballon in FSX can go way over Mach 3.5
There is no such large military aircraft named C6 Galaxy . It was a C5 built in Marietta, GA.
Sooo many inaccuracies in this video
@@FtdFacts Dude, your name is FTD "Facts", blame yourself before putting inaccurate stuff out there. Research involves fact checking and technical accuracy, otherwise it's just reading.
"C-6 Galaxy", isn't it C-5? 2:20
The A380 program has been closed out. There sales never came close to the 747.
@@FtdFacts www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research
Former President Richard Nixon's wifes first name was PAT, not NAT.
And how can we blame your sources? I don't see them listed in the description.
A380 was a masterpiece nevertheless.
Not as much as the Queen of the skies
Yes!
E A both are great.
@@ernodios atleast they made a double decker plane.
@@77l96 so then why are people retiring and hanging up their 747s as well then. Lufthansa put the 748 into storage. So why? It's not that the a380 is bad because it's a full double decker. It just was brought into a world that doesn't need or want a jumbo. Just like the 748. That's why they sold bad. The only reason why that old as s 747 and new 748 is flying is because of cargo. Also the fact that the airlines have a huge bias for the plane. Just like you! If it were around 40 years ago the Boeing would of sh#t ita pants. And now people like me who see what's there and bot what we want to see have to defend a another engineering marvel from people like you who attack the plane all the time. All because its foreign.
I’m biased to the 747 as it was my childhood. I’ve travelled to many countries and many places and the aircraft that I have most loved to fly is the 747.
The 747 has many safety and health features beyond any mainstream plane flying today,in short its the best!
Support Handflying lol.
I went from Boston to Dubai on an Emirates Airbus a380-800. The takeoff was powerful also with the landing. It was amazing
Great info! One suggestion for future videos like this: When you're talking about the data of each aircraft it would be super-helpful to have it displayed as a visual reference somewhere on the screen. Many of us cannot remember the numbers (fore and aft) that quickly to make a good comparison.
Thanks for all you hard work and cool videos! Take care.
Airbus a380 squad, where you at?
You love to say as a matter of fact while not giving facts
Yea your right! i work at Everett. As Everett is a assembly hub! Dude dude is on some fake news b.s
Adam Bubacz keep lying bro!
Aviator Adam, I’m not lieing those are the facts! why don’t you look into what’s what! As a Boeing employee I think I would know. All I’m saying is FTD facts needs to do a little research!
2:20 Lockheed C-5 Galaxy not C-6
At the time the plane was made, the company was known Lockheed, not Lockheed-Martin
I beg to differ when you imply that the C-5 Galaxy's design elements went into the 747. The biggest difference is in the skeleton of the plane. The C-5 Galaxy has its wings mounted high and the top of the plane is like the skeleton of the plane with weight hanging under it.
The 747 is the opposite. Wings hang low and weight is placed above it.
2:35 Joe Sutter, not Suitor was the engineer.
(wrong) "Pan American Airplanes" --> (right) Pan American World Airways --> (commonly known as) Pan Am
(wrong) Pratt Whitney --> (right) Pratt & Whitney
9:22 Airbus A380-800F (freighter) was offered but not a single one was ever built.
The reason the 747 has its characteristic hump is because from day 1 it was designed to have a freighter variant. That is also why its cockpit is on the 2nd floor -- so that its nose could be lifted up.
The Airbus A380-800F (freighter) was poorly conceived and executed, which is why not one single model was ever built. The Airbus' cabin is on the 1st floor so it would be impossible to have a raised nose. And even if an A380-800F was ever built, they could never fill the entire plane up because the weight of full cargo containers with goods would exceed the max payload of the plane.
Did you mean C5 galaxy? There is no C6 galaxy
I heard that too...
Everett is strictly a assembly hub now part manufacturing as he claims! FTD FACTS LOL!
Not part of manufacturing. My bad damn
+1 If you are with the airbus team
0:12 How do they look like flying bathtubs??? 🤔🤔🤔 i dont get it and its pissing me off
Americans 🙄
To me the 747 looks graceful and elegant. The Airbus may be better, but it does look like a flying bathtub.
For some reason I've allways drifted towards a380 due to it being enormous throughout
And it hass a full upper deck which is cool
Boeing! 747: LEGEN-DARY
Built by the REAL Boeing... When Boeing was a quality company before they were corrupted by Mcdonell Douglas
Hail the queen of the skies!!!
Your video has so many errors that it seems that you were not careful to be accurate and by extension you lose credibility with your viewers. I don't say this to be mean but to help you see this from the perspective of your viewers. The info may be great but once you lose credibility it will no longer matter what you got right. It is really worth your time to be more careful to be accurate in the small things.
I love Airbus . they appreciate their employees and the quality product as well. maybe the only good Boeing is the triple 7
Also the clipper flying boat .
@@77l96 I would not agree with the 757... The plane is hell to fly in!
The 727 is a meh, nobody even knows why it was made and the fact that it burns fuel like there is no tomorrow.
The 707 was iconic at the beginning, but it quickly became outdated within a few years, so it is a so so. The rest I agree with.
@@77l96 not the Max?
@@Yassified3425 Im am sure if you knew it you would not comment like that. The 727 was a machine made for addressed the demand for shorter flight lengths from smaller airports, airports who the 707 could not take, descending quickly to avoid obstacles. The the new 757 replaced in favor of new, fuel efficient, and quieter plane able to do the same job, but on a better way. And the 707 without forgetting at it, open the doors of the turbine engine and revolutionized air travel. Already fulfilled its purpose, the 3 have been withdrawn from operations but are in history for starting a new generation of use.
@@Singh-mt2ex is Truth is have is problems all thanks to evil man's who just ruined. But the 737 family is still is one of the most successful flying machines ever made. The fact that it's designed have been still made for more than 50s year prove it was done correctly. In fact, If it was a truly useless aircraft, then the new Max wouldn't earn the 5,000+ orders it has for the future. And yes, the Neo is more capable, but the 737 is still, after all, capable of doing the job it was made for: a short-body fuselaje plane for medium-long, short-haul flights.
agreed, the A-380 was to 80% a prestigious product. That there are not many global air routes which are booked up with 800 passengers was clear from the beginning when the A-380 was designed. That the B-747 never changed the fuselage design might have been irritating that there is no more any further development. That Boeing stopped researching on more efficiency. Car bodies always change and are considered more efficient when new models come out. But aeronautical research might be different than car industries. Still, the 747 is a fabulous plane, but doesn't it look like a little bit old-fashioned, antiquated?
@Akin Khoo right, London - LA, Frankfurt - NY, Dubai - London-Heathrow, Hong Kong - Singapore, Paris - NY
Wow, for quoting facts, you got some things right, some things flat out wrong and a lot of useless blather in the middle.
First, the C-5 did come before the 747. Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed all submitted proposals for the air frame while Pratt & Whitney (aka Pratt) and GE developed the engines. If you get into the history a bit, the Air Force preferred Boeing's design, but Lockheed produced the lowest cost bid. The first high bypass engine (HBP), the T-93 was the first HBP engine and it powered the C-5, while the Boeing 747 went, initially, with the Pratt JT9D. To say that the Boeing design was based on the C-5 is inaccurate. The design Boeing submitted to the military was the platform upon which the 747 was built, but that is where the history between the two aircraft ends.
You got the variants mostly correct; however, the 747-100 was the first, followed by the -100B and -200/200B/200BM (for upper deck passenger and freight) variants which featured higher thrust engines, increased fuel and greater max takeoff weight. The 100SR variant went to JAL and ANA for their high density domestic markets; those aircraft carried over 550 passengers. The 747SP was next in the late 1970s coming again at the request of Pan Am for longer range missions. The -300 was the first stretched upper deck version (my uncle was an engineer on that project) and came in three flavors including a combi version. KLM opted to have a refit of their 747-200s into stretch upper deck versions instead of the newer -300 model. The 747-400 came in the early 1980s and featured winglets and higher thrust engines...both a passenger and combi version were produced as well as an extended range (ER) and two freight versions (400F and 400ERF). The 747-8 was Boeing's response to the A380. The aircraft was stretched, given a new wing and flaps and the GENX engines which were vastly more efficient than those on the -400.
The problem for both Airbus and Boeing with their large aircraft was the success of the Boeing 777, in particular the Boeing 777-300ER. Airbus claimed it could carry more passengers at lower cost than the 747-8. This was correct, but neither aircraft could beat the economics of the 777-300ER. The 747-8F, however, has found a niche in the cargo market and will, I suspect, be around for a while because of its ability to carry a lot of payload a very long way. The A380 design does not permit the kind of payload size afforded by the 747-8 (also the nose loading is a huge advantage).
The only reason the 747 got built was Pan Am. It was a leader in its time and brought jet travel to the masses. The only reason the A380 got built was Emirates ordering a stupid number of the airplanes. Your statement about future variants of the A380 is inaccurate. The program has been cancelled. There are only a handful of airlines that operate it and over the next few years, that number will decrease. Air France is removing them from their fleet entirely, Lufthansa is swapping A350s for A380s and British Airways has done the same. The economics of the airplane are simply not what Airbus promised. The issue with the 747 is not that the aircraft doesn't do what Boeing promised, it just wasn't enough to overcome the 777-300ER. Now, we are seeing a similar problem with the 777X, as the success of the Boeing 787 family (the -9 variant in particular) has called into question the need for such large aircraft. The A350 is a higher tech 777, but it is not as wide, so if you think that ten abreast in the 777 is horrible, just wait for it in the A350.
The trend going forward will be for smaller aircraft that are more efficient and can be optimized for different missions while mitigating the cost of different variants in airline fleets. This has killed the A380 as a passenger aircraft and as a freighter, it was dead on arrival, as no airline would order it, given the necessity to have specialized loading equipment to utilize the upper deck...and the floor that separates the upper and lower decks are structurally required (aka can't be removed for oversize cargo). In fact, perfectly good A380s are being chopped into razor blades because there is NO second hand market for that airplane. It is that much of a pig.
The 747 was and still is a marvel. It is a unique flying experience. The A380 is huge, but the only advantage is the wider cabin which only is useful if you want to add an eleventh seat to the width capacity of the airplane. That has been vetoed by airlines that own it because nobody wants 700 people in an aluminum tube.
It took me about an hour to write this and my facts are solid. You produced a video which has some facts wrong, context missing and generally was a lot of useless information. I won't be back.
Channel is called FTD Facts but gets almost every bit of terminology in here about aviation dead wrong... if aviation isn’t up your alley please leave it alone.
Anyone seeing this in 2019, you have no choice but to buy the 747 as the a380 has cancelled production
Pro McSnipe Boeing isn’t selling the passenger version anymore. They abandoned that a couple years ago. They only produce the cargo version now
That's unfortunate I prefer the Airbus A380 to the Boeing 747
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going. And Airbus is called Scarebus for a reason.
watchgoose lol that’s funny theses days when Boeing’s negligence on the MAX only becomes more apparent by the day. Also the military is rejecting deliveries because of sloppy work
The 747 is not being produced anymore either
The US Air Force asked for several companies for proposals for a heavy transport aircraft. Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed where chosen to submit airframe proposals, with Lockheed's proposal was the one chosen becoming the C-5 Galaxy.
After losing that competition, Boeing chose to develop it's proposal into a passenger aircraft that could later be made into a cargo plane (since at the time it was expected that supersonic planes would come to rule passenger travel.)
By the way, C-6 is a military version of the Beechcraft King Air.
The guy is a chatterbox who doesn't really understand the issues he's talking about.
11:15 However at max speed the A380 goes at Mach 8.9 boi that's fast.
bill skour - this video creates its own facts.
@@youngalwyn1124 Or he maybe knows something we don't 😂😂
Its mach 0.89
He wanted to say 0.89
A380-Best aircraft ever built
The 747 will surely go in Boeing's history as their best ever plane
What do you mean” will “ it already is
C-5 Galaxy aircraft not C-6
Wich one would I buy?
That's an easy one, the A380! 😍
didn't the dc-10 beat them to the first jumbo jet, wide body aircraft?
No.
Nah.
Nope
Actually the A340-600 id the longest aircraft to ever be produced in large quantities
No the 747-8 is longer. But that won't last much longer , basically as soon as the 777-9x hits the marked.
'which one I will buy...' Hmmm, wait a moment, let me check my bank account first.
The projected market for the A380 didn't materalize, nonetheless it kept Boeing honest. If Airbus hadn't done it, Boeing might have sold 500 more 747.
Aesma Not likely. It was the 777-300er that took most of the passenger market from the 747 not the 380.
Whit the 777 dominating the long haul market and the 787 coming, the most likely is that no. In fact, Boeing already new this would happen. Whit oil getting expensive, maintenance of 4 engine growing ECT, the jumbos era have it days counted. One of the main reasons they didn't put much of the resources to make the 747 better than the a380.
Antonov AN-225 largest plane in existance
Wow A380! What a beauty! That's why it's the best!
@@77l96 just like how the 748 is.
@@77l96 not in the airlines. The 748 is lucky it was designed to be a freighter. But in the airlines nobody even wants a quad jet. The 748 intercontinental will most lies be scrapped or converted to a freighter if possible. They're both dead for airlines. The a380 might outlive the 748 intercontinental because of Emerites. But they're both dead. FedEx said hell no the the 748. Ups said yes but only for prestige. It's more once they get that ROI from that planes they will start shooting her down flying on a 747 will be hard flying on a a380 wont be. I'm giving the 748 intercontinental 14 years and the a380 15 years. For the 748 freighter I'll give her 20 mabey. The 748f sounds like it's being useful until you realize only 137 have been made. Most of the cargo airliness aircraft are twins. In truth a 777 holds only 40000 pounds less. It's the better cargo plane
Who else got Grammarly before they watched this video?
You look HIGH ! your eyes doesn't lie. Lol
Yea high is right! He don’t even know know Everett, is strictly a assembly hub!. Dude is spun and making a fool of himself with his b.s FTD NEWS lol!.
I love the a380 more
You got a video in your ads😑
Both are awesome creations. One is queen and the other one is King. I love them 😍❤️ both. I flied both. They are awesome creations. But the sad part is we won't be able to see the king from 2020. It's hurts 😭 😔☹️ me a lot.
Nope its 2026
I know hut your wrong there the best there not going that fast its 2026
@@lheng2515 but they are going to stop the production of a380 by 2021. Plz check it out.
6:25, who else looked at the vertical stabilizer and thought that was the Ryanair logo. Got confused for a second.
Geo Dude I think it’s Garuda Indonesia idk
A380F was never produced or sold
It was
Finally this is the video of Airbus better what I want {:)
2:35 It's Joe Sutter, not Joe Sooder.
11:15 Mach 8.9!? HOLY SHIT THAT'S FAST
11:23 THE 747 GOES AT MACH 9.2!?! I THINK I'M GONNA FAINT
That Yemenia landing thou 100% perfect
Can tell you're no expert but I appreciate the research you did on both of these aircraft. It still was an interesting watch, lets see if any larger passenger aircraft are made in the next few decades haha
I would still like to fly on A380 instead of this Soviet spaceship looking 747
Thank you ...At least there is a person who likes the A380...
Boeing 747 my favorite plane destroyed history it was made 40 years ago and still surviving what a cool machine
747 remains the Queen of the Skies. The A380, while indeed a sight to behold, is out of production. In fact, some are currently being scrapped.
I like A380 more than 747
Can you do a B787 vs A350 video please
Agreed
I would buy the A380 because it has a full length upper deck
Hilary Hutchinson yea we don’t care
dont even bother to just say that...
These idiotic americans is going on an aviation war now americans think there better than europe ok the airbus a380 and the boeing 747 are the best planes in the world both of them are the best you dont need to be angery at europe both planes are amazing
The 747 is the sexiest plane alive :)
A380 sexiest plane alive.
I wish 747 was here forever
I still love the style of the 747
❤️❤️❤️♥️♥️♥️❤️❤️❤️♥️♥️♥️
You know what’s the main difference between the 747 and the A380?
That one of them is dead...
And it’s not the Queen.
What its pretty sad they are now falling together the queen and king of the skies rhere gonna be out of production in 2026 well utleast its still pretty long anyways the airbus a380 and the boeing 747 are the most uconic aircrafts in the world they are the best and safest and most efficient sorry if I got that wrong there also they are the most awsome cool looking airplanes in the world again they are the best
It's both they're both dying at the same rate. If you take away cargo, and unless your a cargo pilot. The a380 will out live the 747.
Well, in terms of buying planes, especially big planes, one of the deciding factors is availability of replacement parts. With the 747, there are a lot of them in use, and therefore parts are easy to get. With the A380, this isn't the case. Also the reliability of the planes need to be considered. 747s have a great track record. So, there you have it!
He said Boeing was considering a larger plane but decided it was to expensive, that is not really true. Boeing knew the market was going to move towards shorted flights and smaller planes. Boeing was goading Airbus with their stretch 747 (larger than the -8) until Airbus was committed to building the 380. Boeing knew the 380 would never be profitable.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory if you ask me.
@@Yassified3425 wow, that was 2 years ago dude.
True though, I was working on the 737 next generation at the time. The 7E7 was already on the drawing board to eventually become the 787.
Why are the Boeing 747-8 photos that you show in your video very little? You show a photo of a Boeing 747-400 even though you're talking about boeing 747-8 🤔😎
Nat Nixon????? You mean PAT Nixon. Her name was Thelma Catherine Nixon but she went by Pat. What is a Nat short for anyway???
What is a C6 I see a C5 Galaxy
First, the C5 galaxy is made by Lockheed Martin, not by Boeing. So unless its the engines you are talking about, they don't really share anything development wise. Second I would buy the 747 first. After all it can carry more cargo, in full coach config it can actually carry over to 600pax, its faster, it has a longer range, it is actually far more fuel efficient, and if my airline no longer could operate it as a passenger plane I could convert it to cargo or just sell it to one as it is a highly coveted after market aircraft. Also, the 747-8 can still fit into airports and gates to which the A380 can't making it more adaptable. The A380 would work great on trunk routes, but apparently they have a hard time competing against one another.
How is beluga bigger than dream-lifter 😂 still good vid though
Has more space.
I need to fly on one of these older 747's that fly at mach 9.2
Regan Wagteveld you didn’t know that the space force was actually started in73 and they had a seven four variant with blackbird engines called the super mallard. True story. And it had vertical take off and landings. I read about it in Mad Magazine.
777-300 ER, the one flight that was launched 5 years before the A380, but sent the A380 packing away
you forgot to mention why the 747 had the hump and its original purpose as a plane. Also, the SP version is a shorter body variant therefore cannot have a larger capacity
airbus not needed but represents a european competition in the market
If airbus wasnt around there would be no competition and therefor nowhere else companies could buy planes from. So Boeing could just do whatever they wanted and never have to really worry, innovate or try to keep its company running.
Usually when that happens the customer is disadvantaged immensely. Just look at cell phone makers, there is so many they are all constantly pushing the boundaries doing different things, different tactics and different ides and we benefit greatly from this as new features become standard over time allowing newer features and those older features to stick to lower price models. If it was just one company they would never bother, so we probably wouldnt have phones with half the features today. Healthy competition between companies outputs amazing products and services for us all.
@@Jockuptown actually no , In your comparison there’s actually an American tech company that is ahead in the market without substantial innovation and acts however it wishes , Boeing is similar
@@senanperera9707 nah
The Lockheed Galaxy transport was the C5, not the C6
I am a diehard lover of the AirBus A380.
the 747 is slick and the a380 is super thicc but boeing planes look better and are more fuel efficent
Damn, another example of a young person who does a narration without checking with an adult. IT'S PAT NIXON. IT'S PAT NIXON. IT'S PAT NIXON. It is a shame that so many talented young people put in so much work on videos and then mis-read the narration.
BOEING 747 vs. AIRBUS A380 - SIMPLE QUESTION!
1. How many 747 crashes do you see?
1970s = 4 Crashes
1980s = 8 Crashes
1990s = 5 Crashes
2000s = 4 Crashes
2010s = 4 Crashes
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_hull_losses
2. How many A380 crashes do you see?
2007 - TO DATE = 0
Sources = en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Airbus_A380
Let's just look at total FATALITIES then, shall we?
1. BOEING 747: 3,722 deaths
2. AIRBUS A380: 0
Sources: www.quora.com/Whats-the-total-number-of-people-who-died-in-Boeing-airplanes-in-a-plane-crash
Of course, we shouldn't deny the fact that the 747 was made earlier in the days we didn't understand that much of flying.
Yes and why dont you point out that the worst air accident in history involved two 747s on the runway in 1977 caused by a KLM pilot that was in such a hurry that he took off with out clearance and destroyed both airplanes killing hundreds. Nothing to do with the aircraft itself. Not to mention 747s destroyed from terrorist acts. Is that Boeings fault too?
@@supersixjones8905 not to say crap but, the a380 had no fualty crashes. The 747 on the other hand. 1 crashed from the fuel tank blowing up due to a spark in the center tank because of an ac unit. And one crashed because the engines flew off. I only named 2 but there are alot more. So how about you get that f#cking bullsh#t you saying out this chat
@@thetransponder7186 NOT because of an ac unit, because the center fuel tank was empty and heated by the unit and a spark from chafed wiring ignited the fuel vapors. That airplane was 25 years old and headed for the scrap yard soon. El Al crashed due to corrosion of the fuse pins, which is a maintnence issue, NOT a design fault. If you are going to compare the safety of an aircraft developed a half century ago to today , then you are the F#vking idiot here you stupid POS. I ask again, you referenced the 1970s accidents, how in the F6ck is Tenariffe the fault of the 747? Tell me you dipshit.
@@thetransponder7186 And by the way, Ive been an aircraft mechanic nearly 40 years and have studied all of those accidents carefully so you dont need to waste time trying to educate me . Come back when you start seeing A380s that are 25 years old old flying cargo into third world airports and see how "safe they are" oops! I guess that wont happen since it is being scrapped following its impressive 15 years of production will it? I suppose the a380s will continue to be very safe sitting in the scrap yards while 747s are still making money,hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@thetransponder7186 what is a "FUALTY" crash? learn how to spell and give me the list of 747 crashes that were a DIRECT RESULT of an ORIGINAL design fault of the airplane. Not a result of poor maint. or improper repairs , but original design faults.
This is an excellent comparison.
But, there is one thing that you said wrong...the AirBus A380 has a faster top speed than the B747 8.
The A380 has a top speed of 1377km/h whereas the 747 8 only has a top speed of 922km/h. Note that point.
You say Airbus A380 , I hear Emirates
747 is super and it looks beautiful
mach 9.2? 747s are not supersonic.
The 747 reached Mach 1.01 but that was at very high altitude and in a shallow dive
Great video
Both are amazing though
4:13 this airbus just released in my Birthday!
Btw I was born in 2009
(April 27, 2009)
Most likely good luck will follow you
Did you mean 0.92? Learn where to place your decimals
The 747 looks like a jumbo jet should look like.
Can you tell the game you used to show all of those cool Airplanes
Infinite flight my dude
Fun fact:
A Boeing 747-400 was sold on ebay for 900k in 2016
Was it fly able?
@@ronidude That one no, but there was a former Jade Cargo one that was, and it was listed on the Chinese version of ebay for $1000000.
I love both of these beautiful aircraft
Little corrections:
It's the Lockheed c5 not c6
And it's PanAmerican airlines not airplanes
The 747sp was not only used in iran. American airlines and United used it as well.
Mach 8.9 and 9.3 seems just a little fast for a passenger airliner :)
Otherwise great video. I really enjoy your aviation content.
The 8.9 and 9.3 are probably accurate. In fact AF1 can reach near super sonic speeds and during testing the 747-8 actually managed to reach MACH 1 for short periods of time.
@@jhmcd2 Yeah mach 1 is totally resonable. But mach 8.9 is 6828.7 mph and mach 9.3 is 7135.6 mph. I guess he ment 0.89 and 0.93. Haha
Also,in addition, the pronunciation of Sutter. The u should have an "uh" sound. But still, a great video.
Part for the 747 are built around the world and assembled on Everett Washington
The A380 was overweight and the engines were not efficient. Ultimately both A380 and the 747 were victims of the accountants red pen
1:52 jum! bo! jet! >_
👌 A 380 the beautiful art desaign
👍 747 the well fish head
Can Scarebus carry the space shuttle on top?
😊 space shuttle need go to mars..not on the A 380
😗 hi... if you go to mars you must need two space shuttle. main & reserve...don't serious son
@@watchgoose idk can a 787 not have continuous structural issues.
Get a haircut dude
This guy looks like bollywood actor Govinda ... 😜
Umm, Mach 9.2?!?! That’s a little fast I would check your facts
Dude, you called First Lady Patricia (Pat) Nixon..."Nat". Really? Damn. I enjoyed the rest of the video
The amount of ads in this video is simply ridiculous.
AirBus A380 lovers over here in the replies😊
👇👇👇
Yes it was needed . A380 and need more of it . Unfortunately not going to happen
I want to hear the video where he says he compares fuel economy in cars by driving .065 mph.
I like metric system of measurement and A380 Emirates.