The 747 has had some of the most hull losses in history, and yet it’s still well-loved.
Posted by DisregardLogan@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 14 comments
The 747 has been involved in 64 hull losses, some of those being the worst aviation disasters in history. Despite that, I don’t think I’ve seen anyone ever say that they so much as dislike the 747.
Take that and compare it to some unpopular aircraft, like the DC-10 with 32 hull losses and the B737-M with 2. They’re nowhere the same, and yet it’s a popular opinion to dislike those two. (While they both did have issues at the start of their manufacturing, they have obviously been buffered out since)
I like the 747 (in fact, it’s one of my favourites) but it’s always been a little odd to me. Why has it not gotten the same treatment?
schrutesanjunabeets@reddit
Huh?
The 747 has had 64 hull losses. The 737 has had 234.
Your math is way off.
xRogue_9x@reddit
Only 33 of those hull losses resulted in the deaths of all passengers and crew
DisregardLogan@reddit (OP)
I’m talking specifically about the 737 Max. People don’t have an issue with the regular 737.
agha0013@reddit
for that comparison, then, you should be comparing the 737M to the 747-8, and the 747-8 has had zero hull loses.
BrewCityChaserV2@reddit
A better comparison would be between the 737 Max and the 747-8.
schrutesanjunabeets@reddit
You're comparing an entire family of planes to one specific variant of another?
Ever heard of apples and oranges....
DisregardLogan@reddit (OP)
Because I’m talking about the most disliked aircraft on the internet, and one in particular just so happens to be a variant….
Dr__-__Beeper@reddit
They don't have a issue with the regular 747 either.
Hhhmmmmnnnn ...
Every-Progress-1117@reddit
Many reasons, but let's start with some very raw stats:
DC10: 386 built, 32 hull losses, approx 8%
MD11: 200 built, 10 hull losses, approx 5%
747: 1574 built, 64 hull losses, approx 4%
So the 747 is (approximately) twice as safe as the DC10 and the MD11
However, this does not take into consideration the number of miles flown, the usage of the aircraft, the circumstances of the accident, and the particular models involved. In your above you then go an pick two very specific incidents with the 737, in reality using the above [bad] statistics is 12171 aircraft, 234 hull losses = \~ 2%; the A320 family has 12151 aircraft, 32 hull losses = \~ 0.2%.
You can not compare aircraft safety on number of hull losses alone. For example, both the 787 and A350 have suffered one hull loss each - which is the safer aircraft? These accidents are not comparable in any way. Similar reasoning would need to be applied to the above.
What you need to do is go through all hull loss accidents and compare those with similar characteristics. Certainly incidents such as Korean 007, the Tenerife disaster (KLM 4805, PanAm 1736), Western Airlines 2605 etc all should be removed from the comparison.
Concentrate on those accidents that are specifically related to the design of the aircraft, and even then take care that these are comparable in nature.
Other than that, the DC10/MD11 never really caught the imagination like the 747, hence the love.
FelisCantabrigiensis@reddit
The hull loss rate per departure (flight) of the 747 and DC-10 is similar.
YMMV25@reddit
Hull losses themselves aren’t necessarily an indication of how safe the aircraft actually is. You’d need to dig deeper and figure out the reason for the hull loss. Many of those 747 hull losses had nothing to do with the aircraft itself. Many of those DC-10 hull losses did have to do with the aircraft itself.
There’s also a very big difference between a modern aircraft having two closely linked hull losses in the late 2010s and a number of pilot error or terrorism losses decades earlier.
ChillFratBro@reddit
First off, no one likes narrow bodies, so the comparison to the 737 Max is unfair. Second, while the DC-10 had 32 hull losses, only 386 were built. The 747s 64 hull losses in 1,574 built is a far better rate.
agha0013@reddit
the 747 was the world's first ever widebody aircraft. It has the logest history of all widebodies.
Ok, so the DC-10 had half the hull losses, but the DC-10 program only put out one quarter of all 747s built, by that alone, the 747 is much safer overall.
Also, due to their being the first ever widebody, most of the hull loses were from early variants. By the time the -300/400s came around, it had a very good reputation, and many of those loses weren't due to the aircraft's design.
DisregardLogan@reddit (OP)
Thanks for explaining