It was more efficient to blow up a real 747 than to use miniatures or CGI

Re:It was more efficient to blow up a real 747 than to use m... by throwaway_pdp09 on Saturday September 19, 2020 @05:01AM (#24526155)

I assume MTOW must mean the total take-off weight, not the cargo weight. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#Specifications it suggests about 125 tonnes, which - if I'm correct - means that quoting the MTOW is unhelpful.

Also looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#Retirement_and_... it disagrees with running costs you say

"The 747-400's leasing, resale and salvage value has dropped steeply because it is relatively expensive to operate. As most 747-400s are now more than 20 years old, airlines are beginning to replace them. Airlines using the 747-400 have been retiring the model, replacing it with more fuel efficient aircraft"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It was more efficient to blow up a real 747 than to use m... by AdrianB1 on Saturday September 19, 2020 @06:44AM (#24526512)

Running cost is a cutthroat competition, companies replace aircrafts for 5-10% better fuel efficiency, which is up to 70% of the running cost. If 747 has 20% worse fuel efficiency than the most modern plane on the market, then it is considered very inefficient, but it actually costs only ~15% more to operate, assuming everything else is comparable.

[ Parent | on HN ]