Itsnotfinals From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1730 times:
Quoting EKSkycargo370 (Reply 3): I totally disagree,a super long range aircraft,decent capacity,very economical,airlines would be crazy not to have a re-think.
a 777-300ER has similar range on less than 1/2 the gas and only 2 pilots versus 3. the 747SP is ancient history. The Connie was a cool plane but no one is bringing that back.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1693 times:
Quoting EKSkycargo370 (Reply 3): I totally disagree,a super long range aircraft,decent capacity,very economical,airlines would be crazy not to have a re-think.
It wasn't economical even when it was new, but it was the only aircraft at the time that could handle some of the routes carriers wanted to operate nonstop. And that advantage didn't last long because later models of the 747-200 could do almost everything the SP could do much more economically.
WestJetYQQ From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2986 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1690 times:
So what are we talking about here? Is this the original 747-SP or is this an idea for a new version '747-8SP'? It you are talking this new one those economic complaints made above do not apply, but if you are talking about bringing back the original, might I ask why you bothered? I think it would be very cool, and I would like to see a newer version 747-SP!
Cheers
Carson
Will You Try to Change Things? Use the Power that you have, the Power of a Million new Ideas.
A favorite of mine as well - but let sleeping dogs lie.
Quoting WestJetYQQ (Reply 8): or is this an idea for a new version '747-8SP
Now, a new, optimised, twin-engine, FBW, composite 74XSP with the former's dimensions, maybe a taller but lighter undercarriage, completely new wings (a smaller but more efficient tailfin if possible), two-pilot cockpit with the latest avionics, and 2GEnx engines - I would love to see.
WestJetYQQ From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2986 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1668 times:
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 9): Now, a new, optimised, twin-engine, FBW, composite 74XSP with the former's dimensions, maybe a taller but lighter undercarriage, completely new wings (a smaller but more efficient tailfin if possible), two-pilot cockpit with the latest avionics, and 2GEnx engines - I would love to see.
That sounds beautiful, economical, and popular among airlines to me!
Will You Try to Change Things? Use the Power that you have, the Power of a Million new Ideas.
EKSkycargo370 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 150 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1664 times:
I still think the old one should be brought back,I love the noisy old airliners of yesteryear,inlcuding the DC10 and Tristar!
Would love to see these aircraft taking off again from LHR with all the black smoke and noise piling out of them,simply brilliant!
Ajd1992 From UK - England, joined Jul 2006, 2645 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1626 times:
.... And people wonder why everybody is complaining about global warming It might be a nice sight, but it does the atmosphere (and your lungs) no good. They aren't economical, they might look it when you look at numbers, but they definately are not.
Wjweeks From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 6 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1601 times:
The 747SP it was a good ride. Odd proportions for a Boeing aircraft, I think the 787 will far exceed it.
SCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1533 times:
747SP with 748 wing and engines and SUD (ala 300/400), 775,000lb max t.o.w. (more fuel) would by my calculations:
fly 9800-10,000 nm
-48,000 ft cruise altitude
-.90 mach cruise speed
-no step climb required
-275 pax in all-business class for long range comfort
The solution to Quantas' problem that the 772LR can't solve...
Scottieprecord From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 12 Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1472 times:
I was lucky enough to see this beauty at SAT for awhile...
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1467 times:
Looking at my user name, I have wonder for a long time, how a 747 300sp or 400sp would have been. I know it would have had great cruising speed. The 747sp is a modified 747100 and a 747 300 and 747 400 out performs a 747 100, so just think about the modification of the sp on a 747 300 or 400.
SCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1450 times:
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 16): Wouldn't the stretched upper deck affect airflow around the tailfin and pose directional stability problems?
Hoppe777 From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 142 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1442 times:
Does Air Syria not fly one into LHR ? im sure ive spotted one not so long ago ?
Great aircraft to watch.
These days executive directors arent interested in reviving old icons, they want economy and efficiency and who cares what it looks like. They want things to do the job, for cheap and to make money. well you kind of get what im saying dont you ?
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1426 times:
Quoting Hoppe777 (Reply 20): Does Air Syria not fly one into LHR ? I'm sure I've spotted one not so long ago ?
If not mistaken, Syrian Air's two SPs, both delivered new in 1976, are the only ones still in scheduled service apart from Iran Air's (IR have either one or two in service).
JHSfan From Denmark, joined Apr 2004, 469 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1406 times:
EKSkycargo370, how about going to some location where you can still see the planes? You would get a vacation out of this.
Or the low-cost alternative: buy some aviation DVDs with your favorite airliners.
The livery dreams you can share with others more fully at Modified Airliner Photos once it's up running again (down pt.).
- JHSfan.
Look at me, I´m riding high, I´m the airbornmaster of the sky...
Flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1525 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1370 times:
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 9): Now, a new, optimised, twin-engine, FBW, composite 74XSP with the former's dimensions, maybe a taller but lighter undercarriage, completely new wings (a smaller but more efficient tailfin if possible), two-pilot cockpit with the latest avionics, and 2GEnx engines - I would love to see.
its easier to say a 787 with a hump. i dont think we'll ever see it again the economics of shortening aircraft doesnt really work. the smal you make it the higher the percentage of body weight. one of the reasons why we got the 764 and not a 771.
Ah yes, thanks for that. I'm just a sucker for the short humpback as it made its appearance just when my interest in aviation was growing. And although an imaginary 787 with a hump may never see reality, I refer to it as my new 727, for I've always felt that Boeing erred in designating a trijet 727 and a twinjet 737 just because it was launched first. Surely, most people here will deem calling a modern version of an inefficient plane as 727 the height of sacrilege, and duly flame me for it.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 150 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 53 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8298 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2986 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4429 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Jul 2006, 2645 posts, 
It might be a nice sight, but it does the atmosphere (and your lungs) no good. They aren't economical, they might look it when you look at numbers, but they definately are not.
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 142 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Apr 2004, 469 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
