Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/222475/

Topic: 747SP-NG?
Username: FLY777UAL
Posted 2000-05-13 20:52:55 and read 1233 times.

Why wouldn't Boeing be up to making another SP model, except this time based upon the 747-400?

The aircraft would be exempt from ETOPS restrictions, and would be able to carry more passengers further, faster, and in more comfort than the new 777-200LR, while providing 747-400 operators the added convenience of having a Super Long Range aircraft in their fleet with the same qualifications for pilots and flight attendants. Another all-important factor (for some of you), the aircraft would be able to have the same engines as found on their other 747-400 aircraft. No single supplier here.

FLY777UAL

Topic: RE: 747SP-NG?
Username: ZRH
Posted 2000-05-13 21:12:40 and read 1187 times.

I think there would be no use for it. The 777LR and 340-500/600 have enough range for all routes and about the same passenger capacity like a 747SP; A 747SP is shorter than a normal 747. The SP was designed in the 1970ties because they were not able to give a normal 747 this range in these days (engines and other technical reasons). This is over. I think the 747SP was quite a deformed animal.

Topic: RE: 747SP-NG?
Username: FLY777UAL
Posted 2000-05-13 21:24:39 and read 1182 times.

(The original 747SP's range was the top of the line only for a few months until the 747-200B came out...)

According to Boeing and Airbus, neither the 777-200LR nor the A340-500 (-600 model has much less range) can make it non-stop from SYD to LHR. Since the original 747SP was designed in the 60's/70's from the antique 747-100, that's why a modern 747-400 would be the base platform for the 747-4SP. With the advances made in range economics and payload with the 747-400, the 747-4SP would be a beast of a plane range wise, allowing for (seriously) any city combination to be linked non-stop, including SYD-LHR.

FLY777UAL

Topic: RE: 747SP-NG?
Username: Sammyk
Posted 2000-05-13 21:43:06 and read 1168 times.

Actually, until the 744 came out, the 747SP had the highest range. It was basically purpose built for PanAm for their Japanese routes from New York. If they wanted ETOPS exemptions, they could have just as easily modifed the MD-11 for this mission. Also, if developed, I would not be surprised if the aircraft would cost more (due to development costs) than the current 744, and with less seats, it would be less economical to fly.

Sammy

Topic: RE: 747SP-NG?
Username: Bacardi182
Posted 2000-05-14 07:01:22 and read 1128 times.

yeah but could you imagine flights such as miami to hong kong? or tokio to buenos aires? that would be crazy!!!!!

Topic: RE: 747SP-NG?
Username: FLY777UAL
Posted 2000-05-14 10:08:35 and read 1120 times.

Actually, according to Boeing, the range of the 747SP was outdone (just by a bit, though) when the 747-200B rolled out and was able to take over the SP routes, such as JFK-NRT (which was operated by -200B's well into the late 90's). Airlines found it (the -200B) a much better deal, as it was able to transport more people over a greater range.

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L

Topic: About The 747-200B And -SP
Username: Triple Seven
Posted 2000-05-14 10:21:22 and read 1123 times.

I think there is a little confussion here. The first 747-200B (88th off the line) appeared as early as 1971...way before the first flight of the SP. It was not the design range of the -200B that killed the SP but the advent of more powerfull engines that did. The initial models up to 1978 were all modestly powered thus lacked the range. However it was only in the late 1970s that more powerful engines were made available (JT9D-7Q/Q3/R4G2/GE CF6-50E2/-80C/RR RB211-524D4), immediately permiting the -200Bs to fly long range sectors that were the domain of the SPs (still with weight restrictions).

- Triple Seven

Topic: RE: 747SP-NG?
Username: FLY777UAL
Posted 2000-05-14 10:29:27 and read 1118 times.

Thanks for clearing that up, Triple Seven. So it was the engines coupled with the 747-200B airframe which allowed for the range, and not the 747-200B itself.

Thanks again!

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/