Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5642819/

Topic: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: my1le
Posted 2012-12-23 17:04:22 and read 16651 times.

With the new 747-800 in production, what are the odds of seeing a new 747-8SP?

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-23 17:07:26 and read 16643 times.

Quoting my1le (Thread starter):
With the new 747-800 in production, what are the odds of seeing a new 747-8SP?

Zero.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-23 17:09:40 and read 16635 times.

Quoting my1le (Thread starter):
With the new 747-800 in production, what are the odds of seeing a new 747-8SP?

What would it be good for? The original SP was developed to overcome range issues in the original 747. Those issues are largely gone...especially once they reactivate the tail tank on the 747-8i, it's got enough range to do almost anything you could want to do. Put another way: who would buy it and why?

Tom.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: srbmod
Posted 2012-12-23 17:15:29 and read 16578 times.

The same chance as Boeing restarting the 757 line, none. The 747SP was a niche a/c and as technology improved the range of a/c, there was less of a need for the 747SP. Boeing did propose a new 747SP called the 747 ASB that would have used the technologies used in the 747-400 but with a shortened fuselage similar to the 747SP. No airlines were interested in it, as it was a niche a/c like the 747SP.

In this day and age, there are plenty of twin engine a/c that can do the same roles as the 747SP and carry more passengers and cargo.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: cedarjet
Posted 2012-12-23 18:03:50 and read 16409 times.

The SP only sold forty-five models, even airlines that could have really used it eg Japan Air Lines to fly New York to Japan nonstop, didn't buy it. Not a successful subtype, makes the current 747-8i look like a runaway success by comparison.

So who bought it? Iran Air to fly nonstop to NY and LA (LA never happened), Qantas to fly nonstop to California, Pan Am to fly nonstop to Sydney (although with the P&Ws as opposed to QF's RRs, it almost never made it without stopping in HNL) from LA and from New York to Bahrein and Riyadh, South African Airlines to fly around Africa in the days when they couldn't overfly the continent due to their government's racist policies, Saudia to fly nonstop to NY and Washington, Syrianair for the prestige of having a pair of 747s (they didn't need the range, the longest sector they ever flew was to LHR, five hours), one VIP machine to the Iraqi government and that's about it. Did Braniff buy new? Maybe they did. Then one or two others and of course some secondhand operators (Air Mauritius, Luxair, American, TWA, United, Corsair etc).

I flew Mandarin from Taipei to Sydney in 1994 and Iran Air CGN-CGN (enthusiasts' charter by Air Events) in 2004 and LHR-IKA on the very last bookable SP flight out of Heathrow in 2009 (the Iran Air schedule changed the next day to A300 and before it changed back, IR's 747s were banned from EU airspace). Wonderful aeroplane, the most exotic and interesting of all 747s.

Any other 747SP memories?

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: ElpinDAB
Posted 2012-12-23 18:16:14 and read 16347 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2):
especially once they reactivate the tail tank on the 747-8i, it's got enough range to do almost anything you could want to do.

What does the tail tank provide?

How would a 744 length aircraft with 748 wings/engines look? It would basically be the -SP of the current generation, but depending upon how the range/performance looks, airlines might buy...744 or even 742 sized aircraft with -8 engines and wings. Would this have better payload/range than a 772LR? Would economics permit, after hypothetical demand is met?

btw, what length of upper deck would be most efficient for a -400 sized shrink of the -8? What upper deck length is most efficient for the -8?

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2012-12-23 18:27:30 and read 16292 times.

Quoting my1le (Thread starter):
With the new 747-800 in production, what are the odds of seeing a new 747-8SP?

We've had one for several years--its called a 777-300ER. However, back in the day, B was looking at a 747 twin.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: AR385
Posted 2012-12-23 18:29:10 and read 16286 times.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
The SP only sold forty-five models, even airlines that could have really used it eg Japan Air Lines to fly New York to Japan nonstop, didn't buy it. Not a successful subtype, makes the current 747-8i look like a runaway success by comparison.

Weren´t the later versions of the 742 able to largely make up for the 747SP performance?

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
Any other 747SP memories?

I flew it many times on AR´s MEX-LIM-EZE and MEX-EZE. Of course on LIM-EZE. It had a pretty sprightly take-off performance, specially when lifting off at MEX. Inside it felt a lot like being on a DC-10 rather than on a 747. When AR moved their F cabin upstairs, sometimes in the 80s the SP kept it in the nose. For me, who am a fan of the Premium services being on the nose of the 747 that was a neat feature. The 742 had a spiral staricase, while AR´s SP had a straight one, but I suppose that was merely a result of the fact that it was built to Braniff´s specification.

I also recall circling over EZE when arriving on the Southern winter months in the wee hours of the morning and EZE being closed due to fog. Other times we would have gone straight into MVD if flying on the 742, but the SP just circled around when EZE opened which was usually by 08AM.

It was a neat plane to be aboard, but I always preferred the 742.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: fanofjets
Posted 2012-12-23 18:31:46 and read 16274 times.

Quoting srbmod (Reply 3):
The 747SP was a niche a/c and as technology improved the range of a/c, there was less of a need for the 747SP.

It still is a niche aircraft, albeit with a very, very limited niche (given that plenty of A and B twins can do the same thing as Sutter's Balloon, in terms of range and payload). Four engines and a large fuselage, along with rock-bottom purchase prices make it good choice for scientific research and engineering applications:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rainer Bexten
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Geneviève Grondin




And they are used for a limited number of heads of state:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Richard Vandervord
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carsten Sekula


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mehmet Mustafa Celik
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Guillaume fevrier




Iran Air and Sands use the type because of the economic embargo, and they are still cheaper to fly than a -200 series, when there is a light load (and sometimes over long, thin routes, the aircraft's original intention):

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mehmet Mustafa Celik
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Cary Liao - AeroPX


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Senior
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alejandro Hernández León

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: 777STL
Posted 2012-12-23 18:45:49 and read 16204 times.

The only reason the SP existed was for range related issues which were no longer an issue as of 23 years ago when the 744 was introduced.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-23 19:27:00 and read 16061 times.

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 5):
What does the tail tank provide?

An extra 3300 gal of fuel. Good for about another 400-500 nm.

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 5):
How would a 744 length aircraft with 748 wings/engines look? It would basically be the -SP of the current generation, but depending upon how the range/performance looks, airlines might buy...744 or even 742 sized aircraft with -8 engines and wings.

What would they buy it for that the -8 can't already do?

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 5):
Would this have better payload/range than a 772LR?

Better payload, yes, it's bigger. Better range...probably not.

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 5):
Would economics permit, after hypothetical demand is met?

If you could fill it with premium passengers, it might work, but it would be iffy. No way would it sell enough to pay for development.

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 5):
btw, what length of upper deck would be most efficient for a -400 sized shrink of the -8?

The same length as the upper deck on the -400.

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 5):
What upper deck length is most efficient for the -8?

The length that it has now.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: FI642
Posted 2012-12-23 19:53:48 and read 15946 times.

The 747SP was a half hearted response to the birds being built by Lockheed and Douglas. It clearly was not very successful.
(and a very odd aircraft to be on!)

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2012-12-23 20:34:46 and read 15812 times.

why not just buy a 777-200LR or 300ER and call it a day depending on what you need. Its already developed and a new 748 varient for more range would be as much or more per frame so....

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: RayChuang
Posted 2012-12-23 20:43:29 and read 15791 times.

The chances of another 747SP is effectively zero. Remember, the original 747SP--which used the same engines as the 747-100--only had a range of 6,600 nautical miles, still less than the 777-200ER with is 7,200 nm range but similar pax/cargo capacity. Even fitted with modern engines, a 747SP would probably have a range of (probably) 7,400 nm, which is still less than what you get with the 777-300ER with its 7,800 nm range.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: RWA380
Posted 2012-12-24 01:07:27 and read 15303 times.

Quoting FI642 (Reply 11):
and a very odd aircraft to be on!)

My favorite aircraft ever built, it's sexy looking, and had limited success. If I had offensive amounts of money, my first acquisition would be a 74L, refurbish to my liking and needs, then roam the world. I have taken pictures of every one I have ever seen at airports worldwide. My favorite liveries were, BN, SA, QF, TW were some of the best. Sigh, things change.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-12-24 01:19:40 and read 15253 times.

When I read the thread title, my first thought was "yea, its called the 77L/A345." The 747SP was a plane when long range was 6,650nm. That is a range now met by a large number of widebodies (A332, 788, 77E/77L/77W, 744/748i, A380, MD-11, A343/5/6, and at this hour I'm probably forgetting one or two). Heck, the 763ER almost has the 747SP range now!

And look at the 77L, due to its lower passenger volume, its desirability is far less than the 77W.

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 5):
What does the tail tank provide?

The range to not require a shrink. As already noted, 400 to 500nm more range.

If someone wants a big (non-777 or 787) to go long haul, they would want the A380R or a high MTOW 748i. Anyone who wants the cost per flight of a 748i will demand the payload. Otherwise, they could buy a 788 in two years and fly any route a 748SP could do.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
No way would it sell enough to pay for development.

   There are too many alternatives.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: United_fan
Posted 2012-12-24 04:22:43 and read 14254 times.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
So who bought it? Iran Air to fly nonstop to NY and LA (LA never happened), Qantas to fly nonstop to California, Pan Am to fly nonstop to Sydney (although with the P&Ws as opposed to QF's RRs, it almost never made it without stopping in HNL) from LA

Actually,QF ordered the -SP for flighte to Wllington,NZ. I never read about QF's -SP'S having trouble on LAX-SYD,it was PA's with the P&W JT9D's that had troubles.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: Flyingsottsman
Posted 2012-12-24 04:59:22 and read 13876 times.

Flew the Pan Am SP from LAX to SYD and on to MEL great aircraft to ride in and I guess at the time it was a great leap as far as long haul across the Pacific went, intead of the LAX/HNL/Nandie/SYD/MEL multable stops it was one stop LAX/SYD/MEL. Great looking aircraft. The chances of the SP making a come back are as good as Aeroflot bringing back an IL62 for their long haul flights ZERO!

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: warren747sp
Posted 2012-12-24 05:34:24 and read 13446 times.

Definitely feels like a private jet on the upper deck!! Especially the ones with a bar.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: ecbomberman
Posted 2012-12-24 05:34:58 and read 13445 times.

We have 77W and A345's for ULH nowadays.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: my1le
Posted 2012-12-24 06:13:20 and read 12960 times.

All good points, I like the -SP just because it is different. I was thinking - long shot but hey it would be neat to see a second form of 747 in the air.

The Sands -SPs transport who? I can't imagine they send the Boeing's and L10-11 to pick up a single 'Whale'

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: VC10er
Posted 2012-12-24 06:38:18 and read 12632 times.

The only time I flew a 747SP was on China air (I think) from Beijing to Xian. Just a few hours. It was in scary shape and there were mud footprints all over the wing. Thick mud!

Anyway, I was a bit more scared than excited. But that was 15 years ago.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: Drmlnr1
Posted 2012-12-24 06:45:52 and read 12555 times.

About as likely as WN joining OW:0.00000000000%

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: strfyr51
Posted 2012-12-24 06:47:07 and read 12524 times.

one of the above photos is the NASA SOFIA flying telescope. That airplane is an EX Pan-American SP-21 and the former United 147UA Nose 8647 acquired with the Pan-AM Pacific Division in 1986. That Same airplane also held the Round the world Speed record breifly with Captain Clay Lacey commanding,. It was later Broken by Brooke Knapp in a stripped down flying Gas-can Gulfstream. The United Record carried 100 Pax and a freakin Mercedes Benz in the fwd Pit. ( the car sold for Mega Bucks)

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: beechnut
Posted 2012-12-24 07:00:11 and read 12350 times.

Arguably, the 747SP of today is the 777-200LR. Both are niche aircraft that fulfill a very limited and very similar market need. Both were/are extremely capable under the standards of their day, which means the 777-200LR is way more capable than a 747SP; and it only needs two engines to do it.

Beech

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2012-12-24 07:53:20 and read 12205 times.

Boeing itself made the SP redundant when they extended the range of the 742 and increased power on the engines. Suddenly you had an airplane with the same range as the SP and could carry 100 more people. They tried desperately to sell the SP to NW and Japan but both insisted on the -200.

Actually, the SP has enjoyed more popularity as an executive and VIP aircraft than it ever did as a passenger jet. Kind of like tha A340-500 is becoming.

One of the more interesting resales of the SP was from TW to AA. I once flew the TW aircraft from JFK to BOS--talk about a waste of gas! It looked good in the AA colors.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-12-24 07:59:56 and read 12106 times.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 7):
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
The SP only sold forty-five models, even airlines that could have really used it eg Japan Air Lines to fly New York to Japan nonstop, didn't buy it. Not a successful subtype, makes the current 747-8i look like a runaway success by comparison.

Weren´t the later versions of the 742 able to largely make up for the 747SP performance?

Exactly. The much more capable later 742 models quickly made the SP obsolete and uneconomic, and largely explains why only 45 were built. I highly doubt Boeing recovered the SP's design and development costs.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: superjeff
Posted 2012-12-24 08:03:46 and read 12295 times.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
Did Braniff buy new

Yes they did. They needed the range when they started flying to Asia as they did not have rights to Tokyo and had to operate via Seoul or Taipei, both beyond the range of a standard 747-200 those days.

Jeff

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: United_fan
Posted 2012-12-24 08:24:38 and read 11961 times.

Quoting superjeff (Reply 27):
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
Did Braniff buy new

Yes they did. They needed the range when they started flying to Asia as they did not have rights to Tokyo and had to operate via Seoul or Taipei, both beyond the range of a standard 747-200 those days.

Jeff

And TW bought theirs for flights to China that never were approved,too.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2012-12-24 08:25:41 and read 11998 times.

747SP was not a VLA. it was a mid-sized wide body with extended range. We have those. 777, A343, A350, 789.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: aviatorcraig
Posted 2012-12-24 08:38:41 and read 11862 times.

Lets not forget that when the SP was developed, ETOPS didn't exist.
The L1011 and DC-10 had three engines instead of two for a reason, and the first widebody twin, the A300 started life a short haul high density commuter. It was only when rule changes by the regulators allowed twins to roam over the worlds oceans in the light of the exceptional reliability of modern fan engines that twins were able to eclipse aircraft like the SP and the tri-jets.
Back in the 1970s, if you told someone you were going to routinely fly 300+ pax non-stop across the Pacific in a twin they would have enquired what substance you were smoking!

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: airlinebuilder
Posted 2012-12-24 09:48:21 and read 11037 times.

When is the definite date for the tail fuel tank of the 748i be activated? Is it a long process for Boeing? Once its a GO, I assume it will somehow help the sales of the 748i...... thoughts anyone?

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: macsog6
Posted 2012-12-24 09:49:00 and read 11056 times.

Quoting United_fan (Reply 16):
Actually,QF ordered the -SP for flighte to Wllington,NZ.

That is correct. I flew one from MNL-SYD several years ago and they kept in remarkable condition. By that time, 737's went to Wellington.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-24 10:02:33 and read 10889 times.

Quoting airlinebuilder (Reply 31):
When is the definite date for the tail fuel tank of the 748i be activated?

They don't have a definite date as of yet, just some time in 2013. Chief project engineer Bruce Dickinson noted in November that the modifications necessary would be minor.


Quoting airlinebuilder (Reply 31):
Once its a GO, I assume it will somehow help the sales of the 748i....

It will increase range and allow for trimming the fuselage to lower cruise drag, which will help reduce fuel burn.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2012-12-24 10:52:35 and read 10390 times.

There is no point in an aircraft that has more range than 10,500nm, as that would carry it half way around the earth, and hence could connect any two points nonstop. The problem is that while we have a plane that comes close in the 77L, it cannot do it economically. A "new" 747SP would not change that. It seems that a lot of airlines want 8000nm range, but not more. And the 748i is capable of that; yes, EK has asked for more range but they've never shown any serious interest in ordering it. The range will undoubtedly increase with tweaks to the airframe and engines, but no special long range version will be built. They are having enough trouble selling it as it is.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: brilondon
Posted 2012-12-24 11:18:35 and read 10075 times.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
Pan Am to fly nonstop to Sydney

Did PA not fly non-stop to Tokyo back in the day? Clearly with the limited payload of the smaller 747SP it would not be financially smart to have the plane of that nature to run the route now plus there are aircraft capable of doing that mission. The A340-500 comes to mind and airlines did not purchase that aircraft at all. The 773 is available now that could do the route at a more advantageous cost and there by make more money. That is the bottom line in the airline business.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: 777way
Posted 2012-12-24 11:33:22 and read 9917 times.

Quoting fanofjets (Reply 8):

Iran Air SPs operate commercially they are not VIP aircraft like the others, yes they sometimes may have been used for VIP duty thats why the pics.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: NWAROOSTER
Posted 2012-12-24 11:51:42 and read 9765 times.

What sank the final nail into the 747SP coffin was when when Pratt and Whitney made the JT9D-7Q engine or power plant available. It was a much more fuel efficient engine than it's predecessors and thus made made the 747-200B a success, at the expense of the 747SP.   

[Edited 2012-12-24 11:52:44]

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2012-12-24 11:54:56 and read 9675 times.

On Novembre 21 there was one 747 at TIJ from ambasadors of health or something like that, It surely made my diversion from LAX a lot more interesting.

Nice plane, chubby little bugger..

TRB

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: Devilfish
Posted 2012-12-24 13:27:27 and read 8693 times.

Can't shake the thought that Boeing would come up with this someday.....   

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...2012/07/Mid-wing%20747-160757.html


The pudgy look totally fits the -SP image.....hard part is getting the economics right.   

Have a wonderful Christmas everyone!   

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: NASCARAirforce
Posted 2012-12-24 14:35:59 and read 7947 times.

The 747SP was largely considered a failure due to the number of examples that were sold. Unfortunately, unless Boeing turns the passenger version of the 747-800 around and gets some sales (cargo is doing fine) I am afraid even the 747SP might out sell it.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2012-12-24 14:46:17 and read 7814 times.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 38):
Nice plane, chubby little bugger..

Indeed. Like the A388 today. It needs to turn into its fully fledged size, longer and with even more powerful engines.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: sirloin
Posted 2012-12-24 15:02:14 and read 7578 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
Chief project engineer Bruce Dickinson noted in November that the modifications necessary would be minor.

Is it just a case of needing more cowbell?

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: DolphinAir747
Posted 2012-12-24 15:40:19 and read 7179 times.

I think TN should have some.

Seriously, the chances are unfortunately close to zero.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-12-24 16:07:22 and read 6958 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2):
What would it be good for? The original SP was developed to overcome range issues in the original 747. Those issues are largely gone...especially once they reactivate the tail tank on the 747-8i, it's got enough range to do almost anything you could want to do. Put another way: who would buy it and why?

Put it another way: you are saying that we should shrink a 747-sized aircraft to extend its range. That's what the 747SP was; a shrink with longer range. It had about the same capacity as the 772.

And it just so happens that there is such an aircraft in existence. It is a 772-sized aircraft that is a shrink from a 747-sized aircraft. It is called the 777-200LR and it has sold very slowly. Come to think of it, there is also the A345, which has also not been very successful.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-24 16:10:34 and read 6959 times.

I still am of the opinion the 777-200LR has sold poorly because almost everyone who wanted a 300-seat long-haul twin already had a 777-200ER in service by 2005.

When you look at the customers for the 777-200LR, with the exception of I believe DL and EK, they are all new customers for the 777 family.

If the 777-200LR had entered service in 1995 as opposed to 2005, I believe it would be well into three figures in terms of orders and deliveries.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2012-12-24 16:47:27 and read 6666 times.

Quoting FI642 (Reply 11):
The 747SP was a half hearted response to the birds being built by Lockheed and Douglas. It clearly was not very successful.

No, neither the DC-10-30, nor the L-1011-500 had that kind of range back then. The B-747SP was the long haul WB of its day.

Quoting ecbomberman (Reply 19):
We have 77W and A345's for ULH nowadays.

I think you mean the B-77L for UHL. The A-345 was just as much of a sales failure as the B-747SP was, if not more. But the B-747SP did sell more airplanes than the A-345 did. The A-345 only sold about 34 examples to the B-747SP's 45 sales.

About 15 B-747SPs are still flying today, after EIS in 1976. There have been only two incidents, a SA aircraft in 1998 and the CI-006 incident in 1985. This is a remarkable safety record of 36 years and no fatalities (there were injuries on the CI incident, but non on the SA incident).

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-12-24 17:01:22 and read 6525 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 44):
It is a 772-sized aircraft that is a shrink from a 747-sized aircraft. It is called the 777-200LR and it has sold very slowly. Come to think of it, there is also the A345, which has also not been very successful.

My thoughts... there is a new 747SP called the 77L. Or consider it the A345. Either way, there is a plane in that niche that sold as well as the 747SP. However, this time the planes should have made a little more money for their airlines...

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: RayChuang
Posted 2012-12-24 17:36:17 and read 6430 times.

By the way, the reason why Boeing stopped 747SP production was that Japan Airlines didn't want the 747SP, and JL insisted on 747-200B's with larger fuel tanks and higher MTOW so it could fly from NRT to JFK non-stop. JL did later buy the 747-400, but that was because of the 744's higher seating capacity.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: Kiwinlondon
Posted 2012-12-25 02:36:47 and read 5972 times.

Somewhere between zero and nil.

Kiwinlondon

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2012-12-25 12:08:22 and read 5675 times.

The B-747SP carried about 330 pax in a one class set-up. About the same as the B-77L (314) and A-345 (313) in a 3 class set-up.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: milesrich
Posted 2012-12-25 19:26:13 and read 5347 times.

What about a new DC-8, or 727?

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-12-25 19:50:27 and read 5332 times.

I keep thinking about this thread and wonder, exactly what part of the long haul small density market isn't met by the 788? Or heck, for the 747SP markets, A332/A333? I see no need ever again of such a shrink. I think the sales of the 77L/A345 have proven that.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 50):
The B-747SP carried about 330 pax in a one class set-up. About the same as the B-77L (314) and A-345 (313) in a 3 class set-up.

The 77L/A345 is a little less in 3 class, but the 77W/A346 would be a bit more! So why bother. It was a neat looking concept. But as was noted earlier, just an attempt to blunt Lockheed and Douglas 3-holer sales.

If you're saying that the 747SP is the equivalent of the 77L/A345 in seats (but not payload at range), that we can agree.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: aviatorcraig
Posted 2012-12-26 00:38:17 and read 5159 times.

I remember way back when the 747SP started operating, reading that it was having having issues with its designed cruising altitude. Apparently, the SP was certified to cruise at FL450 where it was at its most efficient, but the airlines soon found that pax were complaining of sore throats and stinging eyes due to greater ozone concentrations at this altitude, and had to operate at lower, less efficient altitudes with the rest of the traffic.

Anyone have any more info on this?

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2012-12-26 05:02:43 and read 4913 times.

Quoting 777way (Reply 36):
Iran Air SPs operate commercially they are not VIP aircraft like the others, yes they sometimes may have been used for VIP duty thats why the pics.

I believe that Syrianair is also still actively flying SP's.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: N1120A
Posted 2012-12-26 05:26:40 and read 4893 times.

Quoting srbmod (Reply 3):
The same chance as Boeing restarting the 757 line, none.

Actually, there is probably a greater change that Boeing would reopen the 757 line - people still can use those.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
Any other 747SP memories?

Tommy Mogren's 747sp.com site is a great resource for this. Also nice to see one of the great sites from the internet aviation heyday (1999-2007 or so) still around.

Quoting FI642 (Reply 11):
The 747SP was a half hearted response to the birds being built by Lockheed and Douglas.

No it wasn't. It was a range exercise, more than anything. The Shah liked it, and it made sense for Iran Air, so they knew someone with money would buy it.

Quoting beechnut (Reply 24):
Arguably, the 747SP of today is the 777-200LR. Both are niche aircraft that fulfill a very limited and very similar market need. Both were/are extremely capable under the standards of their day, which means the 777-200LR is way more capable than a 747SP; and it only needs two engines to do it.

The 77L has the advantage of doing things far more economically.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 25):

Boeing itself made the SP redundant when they extended the range of the 742 and increased power on the engines. Suddenly you had an airplane with the same range as the SP and could carry 100 more people.

Actually, your statement about range is incorrect. The 747SP had significantly longer range than the 742, and could do non-stop routings (LAX-SYD as a key example) that the 742 couldn't.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 46):
The A-345 was just as much of a sales failure as the B-747SP was, if not more.

It was a much bigger sales failure, because of its extreme weight issues.

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: strfyr51
Posted 2012-12-26 05:36:04 and read 4899 times.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 48):

UNITED actually bought and based 2 747-222B airplanes for the JFK-NRT route N151ua and N152ua, they were 833,000lb
max gross airplanes and flew with no weight restrictions. Air Force 1 is nearly identical with the exceptions of the GE CF6-80 engines vs the PW JT9D-7R4G's installed on the UAL Airplanes

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-12-26 18:35:22 and read 4589 times.

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 53):
I remember way back when the 747SP started operating, reading that it was having having issues with its designed cruising altitude. Apparently, the SP was certified to cruise at FL450 where it was at its most efficient, but the airlines soon found that pax were complaining of sore throats and stinging eyes due to greater ozone concentrations at this altitude, and had to operate at lower, less efficient altitudes with the rest of the traffic.

Maximum certificated operating altitude for the 747SP is 45,100 ft., the same as for every other 747 model except the 748-8 (passenger) which is 43,100 ft. and the 747-8F (freighter) 42,100 ft.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 54):
I believe that Syrianair is also still actively flying SP's.

As something changed since this 2008 thread?
Syrianair Removes 747SP From Service (by Revo Apr 7 2008 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: Boeing 747SP - Will We Have It Again?
Username: LH707330
Posted 2013-01-03 20:04:18 and read 3322 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 57):
Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 53):
I remember way back when the 747SP started operating, reading that it was having having issues with its designed cruising altitude. Apparently, the SP was certified to cruise at FL450 where it was at its most efficient, but the airlines soon found that pax were complaining of sore throats and stinging eyes due to greater ozone concentrations at this altitude, and had to operate at lower, less efficient altitudes with the rest of the traffic.

Maximum certificated operating altitude for the 747SP is 45,100 ft., the same as for every other 747 model except the 748-8 (passenger) which is 43,100 ft. and the 747-8F (freighter) 42,100 ft.

While that may be true, most of the heavier 747s could not reach 45k. I read about the ozone problem a while back in Airways, they said that Pan Am had to install ozone scrubbers in the engine bleeds to get rid of the problem. This apparently increased fuel burn, so they quietly removed them, but then people complained again so they reinstalled them.


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/