Airplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2725 posts, RR: 45 Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3536 times:
This is a hard one, maybe A330 or A340. Dont ask me why though.
FlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 15 Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3513 times:
Perhaps another 747SP?
Sorry, couldn't resist. Seriously IMO, the 777-200LR is my first choice. Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
Skyhawk From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1065 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3443 times:
As far as I'm concerned, there is not now nor will there ever be a substitute that will even come close to replacing the 747-SP. She is as great now as when she was first produced.
ZSSNC From Germany, joined Feb 2003, 428 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3405 times:
IMHO there is no need for a 74L substitute. As great as the plane is (primarily by its looks and take-off performance), it was only built as Boeing wasn't able to built a plane the size of a Boeing 747-200 with the range of the Boeing 747SP back then.
ZSSNC - the longest temptation in the sky
Airbus A340-600 - the longest temptation in the sky
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3353 times:
The SP was a specially designed aircraft for a specific purpose - the goal was to develop an aircraft that could fly JFK-Tokyo nonstop and LAX-SYD nonstop; when the 744 was introduced, and could fly the routes that previously could only be served by the SP, the SP was no longer necessary.
The SP was a great airliner in its time, as it was the first ultra-long haul type (the range of the 742 was about the same as a 707-320B) and allowed airlines to open new routes.
The 777LR and A345 follow in the tradition of the SP, these aircraft will be capable of flying routes that were previously not possible.
B747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3280 times:
I flew the SP both with PanAm and here in Argentina... sure, it is a long range airplane, ideal for the 250-300 passenger payloads...
xxx
As a few of you mentioned, that aircraft was build to exceed the range of the early 747-200s... however the late series 747-200s and 300s are capable of longer range due to increased fuel capacity, provided a lighter payload is used. In Argentina, we sold our single SP when the 200s turned out to be capable of equal to or better range.
xxx
When an airline operate a fleet of 747s... sure, having a few SPs and a few 747-200/300s, at least achieves a "single type fleet" for parts, maintenance and crew qualifications. Bringing in another type aircraft, such as MD-11 or A340 brings in an aircraft type requiring different support and staffing, which may at the end, increase the operating costs...
xxx
Boeing could have increased weights, fuel capacities and range of the SP, yet they did not go that way... after a mere 40 or so SPs were produced...
xxx
Happy contrails
(s) Skipper
The777Man From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 6088 posts, RR: 56 Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3147 times:
The 777-200ER. I think the current 777-200ER is very close in a three-class capacity to the 747SP and also in range. Had the pleasure of flying on a SP once, LHR-LAX on UA.
The777Man
Need a Boeing 777 Firing Order....Further to fly....GA, T5, CI and LX 777s
Aa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3338 posts, RR: 9 Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3060 times:
I have a question about the SP. A little of topic,but do all of the overhead bins on the SP drop down like that?
Capital146 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2125 posts, RR: 49 Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2945 times:
The B777 and A340 are the obvious choices as a substitute in todays world, but I'd still rather fly on a 747SP!
Motorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2760 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2910 times:
Neither the 777, of any model, or any of the A340 range has the SP's hot and high as well as short and rough field performance. The 747SP could land and take off on a dime fully laden as with WLG.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2430 posts, RR: 10 Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2796 times:
Either the A345 of 772LR would make fine latter day SP spritual successors in terms of range, though in other aspects they fall short of its' greatness, as in the aforementioned hot and high takeoff performance. Cruise speed was another area, as the SP often operated between .87 and .90 mach. I believe, in a 'what if?' scenario, that if the Concorde had flown some of the same long-range routes as the SP, having to land twice to refuel, the 747 could have likely approached or matched its' trip time by NOT having to land and endure the airport delays the SST would've faced. TRULY a 'special' performer!
FLYSSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7313 posts, RR: 61 Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2658 times:
Here we go again...the A is better than the B.... B is the best of all... bla bla bla...
You seem to forget the other aspect of the question : A substitute for the -SP, OK, but for what Airline ? and for what network ???
I think "Pouyazad" is considering the remplacement of Iran Air 747-SP. For their flights to Europe, the A330-200 or -300 would fit perfectly. This aircraft is also suitable for the Asian network of IR from THR, combined with A342 if IR intends to launch nonstop THR-U.S or THR-SYD...witch is quite unlikely by now...
Don't think they really need the 777-200LR, or A346, or A345...
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9614 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2614 times:
The answer is obvious. There are a few aircraft that are -technically- capable to transport that amount of pax over a similar distance. All have been named before, and if A or B comes down to what a particular airline prefers.
LAst saturday I visited the terrasse at FRA airport for the first time since two years. And there was the 747SP of Iran Air standing next to UAs 772s and LHs A343s and I thought to myself: efficiency won against sheer "grandeur". How sad to think ordinary A330s will replace them once in Iran Air´s fleet.
Sponsor Message: 
From Iran, joined Sep 2003, 119 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2725 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24621 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, 
Seriously IMO, the 777-200LR is my first choice. Regards.
From Germany, joined Feb 2003, 428 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3371 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2760 posts, 
From France, joined Aug 2003, 7313 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
