Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The 747-200SUD And 747-300  
User currently offlineHorus From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 5230 posts, RR: 59
Posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4565 times:

What is the difference between the 747-200SUD (Streched Upper Deck) and the 747-300? Why did some carriers go for the 747-200 variant rather than the 743? Also why did Boeing have so much success with the 742, selling 393 while only 81 743 were ever manufactured?

Left: KLM B747-200SUD, Right: Egyptair B747-300


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Martin Boschhuizen
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Zorro




EGYPT: A 7,000 Year Old Civilisation
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3369 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4504 times:

the 743 was sold little because it was replaced by the 744 not long after the 743 was introduced. Therefore the 743 was on sale for only a few years whereas both the 742 and the 744 have been on sale for many years. The difference between the 743 and the 742SUD is that the 743 came with the SUD straight from the factory whereas the 742SUD was conversion. Only 3 airlines I believe took the 742SUD conversion. KLM, Corsair and Japan Airlines.

I don't believe there is a way to distinguish a 742SUD from a 743.

BTW, KLM has (or rather had) both 742SUDs and 743s.



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineFrontiers4ever From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4455 times:

I believe that the engines look different. I could be wrong.

-Frontiers4ever



Until you prove, your right, your wrong
User currently offlineB747Skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4418 times:

SUD did not include engine changes, Frontiers4ever...
Engine nacelles remain same, 200 - 200SUD or 300...
They did not change from CF6 to P&W or RR...
xxx
You friends look at apperance of airplane...
I look at technical changes. fuel tanks etc...
I don't care if an engine cowling is painted blue or pink...
xxx
Happy contrails  Big grin
(s) Skipper


User currently offlineHorus From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 5230 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4314 times:


Which aircraft is better when comparing the 743 and 742 and when comparing 743 and 742SUD?



EGYPT: A 7,000 Year Old Civilisation
User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2093 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4312 times:

JAL also had a small number of its 747SR and 747-100 aircraft converted with the SUD. As Petertenthije said the 743 was built with the lengthened upper deck. KLM liked it, so had most of its 742s modified.

Another reason why the 743 was a slow seller was that it came with range/payload restrictions. Not sure as to exact figures but I believe it was similar to the 741, whereas the 742 offered greater range.

Finally the 743 was available in the mid 80's. Being launched in a world recession in the early 80's didn't help, and then as Petertenthije also said the 744 programme came along, so a number of airlines chose to wait for that rather than order the 743.



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2690 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4240 times:

Here another closely-related question to that of the topic. What is the difference between te 747-100 and the 747-200 Classics? I'm referring to the 742 non-SUDs.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4212 times:

What is the difference between the 747-100 and the 747-200 Classics?

The common mistake is the number of upper deck windows....which is not true, but can be used as a good judge. The actual major differences is the increased payload weights.

From the Boeing web site

747-100 - The World's First Jumbo Jet

The 747-100 entered commercial service in 1970. Initially, engines only were available from Pratt & Whitney, but by 1975 engines also were available from General Electric and Rolls-Royce. Boeing delivered 250 of the 747-100s, the last in 1986. Boeing built two versions of the 747?100 passenger airplane, one of which had a higher payload capacity and was known as the -100B. The 747-100 also was available as a short-range airplane, which had a modified body structure to accommodate a greater number of takeoffs and landings. This model typically was used by airlines on short flights with a high-passenger capacity, as many as 550. Boeing also built the 747-100SP (special performance), which had a shortened fuselage and was designed to fly higher, faster and farther non-stop than any 747 model of its time.

747-200 - Continuing the Legacy

Although the 747-200 was developed after the 747-100, it was built during roughly the same time frame. The first -200 went into commercial service in 1971, and Boeing delivered a total of 393, the last in 1991. Although its external appearance is nearly identical to the 747-100, it was designed to carry more payload. In addition to being offered as a passenger airplane, the -200 was the first 747 to be configured as a freighter, a combination passenger-freighter and a convertible.

From the beginning, the 747 was designed to serve as an all-cargo transport. The first 747 Freighter could easily carry 100 tons (90,000 kg) across the Atlantic Ocean or across the United States. Its operating cost was 35 percent less per ton mile than the 707 Freighter. The 747 Freighter has a hinged nose to allow cargo loading through front of the airplane, with the option of a large side-cargo door.

The 747-200 Convertible was configured to serve as a passenger airplane, a freighter or a combination of both. This airplane responded to airlines' needs to carry different payloads at different times of the years, such as higher passenger capacities during the summer and more cargo during the winter. Similar to the convertible is the ?200 Combi, which was designed to serve as a passenger-only airplane or as a passenger-freighter mix.

The combi has a large side-cargo door on the main deck, and is used by airlines to make better use of their routes during different times of the year. The convertible has a nose cargo door similar to the freighter.



[Edited 2004-03-14 03:46:25]


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineFLYSSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7412 posts, RR: 57
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4099 times:


Only 3 airlines took the 742SUD conversion. KLM, Corsair and Japan Airlines

Wrong.

Air France is currently operating 4 B747-300 inherited from UTA. Two of them actually are 747-200SUD : F-BTDG & F-BTDH were "born" 742 and later mofidied into 743...

F-BTDG before...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Johan Ljungdahl
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Kelly



F-BTDG after...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Barbro / FAP - Finnish Aviation Photography
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Johan Ljungdahl



User currently offlineB747Skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3990 times:

With equal tanks and equal maximum takeoff weight (377,000 kg version) -
9 or 10 tanks versions, and same engines -
The 747-300 has better range than the 747-200.
Because the "drag" is reduced thanks to the stretched upper deck. Better aerodynamics.
I know that the difference is minimal.
xxx
The 747-200s I presently fly, have better range than the 747SP we had.
Despite the notion that the 747SP was longer range aircraft.
It was, compared to the earlier 747-200s. This fact no longer was true later.
Another reason why the 747SP production got stopped.
xxx
Happy contrails  Smile
(s) Skipper


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
When Did Cathay Retire The 747-200 And -300? posted Wed Aug 30 2006 10:09:31 by Airbus_A340
747-200SUD And -300 posted Wed Feb 4 2004 11:42:36 by Duke
Northwest And The 747-300 posted Thu Jan 16 2003 21:37:52 by Spacepope
747-200SUD/747-300/747-400Domestic: Spotting posted Mon Feb 25 2002 21:01:26 by DIA
What Was Wrong With The 747-300? posted Sat Feb 16 2002 20:00:15 by Airplanetire
PIA Back In BHX With The 747-300? posted Wed Dec 26 2001 13:37:41 by Airmale
Does Qantas Operate The B 747-300 To Hong Kong? posted Sun Dec 9 2001 04:35:48 by United Airline
Do Thai Airways 747-300 Look The Same As 747-400D. posted Tue May 22 2001 00:36:57 by 22886
How Many Exits On The 747-300 posted Tue Aug 15 2000 21:30:21 by Tg 747-300
Why Was The 747-300 A Dud? posted Fri Aug 11 2000 06:14:25 by N-156F