Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Went Wrong With The 747-300?  
User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2792 posts, RR: 14
Posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3314 times:

I know this wasn't exactly the most popular jumbo jet in the world. In fact, I think it was the least of the 747s... but why?


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineExnonrev From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 621 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2957 times:

It was simply a matter of bad timing. When the -300 came out, it was during a recessionary period in the industry. Also, the -400 was already under development and many airlines who would have bought the -300 held out for the -400.

User currently offlineEWR757 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 360 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2888 times:



Also, the 300 is 2 exit doors short for FAA certification for a US carrier. That is why no US airlines fly the 747-300.

CO looked at buying some a while back, but it was to cost prohibitive to modify the airplanes for FAA compliance.


User currently offlineAvion From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 2205 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2879 times:

Thats not true because the -300 has the same amount of doors as the -400. If the FAA didnt like the exit doors the aircraft would be allowed to carry passengers to/from the US. KLM and SR used the 747-300 to the US for 20 years.

Thanks

Avion


User currently offlineDL_mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1952 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2869 times:

Maybe EWR757 was referring to the 747s that had their overwing exits deactivated in order to install more seats. BA,CX,KL and others deactivated some of their 742 and 743 exits.


This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlineTriStar500 From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 4695 posts, RR: 42
Reply 5, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2864 times:

Additionally, the -300's range was shorter than the one of the later -200B variants, so many airlines stuck with the "Classic" or waited for the -400 with its vastly improved range.



Homer: Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
User currently offlineN707PA From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 279 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2848 times:

Swissair and Singapore both had U.S. registered 747-300's. HB-IGE was N221GE and HB-IGF was N221GF.

User currently offlineDnalor From Australia, joined Mar 2000, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2807 times:

The 300 was the Classic, why would Boeing create a newer version that had less range than the 200???? Doesnt make sense, especially when we need to remember it would have had newer more efficient versions of the engines available.

Tristar500 if it did have a shorter range, I think you'd find the MGTOW was higher on the 300 than the 200 in certain variants, its always a copmromise.  


User currently offlineN949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2799 times:

The lengthened upper deck and all the associated structural strengthening adds over 9000 pounds to the weight of the airframe. Besides, the 743 did not benefit from the extensive use of newer and lighter materials (as in the 744). So it basically became a much heavier version of the 742 (albeit with considerable increase in passenger capacity), It is no secret that late model 742's out-range the 743.

'949


User currently offlineWoodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1031 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2796 times:

The 743 was also designed with Japanese domestic operations in mind- high density, short range flights. I believe that the majority of 743s are in service in Japan although I should probably check the census to see if this is true.

Also, the 743 still utilized the tired old P&W JT9D turbofans which by the time the -300 went into service were way behind the technology curve of comparable RR or GE powerplants. I know, the other powerplants were available as well but maybe the JT9D being the "standard" turned customers away. Additionally it seemed like the 743 was transitional as it went into service in 1983 and the 744 came along only a few years later.


User currently offlineDnalor From Australia, joined Mar 2000, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2793 times:

like I said its all a compromise, but I'll check out boeing figures now

User currently offlineDnalor From Australia, joined Mar 2000, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2801 times:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747/facts.html

I think this makes the whole topic a non event now*L*

270 miles less range for an extra 40 odd pax


User currently offlineTurbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2775 times:

I agree with TriStar500, with N949WP and Dnalor.
I saw a video about the history of the 747 from “before” the beginning. Actually, all the things said here are true:
The 743 is able for more pax than the 742.
But the extra weight makes it shorter able.
Actually, the 743 was, somehow (and with no offence intended) a kind of “bluff 742C”, after the 742B had done well. This is what the video explains. It is Made in U.S. and has the explanations of the man who “created” the 747 idea as widebody, as double-decker, etc. (Can't remember his name now)
The product 744 was made under the pressures of the companies wanting to “improve” the 742B in BOTH pax capacity and range.
Finally, altough the 744 is bigger and can carry more pax to longer distance, its “clear” weight is lower than that of the 743. (NOT the MTOW, which is quite higher -400 MTons-)

Best turbulences


User currently offlineExnonrev From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 621 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2780 times:

Another thing that cut into sales of the 743 was Boeing's stretched upper deck retrofit program. As with the new airframes, most 747 operators (KLM being a notable exception) decided to wait for the 744.













User currently offlineMas777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2935 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2744 times:

In terms of range - the 743 did actually have a longer range as Singapore Airlines introduced non-stop LHR-SIN flights with the 743 previously unattainable with the 742 - albeit the non-stop service only flew one-way (Eastwards) due to weather constraints flying west.

Many airlines who flew the 743 have actually done away with them - its probably because they were rather dated in terms of efficiency. MAS mistakedly purchased just the one aircraft which was used to launch its first USA service (to LAX) - the service was soon superceded with the more efficient 744.


User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2752 times:

Woodsboy, I wanted to point out an error in your post, namely when you say the JT9D was a "tired" old engine "behind the technology curve." Actually, the opposite is true. The 743 debuted the JT9D-7R4G/H. These engines were in fact state of the art at the time, and in fact had more changes to them than the CF6-50E's or the RB211-524C/D's at the time. The latter two were probably the least changed engines offered on the 743.

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...
What Was Wrong With The 747-300? posted Sat Feb 16 2002 20:00:15 by Airplanetire
What Went Wrong With The Unducted Fan Engine? posted Mon Jan 16 2006 22:24:47 by 1337Delta764
What Went Wrong With The Engine Markings? posted Mon May 31 2004 04:26:37 by Arcano
What Went Wrong With Delta's MD-90s? posted Tue Sep 26 2006 19:22:02 by 1337Delta764
What Was Wrong With The A342? posted Fri Mar 31 2006 03:11:55 by YULWinterSkies
What Went Wrong With MD-11 posted Sat Jan 7 2006 19:56:07 by FlyDreamliner
What Went Wrong With AK Flight # 4 At IAD On 5/24? posted Sat May 25 2002 15:58:15 by Bobcat
What Is Wrong With The SQ Website posted Wed Apr 3 2002 11:47:12 by Ryanb741
PIA Back In BHX With The 747-300? posted Wed Dec 26 2001 13:37:41 by Airmale
What Is Wrong With The MD11? posted Wed Jul 11 2001 22:24:23 by SK A340