Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
747SP-NG?  
User currently offlineFLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3
Posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1254 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

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5569 posts, RR: 36
Reply 1, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1208 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.

User currently offlineFLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1203 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


User currently offlineSammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1690 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1189 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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


User currently offlineBacardi182 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1088 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1149 times:

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

User currently offlineFLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1141 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


User currently offlineTriple Seven From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 530 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1144 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


User currently offlineFLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (14 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1139 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


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...
Could Boeing Make A 747SP NG? posted Mon Nov 8 2004 00:43:45 by MNeo
747SP-NG? posted Sat May 13 2000 20:52:55 by FLY777UAL
SV 747SP Inbound To CLE 7/24/09 6:15pm posted Fri Jul 24 2009 11:47:10 by Diamond
SV 747SP Inbound To LAX 7/20/09 5:35pm posted Mon Jul 20 2009 10:35:43 by Diamond
747SP At CAK? posted Tue Jul 7 2009 05:48:35 by Sancho99504
747SP San Antonio- Departure For U.K. posted Fri Jul 3 2009 19:33:56 by Crownvic
747SP @ MHR posted Wed Jul 1 2009 11:13:12 by PositiveETCO2
Former NG 737 At SBN posted Wed Jun 3 2009 19:27:49 by VANGUARD737
AeroMexico To Sale/Sale & Lease Back 8 737 NG :( posted Thu May 7 2009 22:06:52 by Fyano773
Saudi 747SP Inbound To JFK posted Mon Apr 27 2009 15:59:27 by SXDFC