Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Doesn't The 'SP' Moniker Get Used Anymore  
User currently offlineRB211-524H From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 54 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2792 times:

Hi all, is there a reason why the 747 was the only model in Boeings line-up (past and present) to receive the 'SP' tag for its extra long-range capabilities.
I can understand 'ER' being used for models that have slightly better capabilities but as the 777-200LR was built specifically to fly further than any other aircraft in the world why couldn't they just call it the 777SP. I just think sticking SP on the end of the model sounds so much cooler than LR, ER, HGW etc etc even Airbus could do it too e.g A380SP hehehe but they like X and E better.

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8586 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2783 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The SP was "special performance" - it was not just range , but field performance also - for example - QF actually bought their two originally not for range but for their ability to use the infamous WLG runway ( an airport that has jokingly been referred to as the world's only land based aircraft carrier ) it was only later when they strayed from their 'all 747' fleet plan and got the 767s that they freed up the SPs for long range ops . Likewise , I think part of the appeal of the SP to SA was it's range ( during the apartheid era SA had to fly around most of Africa to get to Europe ) but also a large part was it's performance at JNBs 'hot and high' airport .


Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineDon81603 From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 1185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2715 times:

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 1):
infamous WLG runway ( an airport that has jokingly been referred to as the world's only land based aircraft carrier )

For reference, what are the runway dimensions at WLG, compared to QF's Longreach, QLD museum? I seem to recall hearing QF sent one of their first 747-100 there as a museum attraction, and due to runway limitations they could only use 2 engines when landing. As I'm not a pilot, this make no sense to me at all.

As for "Land Based Aircraft Carriers", I've seen more than a few of those...Kakabeka Falls (Ontario) Brandon (Manitoba) Dryden (Ontario), and on ad nauseum.



Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
User currently offlineClassicLover From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4646 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2698 times:

Quoting Don81603 (Reply 2):
QF sent one of their first 747-100 there as a museum attraction

It was a 747-238B. QF never operated the -100 - the only variant they didn't operate, excluding F versions.They deliberately waited until the 200B was available for delivery.

Trent.



I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8586 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2664 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Don81603 (Reply 2):
and due to runway limitations they could only use 2 engines when landing. As I'm not a pilot, this make no sense to me at all.

I'm not a pilot either , but if they were only able to use two engines my guess would be that due to the narrowness of the runway and the unprepared terrain surrounding it they were unable to use the outboard engines for fear of damaging the engines through FOD - ie ingesting large chunks of dirt/rocks/dust etc .



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineLPLAspotter From Portugal, joined Jan 2005, 682 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2596 times:

If you are talking about all kinds of aircrarft then Cessna has applied it to their 172. Their newest model is the 172SP!

LPLAspotter



Nuke the Gay Wales for Christ
User currently offlineCrosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2600 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2567 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 1):
An airport that has jokingly been referred to as the world's only land based aircraft carrier

Sorry to divert the topic completely, but for me Funchal's got to get that title as the world's only land-based aircraft carrier - it's got the deck aspect and everything - although the new vastly extended runway is far less exciting than the old one!

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Miguel Nobrega - Madeira Spotters
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tony Silva - Madeira Spotters



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Filipe Clairouin
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Miguel Nobrega - Madeira Spotters



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Miguel Nobrega - Madeira Spotters


The carrier-deck aspect also allows you to get spectacular lineup shots like these - not many airports in the world where you can get this sort of backdrop!

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Miguel Nobrega - Madeira Spotters
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jorge Abreu - Madeira Spotters


Regards
CROSSWIND


User currently offlineAJRfromSYR From United States of America, joined May 2005, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2506 times:

Any weight restrictions landing on 23?


-AJR-
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...
Is The Term 'flag Carrier' Used Anymore? posted Mon Dec 22 2003 04:34:55 by Expex
Why Doesn't The FAA Like Combi Aircraft posted Wed Oct 22 2003 20:49:58 by RockyRacoon
Why Doesn't The 744 Work For The U.S.? posted Fri Aug 24 2001 21:37:51 by Ual747
Why Doesn't Singapore Airlines Get Rid Of A310's? posted Thu Nov 30 2000 08:17:03 by Qantas 747
Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market? posted Sun Nov 12 2006 05:06:12 by ZKNBX
WestJet Tail Numbers - Why Is The #4 Never Used? posted Thu Jun 1 2006 15:52:28 by YOW
Why Was The 747-SP Developed? posted Tue Sep 27 2005 00:43:25 by PiedmontINT
Why Do The Real Hero's Always Get Screwed? posted Fri Jun 3 2005 19:59:04 by Nsfguy
Why Is The 747 Still Used? posted Mon Aug 9 2004 04:31:05 by DeltaBOS
Why Doesn't Airtran Get A Larger Share Of PHL Now? posted Sat Apr 17 2004 22:53:06 by Quickmover