Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular  
User currently offlineFlywithjohn From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 122 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19827 times:

Why was the 747-300 so unpopular? What are some on the differences other then having a longer upper deck and what is different from it's sister ships -100 and -200?


Always Blue Sky's.....
63 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19802 times:

1500 miles less range for starters.

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26444 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19802 times:

Quoting Flywithjohn (Thread starter):

Why was the 747-300 so unpopular? What are some on the differences other then having a longer upper deck and what is different from it's sister ships -100 and -200?

Basically, the 743 was a 742B with a longer upper deck. In that, it wasn't much of an improvement and most carriers already had large 742B fleets flying or on order. As it was, the 744 didn't follow that far behind and combined the greater capacity with significantly longer range and lower costs.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19802 times:

... maybe because it was only sold for a few years before the -400 came up?

User currently offlineVincewy From Taiwan, joined Oct 2005, 767 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19769 times:

The launch customer, Swissair, could only go as far as BOM in Asia using 743, the plane had to refuel and onward to HKG, MD11 improved with nonstop extending toward BKK.

User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 19607 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 1):
1500 miles less range for starters.

Make that 200 statute miles (300 km less in metric system, though 200 miles are actually 320 km) less than the -200B, according to Boeing.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_classics.html

The 747-300 has a range of around 6890 nm, while the -200B has a range of 7055 nm. Boeing only lists the range of the 747 Classics in either kilometres or statute miles (while with the -400, they list it in both nautical miles and kilometres), so I roughly converted the figures in kilometres into nautical miles dividing by 1.8, so they could be inaccurate. The -400 has a range of 7260 nm (7214 nm for the Combi), while the -400ER can fly up to 7670 nm.


User currently offlineBrightCedars From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19558 times:

Yes but there were several versions of the Boeing 747-300. Sabena for instance had 747-300s with the new body to wing design of the 747-400. And they flew BRU-NRT and BRU-JNB nonstop without much trouble most of the time.

Were there performance and range improvements during the life of the 747-300?

I remember they/some could even be retrofit with -400 winglets.



I want the European Union flag on airliners.net!
User currently offlineCricket From India, joined Aug 2005, 2967 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19458 times:

AI ordered and still operates two 747-337M's, they were also the first GE-powered planes in AI's fleet. AI liked the planes - they were great as Combi's, better than the the 742 in such a role, because the passenger penalty was eased by the SUD. However, the planes did have a bad habit of going tech quite often, and two was all that AI ordered.
However, KL loved the -300 (they even converted some of their -200's to -300 spec)

Quoting BrightCedars (Reply 6):
I remember they/some could even be retrofit with -400 winglets.

I though the 400 had a completely different, redesigned wing with a longer span.



A300B2/B4/6R, A313, A319/320/321, A333, A343, A388, 737-2/3/4/7/8/9, 747-3/4, 772/2E/2L/3, E170/190, F70, CR2/7, 146-3,
User currently offlineJeffry747 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 963 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19400 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Cricket (Reply 7):
I though the 400 had a completely different, redesigned wing with a longer span.

It does. The wingspan of a 742 is 195 ft, while a 744 is 211 ft. You can confirm this visually by counting the leading edge slat panels on both types. And then there is that "Wing to Body" design difference between the two.

Basically the biggest flaw and turnoff on the 743 was the fact that Boeing added the SUD, yet did not incorporate any other design changes to compensate for the added weight of the SUD. Thus, the range of 743 was reduced by approx. 1500 nautical miles.



C'mon Big B, FLY!
User currently offlineGunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3503 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19378 times:

Just to throw another question into the pot...have there been any carriers that have converted passenger 743s into freighters, or are unwanted passenger models simply scrapped?


Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently offlineZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1413 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19343 times:

Quoting BrightCedars (Reply 6):
Yes but there were several versions of the Boeing 747-300. Sabena for instance had 747-300s with the new body to wing design of the 747-400. And they flew BRU-NRT and BRU-JNB nonstop without much trouble most of the time.

First I've heard of this - do you have any more details?


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19300 times:

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 9):
Just to throw another question into the pot...have there been any carriers that have converted passenger 743s into freighters, or are unwanted passenger models simply scrapped?

Yes, there are freighter versions of the 747-300 flying around:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © GSR
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Magnus Trippler




It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7564 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19236 times:

What is the difference between a B747-200 (SUD) and a B747-300?.

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26444 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19205 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 12):
What is the difference between a B747-200 (SUD) and a B747-300?.

The 742 SUD is a conversion of a regular 742B that was done after-market by Boeing



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7564 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19169 times:

That's what I wondered.

Thank you.


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19144 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 12):
What is the difference between a B747-200 (SUD) and a B747-300?.

Basically none. The 747-200SUD has been retrofitted with the stretched upper deck, while the -300 had the SUD straight from the factory. Later in the production though, the -300 got the new wing fairing and it was even offered with the newer CF6-80 engines from General Electric. Only GE did this AFAIK, neither Pratt & Whitney nor Rolls Royce did something similar on the Dash 300.

Here an AI 743 with the newer 744 style wing fairing and CF6-80 engines.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Takko
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Darren Howie


And here a KL 743 with the old wing fairing and CF6-50 engines.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jordi Grife - Iberian Spotters
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © F. de Ruiter


In a way, you could say the later built 743s were kind of a testbed for the future 747-400.  Wink


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26444 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19132 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 15):

There are also 4 CF6-80 powered 742Bs out there. All fly for the US Air Force



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19105 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 16):
There are also 4 CF6-80 powered 742Bs out there. All fly for the US Air Force

4? I thought it was only 2, the VC-25As, aka 747-2G4Bs (28000 and 29000). Though I do know of the US Air Force having ordered CF6-80 powered 747s as VIP transports (mainly as Air Force One), but unlike the -300s, those 747-200s the Air Force got also have the 744's EFIS Flightdeck and these modern 742s were never offered commercially to airlines AFAIK (unless we talk about the 744F, which is a 744 with the 742's fuselage, but that's it).


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19034 times:

Quoting BrightCedars (Reply 6):
I remember they/some could even be retrofit with -400 winglets.

Nope, there was never any retrofit of the 300 with 400 winglets. First of all the wing is slightly different and the LE devices are different on the 400 than the Classics.

One of the biggest drawback was the increase in empty weight of the 300 and no corresponding increase in the MTOW. So you had an aircraft that had a lower payload than the 200B.

Quoting BrightCedars (Reply 6):
Yes but there were several versions of the Boeing 747-300. Sabena for instance had 747-300s with the new body to wing design of the 747-400. And they flew BRU-NRT and BRU-JNB nonstop without much trouble most of the time.

Were there performance and range improvements during the life of the 747-300?

I'm not so sure about that. First of all, BRU-JNB is just over 10 hours, more like 10+25, so that's not a stretch for a 200 at all. The 300 would be stretched going from NRT-BRU with a full load in the winter time. There were no direct improvements on the 300, although the stretched upper deck did result in aerodynamic improvements (increase cruise speed to .855 or so), but you had 10 tonnes less payload on the 300 than you did on the 200, so that either came out of pax/cargo or fuel.

Bottom line is the 300 was a perfect fit for trans Atlantic flights for KLM and Swiss Air.

[Edited 2006-02-09 11:31:02]

User currently offlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 831 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19027 times:

The -300 was a simple solution to get more seats in the A/C for the airlines that wanted them that's all, most used current -200 engines and the -300 has the same fuel capacity and same MTOW as a -200 so there was no increase in range. It was popular for the airlines that wanted more seats but didn't need the range of the -200. Then of course as said the -400 was on offer just over 2 years after the -300 rolled out, which had aerodynamic improvements more fuel capacity, more fuel efficient engines and higher MTOW.

Now the wing to body fairing and the new stabilizer designed for the -400 were fitted to all 747s after line #703. Just evolution. Line number 703 LEFT and #704 RIGHT.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © William Jenkins
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Spijkers



[Edited 2006-02-09 11:43:38]


C152 G115 TB10 CAP10 SR-22 Be76 PA-34 NDN-1T C500 A330-300 A340-300 -600 B747-200F -200SF -400 -400F -400BCF -400ERF -8F
User currently offlineNed Kelly From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 410 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 18986 times:

Did SAA operate the 743 LHR-JNB non-stop, & also JAL NRT-LHR with 743's?

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26444 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 18919 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 17):
4? I thought it was only 2, the VC-25As, aka 747-2G4Bs (28000 and 29000). Though I do know of the US Air Force having ordered CF6-80 powered 747s as VIP transports (mainly as Air Force One), but unlike the -300s, those 747-200s the Air Force got also have the 744's EFIS Flightdeck and these modern 742s were never offered commercially to airlines AFAIK (unless we talk about the 744F, which is a 744 with the 742's fuselage, but that's it).

You left out the E4-Bs



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineJeffry747 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 963 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 18898 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CCA (Reply 19):
the new stabilizer designed for the -400 were fitted to all 747s after line #703.

Are you refering to the vertical stabilizer or the horizontal? And what exactly is the difference between the old and the new?



C'mon Big B, FLY!
User currently offlineZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1413 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 18852 times:

Quoting Ned Kelly (Reply 20):
Did SAA operate the 743 LHR-JNB non-stop, & also JAL NRT-LHR with 743's?

I remember flying on a couple of occasions on 743s LHR - JNB nonstop - that was a certainty.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Clements - MC Aviation Images.



And JAL:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Morley



Don't know for sure if it was direct but I believe it was.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26444 posts, RR: 75
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 18840 times:

Quoting Jeffry747 (Reply 22):
Are you refering to the vertical stabilizer or the horizontal? And what exactly is the difference between the old and the new?

Vertical, and it allows a nice sized tail tank in the 744.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
25 ZSOFN : Is the shape any different?
26 N1120A : Compare those pics of 703 and 704 above. I believe the 744 stab is more sloped than the Classic one
27 OyKIE : Isn't this a major rework of an existing airplane? I would believe that would be very expensive for only adding a few more passengers and perhaps inc
28 StarGoldLHR : How many 747-300's were built then ?
29 RAFVC10 : Pullmantur Air still operates Boeing 747-300 to leisure destinations as HAV, CUN, PVR,... Great aircraft for a charter airlines.
30 N1120A : Well, it was cheap enough that KLM ordered it and flew them for years Wings are much more complicated than a fuselage, particularly when you consider
31 Post contains links and images CCA : The last time I saw AF1 on TV it had an EFIS but I wouldn't say a 744 EFIS flight deck, it's very close to this. View Large View MediumPhoto © Chris
32 Kiwiandrew : UTA had a couple converted as well IIRC ... I am pretty sure that KL and UT were the only customers for the conversion
33 Thai A330 : Remind me of TG 743. I feel sad as TG only have 2 in its type. They will retire them soon.
34 N1120A : I think KL did it for fleet standardization more than anything.
35 Post contains links and images Webby : QF also still operate 743 to PHNL and the economy class cabins have recently been upgraded... in fact i will be on board one of them next week YSSY-PH
36 FRAspotter : I think that these were only done to KLM planes to give them the same capacity of their 743s...
37 CCA : Sorry missed these, it's the Horizontal stabilizer that is different. The pre -400 design had cables running through the inside of the stabilizer fro
38 CHRISBA777ER : CX has RR RB211 powered 743s.
39 Iowa744Fan : Largely the same reason that the 747SP wasn't too popular. You gained room for additional passengers, but lost quite a bit of range....versus the 747
40 Starlionblue : There are four E-4Bs (if they're all still in service) and two VC-25s, so that would make six. However the VC-25s partially supplanted the E-4Bs so m
41 CHRISBA777ER : They have cargo 743s that are Rolls Powered I think.
42 Dw747400 : Based on the description of an VC-25A crewer I know, I that it looks somewhat like the cockpit of a 757 these days--a lot more glass than a typical 2
43 N501US : The E-4B and VC-25's do not share day to day missions. You will find the VC-25s at Andrews AFB and the E-4Bs (referred to as NAOC) at Offutt AFB, NE.
44 Starlionblue : Agreed. But (as a far as I know) when there were just E-4s and VC-137s (707 Presidential Aircraft) the E-4 could do much more than the VC-137. With t
45 Lijnden : Reply 30: (conversion from the humps) KLM got the conversion deal to make the 747-200's into SUD's after they decided to take the B737 as a replacemen
46 Amy : I was under the impression that the 747-200B/SUDs (used by KLM and AF?) and the 747-100SR/SUDs (JAL) were infact manufactured with the SUD and this w
47 Iowa744Fan : They have at least one (and more on the way) RR powered 744 freighters. Dragonair has at least three cargo 743s, but they are not RR powered birds.
48 Confuscius : "The last time I saw AF1 on TV it had an EFIS but I wouldn't say a 744 EFIS flight deck, it's very close to this." IIRC, SAM 28000 & 29000 have EFIS i
49 Post contains images CCA : I'm confused isn't that what I said in reply 31?
50 LTU932 : Ah OK, thanks for clearing it up. I didn't know about the E-4Bs. That is true, but no 743s had the newer RB211-524HT or PW4000 engines, they all had
51 Jamesjoyce : Amazing, isn't it? I'm a frequent customer of the AMS-LAX run and it is always packed. These days it's a single 744-combi but I remember in 1995 ther
52 Jamesjoyce : Surinam Airlines got a refurbished ex-KL 743 from Mojave for its AMS-PBM run. Some time ago it was parked at AMS because the airline had cashflow pro
53 Flywithjohn : OK if it was so insufficient why did Boeing market it al I mean why not go the way -500 and -600?
54 Flywithjohn : Another Question they made 81 -300s. How many are still flight ready and who had them?
55 Post contains links EHHO : To recap, can it be said that these KL facts/assumptions are true? KL had two kinds of 743s: 742SUDs and genuinely made 743s All 742SUDs were retrofi
56 Post contains links and images UpperDeck79 : -200B/SUDs were definitely conversions: -100SR/SUDs were delivered with the SUD: View Large View MediumPhoto © Yosuke Kinoshita
57 Post contains links and images FlySSC : UTA had a fleet of 4 B747-300. 2 were -Combi, two others were full PAX. The two Full PAX aircraft were F-GETA & F-GETB. The two -Combi were F-BTDG an
58 Post contains links and images Andz : SAA had 3 300s, all out of service now. Two are parked at JNB without engines at the moment (one the stunning looking Ndizani). MyAviation.net photo:
59 BAW716 : The 747-300 was originally designed to create more passenger space by stretching the upper deck. Its biggest problem was, by doing that, it increased
60 Lijnden : KLM 747 fleet First series with P&W engines (Did NOT receive SUD conversion) PH-BUA PH-BUB PH-BUC PH-BUD PH-BUE PH-BUF w/o 27-3-1977 PH-BUG The B747-2
61 Post contains links and images CCA : Apparently it's stored at Marana and owned by the FSBU First Security Bank of Utah. It's rego is N270BC http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/
62 Post contains links and images Sabenapilot : Sabena took the very last 747-300 ever built, somewhere in 1987. View Large View MediumPhoto © Fabrice Sanchez - Brussels Aviation Photography Durin
63 Flywithjohn : OK so how many total are still in the air?
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...
Why Was The 747-SP Developed? posted Tue Sep 27 2005 00:43:25 by PiedmontINT
Why Was The 747-300 A Dud? posted Fri Aug 11 2000 06:14:25 by N-156F
Why Was The 767-400 Sales So Low? posted Sat May 8 2004 00:40:47 by GREATANSETT
What Was Wrong With The 747-300? posted Sat Feb 16 2002 20:00:15 by Airplanetire
Why was the KAL 747 shot down? posted Tue Jan 19 1999 19:42:04 by dang
Why Was The 737 Original Built? posted Sat Nov 4 2006 20:28:05 by 747400sp
Where Are The 747-300 Of Corsair? posted Sat Oct 21 2006 23:41:03 by Gabypn1992
Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 08:54:25 by Baron95
Why Did The 757-300 Fail? posted Thu Jan 5 2006 23:32:34 by 1337Delta764
Why Was The MD 90 Family A Failure? posted Mon Oct 24 2005 02:47:18 by Georgiabill