Lobster From Germany, joined Oct 2008, 49 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1864 times:
So I was looking through pics the other day and came across the 747SP. Can someone tell my what purpose it had? Did it come before or after the 200 also? Thanks
LH492 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 208 posts, RR: 12 Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1842 times:
The 747SP (Special Performance) was originally designed as a shortened version of the 747-200B.
Boeing planned to equip the plane with two or three engines but that obviously did not come true. The 747SP became a light ultra-long-hauler which is capable of flying 15.800 kilometeres.
This is possible, since the fuselage is some 14 metres shorter compared to the 747-200.
Since 1975 there were only 44 frames build with the launch customer being Pan Am.
So, the 747SP was designed for extremely long routes and some airlines used it for high density routes even if they were quite short.
It came after the 747-200 and had it maiden flight at the 4th of July 1975.
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22024 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1836 times:
Pan Am has a requirement for an aircraft to be able to operate JFK-NRT nonstop. Boeings answer the B747SP.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 1782 times:
Quoting ShowerOfSparks (Reply 3): kind of like Q.A.N.T.A.S. wanting to operate SYD-LHR non stop.
B777SP anyone?
With today's economics, not a chance. The only way it will happen is if an airplane comes along that can do the route non-stop with useful payload and low CASM
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Andz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8298 posts, RR: 11 Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 1719 times:
SAA bought 6 in the 70s and used them on many long flights such as JNB-IAH and to Australia, the far east and Europe. I flew on it many times and it was a real rocket, one memorable flight was a jump seat JNB-DUR which is a 45 minute flight, we climbed to FL410! Another was a flight CPT-JNB which is a two hour flight and the SP did it that day in under 90 minutes.
There are still 2 SPs parked at JNB, one in full SAA colours (supposed to go to Rand Airport to join the museum) and an all-white one.
After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
Before embarking on the 777X project, which led to the 777-200LR, Boeing were looking at a 777-100X, which would have been a shortened 777-200 with consequent increase in range. As N1120A points above, this is not a good economic proposition, as it raises the CASM somewhat...
Actually, Qantas did use two 747SPs, which it deployed on routes to Wellington in New Zealand, where the runway was too short for a standard 747-200B, and on non-stop flights between Australia and the west coast of the USA, which beyond the 747-200B's range...
V/F
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
UK_Dispatcher From United Arab Emirates, joined Dec 2001, 2550 posts, RR: 33 Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1697 times:
I think the only two chances left for us to fly the B747SP are with Iran Air and Syrianair.
The only other flying examples I can think of are VIP versions.
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, RR: 50 Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1661 times:
The other thing I meant to point out - it is not a shortened 747-200, but actually a shortened 747-100. It also had single slotted flaps, instead of the triple slotted flaps on the -100 and -200...
Thecheese From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 172 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1575 times:
Also remember that, when the SP was designed and entered service, Russia didn't allow overflights of their airspace.
That dictated many of the routes between Europe and Asia, and a plane with long legs and a moderate payload was a boon to many airlines. It meant the difference between a 18-hour, one-stop trip (three crews) and a 15-hour, non-stop trip (two crews).
Then, of course, the USSR fell apart, and Russia allowed overflights by other airlines, and the 747SP days were numbered. When newer planes with better economics, it got relegated to the tertiary markets.
Personally, I think an SP would be a dandy flying mansion. But that's just me.
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5217 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 1519 times:
Quoting Thecheese (Reply 10): Also remember that, when the SP was designed and entered service, Russia didn't allow overflights of their airspace.
This is simpley NOT TRUE! Overflights of the USSR, on a highly controlled basis, of course, started before the 747 first flew. AI was flying DEL-SVO in the late 60 and JL commenced HND-SVO-LHR services and SK was operating CPH-Taskent-BKK about the same time, to name just a few.
BostonGuy From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 514 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 1483 times:
Gemuser,
The USSR didn't allow overflights of sensitive areas, and one of the most sensitive areas was the Kamchatka peninsula and the Soviet Naval Base at Vladivostok.
Certainly there were airlines flying to the USSR for quite some time, but "great circle routes" over the Pacific would have taken aircraft over parts of the USSR that were off-limits. KAL 007 strayed over this very area and was shot down, evidence of how sensitive the area was to the USSR.
And evidence of why the 747SP was needed in an era (late 70's) when long-haul flights were predominantly flown by 4-engine aircraft.
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5217 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 1409 times:
Quoting BostonGuy (Reply 12): The USSR didn't allow overflights of sensitive areas, and one of the most sensitive areas was the Kamchatka peninsula and the Soviet Naval Base at Vladivostok.
Certainly there were airlines flying to the USSR for quite some time, but "great circle routes" over the Pacific would have taken aircraft over parts of the USSR that were off-limits. KAL 007 strayed over this very area and was shot down, evidence of how sensitive the area was to the USSR.
The point is that Soviet overflight restrictions were NOT a great factor in the development of the B747SP. Great Circle overflights WERE allowed. They had to be along quite tightly defined corridors and avoid sensitive areas, of course, but they were NOT sufficiently irksome to the airlines of the time to prompt the development of the SP.
The KAL007 incident was because the over flight WAS UNAUTHORISED and IIRC went over some sensitive areas, as well.
.
Most if not all countries have sensative areas you can't fly over. Try flying over just the right spots in the Norfolk, VA area and see how fast you have jet fighters up your arse!
The SK route across the USSR from CPH to Taskent (technical stop) to BKK was an early example an overflight and was quite a feather in SKs cap in the early/mid 1960s. They and their governments did some great pioneering work on this route.
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Oct 2008, 49 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22024 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8298 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, 
From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3597 posts, 
From United Arab Emirates, joined Dec 2001, 2550 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5217 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
