Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B747-400 VS B747-300  
User currently offlineYULYMX From Canada, joined May 2006, 977 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 10191 times:

Was spotting at YUL tonight and saw a Corair B747-300 and a AF 747-400 takeoff... on runaway 24L what is the difference between the 2 airplanes?

1- Lenght?
2- Engines?
3- range?

They both look similar but may be it was the color but the Corsair seems or look bigger...(longer) i don't think so...

I think that the 743 got a little bit more range than the regular 744 by about 700 nauticals miles???

i know Corsair fly with 2 class and 497 pax and AF with probably 3 class so less pax

Thanks for your help

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 10187 times:

They are the same exact length. The 744 has the winglets and also has an EFIS 2 man cockpit, vs 3 man in the 743. The 744's had new engines, though they were available for the 743 for part of its production, the 744 also further reduced fuel burn with better aerodynamics and increased use of weight saving materials. The 744 actually has a longer range than the 743.


"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineYULYMX From Canada, joined May 2006, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 10173 times:

Boeing site says: 7,700 statute miles for the 743 and 7,260 nautical miles

User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8690 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 10162 times:

Quoting YULYMX (Thread starter):
1- Lenght?
2- Engines?
3- range?

1.The 744 has a bigger upper deck. Both have the straight stair entry to upper deck.

2. The engines are diffrent at least for the early 300's. I know RG had the 400 series engines put on theirs. TG also has 400 series engines. CX, and Qantas had/have RR RB211 524D4 engines on their planes. JL, SQ had JT9D pratts on theirs. AI also has updated GE engines. LX had Pratts to. Its intresting to note that KLM had several 200 converted to SUD standard whcih made them 300's. They had the 200 series GE engines. I believe it was the CF650E2 that powered theirs.

3. Range: the 747-400 has the most range. The 300 ranges from 6100miles (CF6-50's) to 6700 (CF6-80's) miles. The RR and P&W fill the gap.

Hope this helps. Go to airliner data section of airliners.net

MCOflyer



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlineZK-NBT From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 5359 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 10147 times:

Quoting YULYMX (Reply 2):
Boeing site says: 7,700 statute miles for the 743 and 7,260 nautical miles

I'm not sure of the exact range but that is incorrect.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26702 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10107 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 1):
. The 744 actually has a longer range than the 743.

Significantly. The 743's range is just under that of the 742B, which is lower than either the 744 or 747SP



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAC320tech From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 197 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10071 times:

Not to mention the 744 has winglets.

User currently offlineDa man From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 887 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10028 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 5):
The 743's range is just under that of the 742B

Thats because the 743 just added the longer upper deck and sometimes different engines. Because no extra fuel could be carried than the 742B and the SUD added extra structural weight, the 743's range suffered at the expense of carrying more pax.



War Eagle!
User currently offlineCanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3393 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10013 times:

A -400 is basically a -300 with:
-More modern and efficient engines (more power less gas)
-A new, modern, 2-person flt deck (overall better, and 1 less crew member to pay)
-More fuel capacity (more range)
-Winglets (adds to both range and efficiency)
-Some aerodynamic improvements (again to make it more efficient)
-Structural improvements (to save weight)
-A few other minor improvements


CanadianNorth



What could possibly go wrong?
User currently offlinePulkovokiwi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10003 times:

Cabin wall panelling is a wee bit different as well.

User currently offlineYULYMX From Canada, joined May 2006, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9988 times:

anyone know the engine on the classic 747-300 of corsair?

User currently offlinePulkovokiwi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9988 times:

If its ex SQ it'll be a Pratt & Whitney.

User currently offlineYULYMX From Canada, joined May 2006, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9967 times:

Prtty sure it was F-GSKY

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20782 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9967 times:

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 3):
Its intresting to note that KLM had several 200 converted to SUD standard whcih made them 300's.

I don't believe they could simply stretch the upper deck and call it a -300, there were other differences between the classics and the later models.

KLM's were -200SUDs after modification, and even JAL had some -100SUDs delivered fresh from the factory with the longer upper deck already built into the frame.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineCaptaink From Mexico, joined May 2001, 5109 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9950 times:

What exactly are these aerodynamic changes? I thought it was just a matter of winglets, newer engines, upgraded avionics and lighter materials..


There is something special about planes....
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9897 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 13):
I don't believe they could simply stretch the upper deck and call it a -300, there were other differences between the classics and the later models.

The first 300s were in essence nothing more than a 200B with a stretched upper deck. There were some internal additions for the upper deck gally, but systems wise, it was identical. The MTOW was the same as a 200B, 830000lbs but the empty weight was higher as a result of the additional upper deck structure. Thus the payload was actually lower on the 300 than the 200B. Some of the later 300s produced took advantage of the introduction 400. There were aerodynamic refinements to the fuselage/wing area to reduce drag.

Quoting YULYMX (Reply 10):
anyone know the engine on the classic 747-300 of corsair?

JT9-7R4G2

Quoting Captaink (Reply 14):
What exactly are these aerodynamic changes? I thought it was just a matter of winglets, newer engines, upgraded avionics and lighter materials..

The 400 had a different wing/fuselage fairing that reduced drag and provided increased fuel efficiency. The LE devices were different than the classic. New engines offered PW 4000. In addition, the option of fuel in the horizontal stabilizer was an option. Increase in MTOW from 830,000lbs to 872,000lbs. Elimination of FE position and introduction of "glass cockpit". Several improvements in the cabin also.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20782 posts, RR: 62
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9859 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 15):
The first 300s were in essence nothing more than a 200B with a stretched upper deck. There were some internal additions for the upper deck gally, but systems wise, it was identical.

Ah, thanks for the correction. Perhaps you'd know the answer to this. I thought one of the things that made a -300 a true -300 vs. a -200SUD was that the longer upper deck contributed to a more aerodynamic shape, and thus a slightly higher cruise speed. Were the -200SUDs rerated for the higher cruise speed too, or is this a bit of muck I need to sweep out of my brain?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9800 times:

Both aircraft had the same VMO/MMO. So there was nothing to really do since the normal cruise MN was below the MMO.

The 300 cruised at .85, the 200B was about .843 and the 400 is just about .855-.86 depending on if you're going LRC or ECON Cruise.

The only difference between a 200SUD and the 300 was the 300 was certificated and built as a 300, while the 200SUD was built as a 200 and then re-worked to a SUD using a STC (supplemental type certificate).


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20782 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9782 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
Both aircraft had the same VMO/MMO. So there was nothing to really do since the normal cruise MN was below the MMO.

Great way to explain this, I'll remember it for the future. Much obliged.  thumbsup 



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineTexdravid From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9748 times:

The 300 was the big top. The 400 was and is the megatop. Hey, we just live in SQ's world!!

Otherwise, the 300 was not as successful, as the 200 and 400 were way more popular and sold more types, for the reasons as stated by other posters.

I only flew one trip on the 300, SQ's LAX-NRT-SIN and back in 1987. It was basically just a 200 with a longer top, but same engines, hence the lower range.



Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2397 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9709 times:

The late production 747-300s had the new 747-400 wing to body fairing, and had the new engines. RG and AI took delivery of these, and TG just has the 743 will only the new engines.

User currently offlineTod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1729 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9377 times:

Quoting YULYMX (Thread starter):
Corsair fly with 2 class and 497 pax

Corsair 747 seating is actually closer to 586.


Another 743 v. 744 difference:

743 = Old style "blue juice" lavs.
744 = vacuum waste system.

Tod


User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9338 times:

I can't believe no one has mentioned the B744 has a completely new wing complete with winglets. Meanwhile the B743 has exactly the same wing as the B742. Where do you think the additional aerodynamic efficiency has come from?


A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9278 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 22):
I can't believe no one has mentioned the B744 has a completely new wing complete with winglets. Meanwhile the B743 has exactly the same wing as the B742. Where do you think the additional aerodynamic efficiency has come from?

No, the 400 doesn't have a completely new wing! Due to the increase in MTOW the wing had to be lengthened. The airlines involved in the initial orders (NW & SQ) had a requirement that the footprint be the same as the 200. That's where the winglets came from.

The 400 has a much more efficient fuselage/wing fairing, that's where the wing joins the fuselage, that results in aerodynamic efficiencies. In addition, the leading edge was redesigned slightly.

One of the biggest drivers of the efficiency was the new engines. On the PW 744, compared to a PW 200B (7Q or 7R) there's about 2tonnes decrease in fuel burn for comparable weights. In fact, the 400 at MTOW (872,000lbs) will burn less than a 200B at MTOW (830,000lbs).


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 9199 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 23):
The 400 has a much more efficient fuselage/wing fairing, that's where the wing joins the fuselage, that results in aerodynamic efficiencies.

Which I believe was also introduced on later built 743s, while older 743s had the same wing to body fairing as the -200B and -100. I don't recall from which line number on the 743 had this new wing to body fairing though.


25 PhilSquares : As I already pointed out, the 300 and 400 lines were ongoing for a short period of time. During that time, the aerodynamic refinements were migrated
26 LTU932 : I didn't notice you already pointed that out. My apologies.
27 Geo772 : One of the changes to the wing was a whole new wing tip. This allowed for an additional leading edge flap on each wing. This wing tip could either hav
28 Post contains links and images Airimages : Just a comment: there are also 747-400s without winglets. View Large View Medium Photo © David James Clelford Cheers, Jerome[Edited 2006-08-07 20:51:
29 MCOflyer : 744D models specifly built for ANA and Japan Airlines. for short haul high desity route configs. ANA configured two of its D aircraft back to long ra
30 Post contains links and images Bh4007 : Compared to the 744&741 the -300 can be underpowered when fitted with the older powerplants - very slow climber when heavily loaded. View Large View M
31 Starlionblue : The 744 and the 743 have the same upper deck. The upper deck stretch was introduced with the 742 SUD conversions. The 300 did not sell as much becaus
32 Lufthansi : A very smart colleague of mine told me that some 743 have been converted and now have 2 man cockpits. He told me so while both of us where watching an
33 PhilSquares : Not so. No "classics" have been converted to 2 man cockpits. There is no such conversion available.
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...
747-400 Vs. 777-300 posted Wed Jun 9 1999 17:54:55 by Boeing747-400
B747-400 VS B747-300 posted Mon Aug 7 2006 03:27:39 by YULYMX
DL 767-200/300/400 Vs 777 MSY-ATL Route posted Sun Jan 25 2004 00:47:09 by Cmckeithen
Longest Schedule B747-200/300 Routes: Past/Present posted Mon Jul 28 2003 22:35:11 by Teahan
Airbus 330-200 VS A330-300 posted Mon Jun 5 2006 21:11:02 by YULYMX
Lufthansa A340-300 Vs A330-300 posted Sun Dec 4 2005 15:44:17 by Columba
737-400 Vs. 737-800 posted Fri Apr 29 2005 14:29:21 by NASCARAirforce
B777-200 VS B777-300 posted Wed Apr 6 2005 08:52:47 by AlitaliaMD11
VS's A340-300's posted Sat Oct 30 2004 22:49:07 by Wheelsatc
Ecconomics Of MD80 VS B737-300 posted Fri Aug 6 2004 21:56:58 by Sbe727