tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16269 times:
Quoting my1le (Thread starter): With the new 747-800 in production, what are the odds of seeing a new 747-8SP?
What would it be good for? The original SP was developed to overcome range issues in the original 747. Those issues are largely gone...especially once they reactivate the tail tank on the 747-8i, it's got enough range to do almost anything you could want to do. Put another way: who would buy it and why?
srbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16212 times:
The same chance as Boeing restarting the 757 line, none. The 747SP was a niche a/c and as technology improved the range of a/c, there was less of a need for the 747SP. Boeing did propose a new 747SP called the 747 ASB that would have used the technologies used in the 747-400 but with a shortened fuselage similar to the 747SP. No airlines were interested in it, as it was a niche a/c like the 747SP.
In this day and age, there are plenty of twin engine a/c that can do the same roles as the 747SP and carry more passengers and cargo.
cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8060 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 16043 times:
The SP only sold forty-five models, even airlines that could have really used it eg Japan Air Lines to fly New York to Japan nonstop, didn't buy it. Not a successful subtype, makes the current 747-8i look like a runaway success by comparison.
So who bought it? Iran Air to fly nonstop to NY and LA (LA never happened), Qantas to fly nonstop to California, Pan Am to fly nonstop to Sydney (although with the P&Ws as opposed to QF's RRs, it almost never made it without stopping in HNL) from LA and from New York to Bahrein and Riyadh, South African Airlines to fly around Africa in the days when they couldn't overfly the continent due to their government's racist policies, Saudia to fly nonstop to NY and Washington, Syrianair for the prestige of having a pair of 747s (they didn't need the range, the longest sector they ever flew was to LHR, five hours), one VIP machine to the Iraqi government and that's about it. Did Braniff buy new? Maybe they did. Then one or two others and of course some secondhand operators (Air Mauritius, Luxair, American, TWA, United, Corsair etc).
I flew Mandarin from Taipei to Sydney in 1994 and Iran Air CGN-CGN (enthusiasts' charter by Air Events) in 2004 and LHR-IKA on the very last bookable SP flight out of Heathrow in 2009 (the Iran Air schedule changed the next day to A300 and before it changed back, IR's 747s were banned from EU airspace). Wonderful aeroplane, the most exotic and interesting of all 747s.
Any other 747SP memories?
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
ElpinDAB From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 468 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 15981 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2): especially once they reactivate the tail tank on the 747-8i, it's got enough range to do almost anything you could want to do.
What does the tail tank provide?
How would a 744 length aircraft with 748 wings/engines look? It would basically be the -SP of the current generation, but depending upon how the range/performance looks, airlines might buy...744 or even 742 sized aircraft with -8 engines and wings. Would this have better payload/range than a 772LR? Would economics permit, after hypothetical demand is met?
btw, what length of upper deck would be most efficient for a -400 sized shrink of the -8? What upper deck length is most efficient for the -8?
AR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6137 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 15920 times:
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4): The SP only sold forty-five models, even airlines that could have really used it eg Japan Air Lines to fly New York to Japan nonstop, didn't buy it. Not a successful subtype, makes the current 747-8i look like a runaway success by comparison.
Weren´t the later versions of the 742 able to largely make up for the 747SP performance?
I flew it many times on AR´s MEX-LIM-EZE and MEX-EZE. Of course on LIM-EZE. It had a pretty sprightly take-off performance, specially when lifting off at MEX. Inside it felt a lot like being on a DC-10 rather than on a 747. When AR moved their F cabin upstairs, sometimes in the 80s the SP kept it in the nose. For me, who am a fan of the Premium services being on the nose of the 747 that was a neat feature. The 742 had a spiral staricase, while AR´s SP had a straight one, but I suppose that was merely a result of the fact that it was built to Braniff´s specification.
I also recall circling over EZE when arriving on the Southern winter months in the wee hours of the morning and EZE being closed due to fog. Other times we would have gone straight into MVD if flying on the 742, but the SP just circled around when EZE opened which was usually by 08AM.
It was a neat plane to be aboard, but I always preferred the 742.
fanofjets From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1963 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 15908 times:
Quoting srbmod (Reply 3): The 747SP was a niche a/c and as technology improved the range of a/c, there was less of a need for the 747SP.
It still is a niche aircraft, albeit with a very, very limited niche (given that plenty of A and B twins can do the same thing as Sutter's Balloon, in terms of range and payload). Four engines and a large fuselage, along with rock-bottom purchase prices make it good choice for scientific research and engineering applications:
Iran Air and Sands use the type because of the economic embargo, and they are still cheaper to fly than a -200 series, when there is a light load (and sometimes over long, thin routes, the aircraft's original intention):
An extra 3300 gal of fuel. Good for about another 400-500 nm.
Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 5): How would a 744 length aircraft with 748 wings/engines look? It would basically be the -SP of the current generation, but depending upon how the range/performance looks, airlines might buy...744 or even 742 sized aircraft with -8 engines and wings.
What would they buy it for that the -8 can't already do?
Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 5): Would this have better payload/range than a 772LR?
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7991 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 15425 times:
The chances of another 747SP is effectively zero. Remember, the original 747SP--which used the same engines as the 747-100--only had a range of 6,600 nautical miles, still less than the 777-200ER with is 7,200 nm range but similar pax/cargo capacity. Even fitted with modern engines, a 747SP would probably have a range of (probably) 7,400 nm, which is still less than what you get with the 777-300ER with its 7,800 nm range.
My favorite aircraft ever built, it's sexy looking, and had limited success. If I had offensive amounts of money, my first acquisition would be a 74L, refurbish to my liking and needs, then roam the world. I have taken pictures of every one I have ever seen at airports worldwide. My favorite liveries were, BN, SA, QF, TW were some of the best. Sigh, things change.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12902 posts, RR: 100
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 14887 times:
When I read the thread title, my first thought was "yea, its called the 77L/A345." The 747SP was a plane when long range was 6,650nm. That is a range now met by a large number of widebodies (A332, 788, 77E/77L/77W, 744/748i, A380, MD-11, A343/5/6, and at this hour I'm probably forgetting one or two). Heck, the 763ER almost has the 747SP range now!
And look at the 77L, due to its lower passenger volume, its desirability is far less than the 77W.
The range to not require a shrink. As already noted, 400 to 500nm more range.
If someone wants a big (non-777 or 787) to go long haul, they would want the A380R or a high MTOW 748i. Anyone who wants the cost per flight of a 748i will demand the payload. Otherwise, they could buy a 788 in two years and fly any route a 748SP could do.
United_fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7456 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 13888 times:
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4): So who bought it? Iran Air to fly nonstop to NY and LA (LA never happened), Qantas to fly nonstop to California, Pan Am to fly nonstop to Sydney (although with the P&Ws as opposed to QF's RRs, it almost never made it without stopping in HNL) from LA
Actually,QF ordered the -SP for flighte to Wllington,NZ. I never read about QF's -SP'S having trouble on LAX-SYD,it was PA's with the P&W JT9D's that had troubles.
'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
Flyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 523 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 13510 times:
Flew the Pan Am SP from LAX to SYD and on to MEL great aircraft to ride in and I guess at the time it was a great leap as far as long haul across the Pacific went, intead of the LAX/HNL/Nandie/SYD/MEL multable stops it was one stop LAX/SYD/MEL. Great looking aircraft. The chances of the SP making a come back are as good as Aeroflot bringing back an IL62 for their long haul flights ZERO!
strfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1090 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 12158 times:
one of the above photos is the NASA SOFIA flying telescope. That airplane is an EX Pan-American SP-21 and the former United 147UA Nose 8647 acquired with the Pan-AM Pacific Division in 1986. That Same airplane also held the Round the world Speed record breifly with Captain Clay Lacey commanding,. It was later Broken by Brooke Knapp in a stripped down flying Gas-can Gulfstream. The United Record carried 100 Pax and a freakin Mercedes Benz in the fwd Pit. ( the car sold for Mega Bucks)
beechnut From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 723 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 11984 times:
Arguably, the 747SP of today is the 777-200LR. Both are niche aircraft that fulfill a very limited and very similar market need. Both were/are extremely capable under the standards of their day, which means the 777-200LR is way more capable than a 747SP; and it only needs two engines to do it.
: Boeing itself made the SP redundant when they extended the range of the 742 and increased power on the engines. Suddenly you had an airplane with the
: Exactly. The much more capable later 742 models quickly made the SP obsolete and uneconomic, and largely explains why only 45 were built. I highly do
: Yes they did. They needed the range when they started flying to Asia as they did not have rights to Tokyo and had to operate via Seoul or Taipei, bot
: And TW bought theirs for flights to China that never were approved,too.
: 747SP was not a VLA. it was a mid-sized wide body with extended range. We have those. 777, A343, A350, 789.
: Lets not forget that when the SP was developed, ETOPS didn't exist. The L1011 and DC-10 had three engines instead of two for a reason, and the first w
: When is the definite date for the tail fuel tank of the 748i be activated? Is it a long process for Boeing? Once its a GO, I assume it will somehow he
: That is correct. I flew one from MNL-SYD several years ago and they kept in remarkable condition. By that time, 737's went to Wellington.
: They don't have a definite date as of yet, just some time in 2013. Chief project engineer Bruce Dickinson noted in November that the modifications ne
: There is no point in an aircraft that has more range than 10,500nm, as that would carry it half way around the earth, and hence could connect any two
: Did PA not fly non-stop to Tokyo back in the day? Clearly with the limited payload of the smaller 747SP it would not be financially smart to have the
: Iran Air SPs operate commercially they are not VIP aircraft like the others, yes they sometimes may have been used for VIP duty thats why the pics.
: What sank the final nail into the 747SP coffin was when when Pratt and Whitney made the JT9D-7Q engine or power plant available. It was a much more fu
: On Novembre 21 there was one 747 at TIJ from ambasadors of health or something like that, It surely made my diversion from LAX a lot more interesting.
: Can't shake the thought that Boeing would come up with this someday..... http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...2012/07/Mid-wing%20747-160757.html The
: The 747SP was largely considered a failure due to the number of examples that were sold. Unfortunately, unless Boeing turns the passenger version of t
: Indeed. Like the A388 today. It needs to turn into its fully fledged size, longer and with even more powerful engines.
: Is it just a case of needing more cowbell?
: I think TN should have some. Seriously, the chances are unfortunately close to zero.
: Put it another way: you are saying that we should shrink a 747-sized aircraft to extend its range. That's what the 747SP was; a shrink with longer ra
: I still am of the opinion the 777-200LR has sold poorly because almost everyone who wanted a 300-seat long-haul twin already had a 777-200ER in servic
: No, neither the DC-10-30, nor the L-1011-500 had that kind of range back then. The B-747SP was the long haul WB of its day. I think you mean the B-77
: My thoughts... there is a new 747SP called the 77L. Or consider it the A345. Either way, there is a plane in that niche that sold as well as the 747S
: By the way, the reason why Boeing stopped 747SP production was that Japan Airlines didn't want the 747SP, and JL insisted on 747-200B's with larger fu
: Somewhere between zero and nil. Kiwinlondon
: The B-747SP carried about 330 pax in a one class set-up. About the same as the B-77L (314) and A-345 (313) in a 3 class set-up.