Airplanetire From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, RR: 3 Posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1604 times:
What was wrong with the 747-300? I believe only 80 some were made adn that's not very many. What didn't airlines like about it?
AA717driver From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1566 posts, RR: 14 Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1562 times:
The -300 was followed almost immediately(in aircraft years) by the -400. I don't have the numbers, but I would imagine that the capabilities of the -400 far outweighed the additional cost.
I do know that TWA tried to replace it's -100's and -200's with ex-Saudia -300's and couldn't because the upper deck emergency exits did not conform to FAA requirements. Shame, 1996(the last year TWA really had a chance) might have gone very differently.TC
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1534 times:
The 743 entered service in 1983 while the 744 entered service in 1990.....so the 7-year gap was significant. The 743 was not immediately superceded by the 744.
The 742 was well-established & airlines found it easier to keep adding the 742 to their fleet than stepping up to the 743. The 743 also had less range than the 742.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Bacardi182 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1088 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1483 times:
the -300 also had a 3 man crew instead of the -400's 2 man flight crew.
Aamd11 From UK - Wales, joined Nov 2001, 1040 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1469 times:
It was mainly down to the fact the -300 was way off the range of the -200, i trhink about 1000nm with a full load, and that made it a little more expensive over longer routes.
The fact that a more advanced version was in the works, BA did consider 300s, but was told by boeing one year that a more advanced one was on the way, so they waited. im not sure about other airlines and why they didnt commit, if they did or didnt hear that news.
ATA L1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1361 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1435 times:
Yyz actually the 744 entered service in 1989 with NWA airlines.
Fanofjets From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1895 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1411 times:
On its own, the 743 isn't a bad aircraft. However, it doesn't always compare favorably with its predecessor (the 742) or its successor (the 744).
The 743's range is inferior to that of the 742, a problem for airlines operating the aircraft on very long-haul routes. The 743 is less well suited for carrying cargo because of the additional lower ceiling behind the forward hump (as compared to the 742). That's why dedicated 744 freighters have the 742's short hump.
The 744's advanced-technology engines offer much better fuel economy over those on the 742, which adds to a lot of fuel on a long flight. The 744's two-crew cockpit's advantages over the three-crew examples found on the classics are self-evident.
The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Mr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 23 Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1350 times:
Wonder if anyone could help me here too. Are the landing gears on the B743 exactly the same as the B744 or are the 44s' are strengthened? And the fuselage, are they the same?
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, 
From UK - Wales, joined Nov 2001, 1040 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
