Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
747 SP A Waste?  
User currently offlineAirForceOne From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 61 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4904 times:

Hi there I was just looking over the 747 SP. Do guys think it was a waste? like in money, material and fuel. I mean its kind of like the avro having something with four engines and a short range plane. what do you think about it?

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4887 times:

Quoting AirForceOne (Thread starter):
short range

The entire point of the SP was long range. It had pretty much the same fuel capacity but the tube had been shortened, saving deadweight, to that required for the payload-range targeted.

I think of it more as a stopgap. They sold a few copies before more fuel efficient airframes came along. It cannot compete in the world of the A-330/340 and so we get the 777.

P.S. Move this to Civil/Av and it will get hits ten times faster. You will just have to be more careful in sifting through them.

[Edited 2006-11-13 19:03:50]


Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4798 times:

When you say short range, are you maybe thinking of the 747SR? The SR was a short range variant for the Japanese market. The SP is a shrink of the -200 for the (then) ultra-long range market.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 1):
I think of it more as a stopgap. They sold a few copies before more fuel efficient airframes came along. It cannot compete in the world of the A-330/340 and so we get the 777.

Indeed. It should also be noted that the development costs of the SP were nowhere near those of an entirely new aircraft. So Boeing got a lot of bang for the buck if you will.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 1):
P.S. Move this to Civil/Av and it will get hits ten times faster. You will just have to be more careful in sifting through them.

Use a machete judiciously. Big grin



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4765 times:

Well, lets see.
747SP a waste?

Don't think so.

Name one other first generation wide-body jet transport that can accomplish a non-stop flight between KLAX and WBSB, all year around, even westbound?

The Sultan was pleased.


User currently offlineLimaNiner From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4673 times:

Quoting 411A (Reply 3):
The Sultan was pleased.

I thought the 747SP was built for SAA, because during the Apartheid years, no African country allowed them overflight/landing rights, so SAA had to fly over water on their South Africa-Europe routes. No?


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3501 posts, RR: 66
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4669 times:

It was very useful in keeping Pan Am (one of its primary customers) from buying an improved version of the DC-10.

It actually displaced the four engine version of the 7X7, back when that design study included 2, 3, and 4 engine configurations. The two engine version (767) was the only one that actually got built.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4665 times:

Yes, LimaNiner, SAA.
And PanAm.
And Saudi Arabian, for JED-JFK flights.

The Sultan had three, later on.
One for him, one for Prince Jeffery, and one for his sister.
The sister used hers for trans-Pacific and South American flights, and when told that she was not allowed a 4-engine airplane later on, an L1011-500 was considered, and almost leased, but then the fallout from the Miss World fiasco happened, and the entire Sultan's family was told to pull in their horns.
And, they did as they were told.
Even the house on Mulholland Drive in Hollywood was sold, complete with its 5 million dollar garage.


User currently offlineJetsGo From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3082 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4657 times:

I'm sorry, but where in the world does your young mind get such a false idea? The SP served is purpose very well. And it was a longer range 747 model, not shorter.  Yeah sure


Chris



Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2546 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4521 times:

Quoting LimaNiner (Reply 4):
I thought the 747SP was built for SAA, because during the Apartheid years, no African country allowed them overflight/landing rights, so SAA had to fly over water on their South Africa-Europe routes. No?

Not especially for SAA, it was built primarily for airlines like PanAm with long trans-Pacific routes. SAA were able (just) to make a non-stop London to Jo'burg flight without overflying other African states in a 747-200 by overfilling the tanks. Most of their European flights went via the Cape Verde islands.

Quoting AirForceOne (Thread starter):
I mean its kind of like the avro having something with four engines and a short range plane

Apart from the complete misunderstanding about the SP's range, I don't think AirForceOnes's implied criticism of the Avro RJ is helpful either. They used four engines because that was the thrust size available for the design. There were no suitable engines available for a twin design.

It seems for many on A.net, to paraphrase George Orwell, "Four Engines Bad, 2 Engines Good (but 3 Engines Best)".



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineBAe146QT From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 996 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4518 times:

Quote:
"Four Engines Bad, 2 Engines Good (but 3 Engines Best)".

I've noticed that. I think the 3-engine thing has more to do with aesthetics than any practical, engineering or efficiency factors though.



Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2546 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4506 times:

Quoting BAe146QT (Reply 9):
I think the 3-engine thing has more to do with aesthetics than any practical, engineering or efficiency factors though.

Exactly, this is A.net after all. However the same goes for two engine v four engine admiration. Something to do with having two big ones rather than four small ones.  Smile

Anything "tri-jet" seems to get people going, especially relating to the DC-10 for some strange reason.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineMD11Fanatic From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4492 times:

Well of course! How can you go wrong with three engines? Four is too many, two is not enough. Three is juuuuuuuust right.

User currently offlineSpeedracer1407 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4357 times:

I've posted this before, but it seems like an appropriate time to do it again.

If A.netters designed a plane, it would be a double decker trijet powered by GE-90s equipped with pusher props and after burners, canards, huge winglets on every horizontal surface, and a 4-post 6-wheel main landing gear, and possibly a small backwards-facing engine deployed only for reverse thrust. It would be controlled by sidesticks shaped like yokes, and would have a huge button in in the cockpit labeled "evelope protection OFF." It's primary mission would be dramatic takeoffs, huge climb rates and to fly at M .89 instead of .885. And the whole thing would be a retrofitted 50 year old design.



Dassault Mercure: the plane that has Boeing and Airbus shaking in their boots.
User currently offlineBAe146QT From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 996 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4355 times:

Quoting MD11Fanatic:
Four is too many, two is not enough. Three is juuuuuuuust right.

Heh. Goldilocks and the three engines.



Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos
User currently offlineJetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2687 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4350 times:

Quoting Speedracer1407 (Reply 12):
If A.netters designed a plane, it would be a double decker trijet powered by GE-90s equipped with pusher props and after burners, canards, huge winglets on every horizontal surface, and a 4-post 6-wheel main landing gear, and possibly a small backwards-facing engine deployed only for reverse thrust. It would be controlled by sidesticks shaped like yokes, and would have a huge button in in the cockpit labeled "evelope protection OFF." It's primary mission would be dramatic takeoffs, huge climb rates and to fly at M .89 instead of .885. And the whole thing would be a retrofitted 50 year old design.

Yes yes yes, but most importantly, would it be a Boeing or Airbus?



JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6698 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4345 times:

Quoting JetMech (Reply 14):
Yes yes yes, but most importantly, would it be a Boeing or Airbus?

No, Wright.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineSP90 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4269 times:

Quoting Speedracer1407 (Reply 12):
sidesticks shaped like yokes

How does this look like exactly?

Don't forget huge windows and 21" PTVs for everyone. Big grin

Are there still any 747SP flying around today?


User currently offlineBAe146QT From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 996 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4225 times:

Quoting SP90 (Reply 16):
Are there still any 747SP flying around today?

Yep.

http://www.747sp.com/



Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4197 times:

From a business standpoint, it was.

Quote:
Regardless of its apparent capabilities, the SP failed to attract many customers. Partially this was the result of continuous improvements in the -200B itself, which became possible for many of the long-range flights initially envisioned for the SP. The trijets from Douglas and Lockheed also attracted potential customers away from the SP.

Jenkins, Dennis R. Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP. AirlinerTech Series Vol 6. Specialty Press. North Branch: 2000.


User currently offlineSpeedracer1407 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4180 times:

Quoting JetMech (Reply 14):
Yes yes yes, but most importantly, would it be a Boeing or Airbus?

Lockheed. No one seems to have anything bad to say about them. Of course, Lockheed wouldn't build something so ridiculous, so Civ Av A.netters would have to pool their vast resources (they're all wildly successful CEO's, you know) to buy the name.



Dassault Mercure: the plane that has Boeing and Airbus shaking in their boots.
User currently offlineAirgypsy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 130 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4155 times:

BAe-146 was the four engine short range market champ. Became the Avro RJ-85/100. It NEVER got stuck out on some remote place. Four with one bad gets you three that will bring you home.
In the bad days PSA changed every engine every 30 days. It still made schedule and got home every night.
Tuff little bird.
Airgypsy


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4155 times:

Quoting Speedracer1407 (Reply 12):
If A.netters designed a plane, it would be a double decker trijet powered by GE-90s equipped with pusher props and after burners, canards, huge winglets on every horizontal surface, and a 4-post 6-wheel main landing gear, and possibly a small backwards-facing engine deployed only for reverse thrust. It would be controlled by sidesticks shaped like yokes, and would have a huge button in in the cockpit labeled "evelope protection OFF." It's primary mission would be dramatic takeoffs, huge climb rates and to fly at M .89 instead of .885. And the whole thing would be a retrofitted 50 year old design.

And don't forget, it must climb like a 757, use alternative fuels, have an attractive paint scheme, be usable by Southwest, revive Pan Am, be able to go to every airport where an A.netter lives, and have a direct line from every seat to the cockpit so they can tell the pilots where they are going wrong.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4155 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting Speedracer1407 (Reply 12):
and possibly a small backwards-facing engine deployed only for reverse thrust.

Absolutely spot-on.  bigthumbsup 

Oh, and it would definitely be usable in flight...



2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineAirForceOne From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4155 times:

Srry bout the short range thing i really meant long range  ashamed   ashamed 

User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3812 times:

If it was not for the 747sp, routes like LAX-SYD or LAX-HKG may not have happen, till the 90's.

25 AvConsultant : LMAO!!
26 Post contains images Jwenting : Not all aircraft designers are English At the time it was pretty much a necessity. 4 engines was becoming overkill due to increasing engine power, tw
27 BAe146QT : Historically that makes perfect sense, and I can see that as with so many aspects of design, observing the changes over time is a history lesson in it
28 Starlionblue : Also a triplet could have the wingspan of a twin with 50% more power. Usefu at the time for tight airports like LGA. I seem to recall LGA requirement
29 EssentialPowr : These kinds of topics come up from time to time... Airframers just don't wake up and put another subtype on the market. The have entire marketing depa
30 Flight152 : Does anyone have any links with technical information on the 747SP's systems and how they differed from early 747 models?
31 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Given that LockMart is currently a highly successful and profitable ongoing concern (militarily, at least) perhaps a cheaper and less complicated opt
32 N231YE : From the same book that I mentioned earlier, it lists some of differences between the SP and the 747. Some of these include single-slotted flaps to s
33 Post contains images TrijetsRMissed : Maybe not a waste but certainly not very successful, only 45 were built. Plus the 747-400 made the SP completely obsolete. Gotta love the trijets
34 EssentialPowr : 45 is certainly a significant number for a widebody derivative...
35 TrijetsRMissed : Significant? I would have to disagree. Significantly less than Boeing had hoped for is more like it. Forty-five orders is never a success when you fa
36 411A : Sorry, TrijetsRMissed, but you are truly misinformed. The -SP was solely designed for only a few operators, and achieved its expectation with regard t
37 EssentialPowr : How in the world do you know how much "time and money" were spent to develop the SP, or the net profit over its lifespan? That was my whole point...
38 TrijetsRMissed : Pan Am originally ordered 25 SP's, I don't think the mindset at that time was that only 20 more than that number would be built. Of course Pan Am nev
39 Rufruf : As Boeing dos , They built a shorty 747sp . Sp stands for special performance . They made a high performance aircraft out of a 747. Not for market. Go
40 Pilotaydin : god the 747 sp looked sexy in saudia colors!!!!! i miss those days lol
41 EssentialPowr : Good point. This is a technical forum, which means numbers and references count. Therefore: 1. What is your exact source that the -SP was not profita
42 EssentialPowr : Poor operating economics as compared to aircraft that weren't even available?? The 767 entered service in 82, the -400 in '80 and the 777 in '95 I th
43 EssentialPowr : edit... The -400 entered service in -89.
44 TrijetsRMissed : I was responding to a quote above that implied that the 747SP helped Boeing sell other widebody jets (non sps). Obviously the only real competitor at
45 2H4 : I'm not sure you can make such an all-encompassing statement like that without first defining the mission requirement(s).... 2H4
46 EssentialPowr : What exactly do you mean by "poor operating economics"? Seat mile cost? Trip costs? Depreciate rates? On comparable stage lengths for a 742, of cours
47 TrijetsRMissed : Your own website is the source of this information.
48 411A : Well, lets see. Trijets claims that the B747SP has poor operating economics, and this statement is true ONLY compared to other airline jet transports
49 BAe146QT : I'm nowhere near one of the experts in aviation that 411 refers to, for sure. However, in the early 90s, a certain computer manufacturer released a 1s
50 2H4 : No it isn't. 2H4
51 Blackbird : In regards to Speedracer1407's comment. If I was going to design a plane, I'd want to design a supersonic airliner, except I'd rather than wimp out at
52 Post contains links and images TrijetsRMissed : I am not crowning myself as an expert, you on the other hand... Seriously, there is no reason to get belligerent over this. The original post asked i
53 Post contains images 2H4 : Thanks, Trijets...I'm quite aware of that page. Again.....no, this website is most certainly NOT the source of information that defines the mission r
54 Rufruf : Maybe they should have called the SP.. a SO ...( Means SPECIAL ORDER ) If you have the money ... You get one ! It's a chopped 747 ? Performance was it
55 EssentialPowr : 411A, Pls read others' posts, notably mine at #46 to eliminate redundancy. cheers
56 747400sp : In the 80's the 747sp was the only airliner that could fly LAX-SYD or LAX-HKG non stop, not even the improve 747 200B could do that. So no the 747sp w
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 747 SP A Waste?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
747-SP, MD-11 posted Mon Mar 27 2006 10:48:09 by AR385
What's This Object On The 747-SP's Wing? posted Mon Feb 9 2004 22:04:40 by Mr Spaceman
747-400 Vs. 747 SP - What's The Diff? posted Fri Jul 27 2001 01:09:32 by Sonic99
What's the difference between the SP and other 747's? posted Mon Aug 9 2004 21:52:55 by T1210s
747-8 Cockpit posted Wed Nov 15 2006 13:49:43 by Trex8
Slat Retraction During Reverse Thrust? 747-400 posted Sun Nov 5 2006 00:29:24 by Ajaaron
Is Re-engining A 747-400 With Trent 500s Possible? posted Sat Nov 4 2006 22:59:28 by LTU932
Help! Any Good General Tips On 747-400F's posted Thu Oct 26 2006 04:47:09 by RJwrench85
747 Exhaust posted Sun Oct 22 2006 05:17:44 by Jawed
Max Payload On 747-400ERF Lower Than On 747-400F? posted Sat Oct 21 2006 21:03:30 by BA

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format