747-600X
Topic Author
Posts: 2492
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2000 3:11 am

What Went Wrong With The 747-300?

Thu Apr 13, 2000 2:30 pm

I know this wasn't exactly the most popular jumbo jet in the world. In fact, I think it was the least of the 747s... but why?
 
exnonrev
Posts: 598
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 1999 4:26 am

RE: What Went Wrong With The 747-300?

Thu Apr 13, 2000 3:11 pm

It was simply a matter of bad timing. When the -300 came out, it was during a recessionary period in the industry. Also, the -400 was already under development and many airlines who would have bought the -300 held out for the -400.
 
ewr757
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

RE: What Went Wrong With The 747-300?

Thu Apr 13, 2000 7:23 pm



Also, the 300 is 2 exit doors short for FAA certification for a US carrier. That is why no US airlines fly the 747-300.

CO looked at buying some a while back, but it was to cost prohibitive to modify the airplanes for FAA compliance.
 
avion
Posts: 2126
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:28 am

RE: What Went Wrong With The 747-300?

Thu Apr 13, 2000 7:34 pm

Thats not true because the -300 has the same amount of doors as the -400. If the FAA didnt like the exit doors the aircraft would be allowed to carry passengers to/from the US. KLM and SR used the 747-300 to the US for 20 years.

Thanks

Avion
 
User avatar
DL_Mech
Posts: 2074
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 7:48 am

RE: What Went Wrong With The 747-300?

Thu Apr 13, 2000 8:39 pm

Maybe EWR757 was referring to the 747s that had their overwing exits deactivated in order to install more seats. BA,CX,KL and others deactivated some of their 742 and 743 exits.
This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
 
TriStar500
Posts: 4411
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 1999 9:50 pm

RE: What Went Wrong With The 747-300?

Thu Apr 13, 2000 8:45 pm

Additionally, the -300's range was shorter than the one of the later -200B variants, so many airlines stuck with the "Classic" or waited for the -400 with its vastly improved range.
Homer: Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
 
User avatar
N707PA
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2000 11:01 pm

RE: What Went Wrong With The 747-300?

Thu Apr 13, 2000 9:33 pm

Swissair and Singapore both had U.S. registered 747-300's. HB-IGE was N221GE and HB-IGF was N221GF.
 
dnalor
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 7:58 pm

RE: What Went Wrong With The 747-300?

Fri Apr 14, 2000 12:18 am

The 300 was the Classic, why would Boeing create a newer version that had less range than the 200???? Doesnt make sense, especially when we need to remember it would have had newer more efficient versions of the engines available.

Tristar500 if it did have a shorter range, I think you'd find the MGTOW was higher on the 300 than the 200 in certain variants, its always a copmromise.  
 
n949wp
Posts: 1398
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2000 3:45 pm

RE: What Went Wrong With The 747-300?

Fri Apr 14, 2000 12:37 am

The lengthened upper deck and all the associated structural strengthening adds over 9000 pounds to the weight of the airframe. Besides, the 743 did not benefit from the extensive use of newer and lighter materials (as in the 744). So it basically became a much heavier version of the 742 (albeit with considerable increase in passenger capacity), It is no secret that late model 742's out-range the 743.

'949
 
woodsboy
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 5:59 am

RE: What Went Wrong With The 747-300?

Fri Apr 14, 2000 12:47 am

The 743 was also designed with Japanese domestic operations in mind- high density, short range flights. I believe that the majority of 743s are in service in Japan although I should probably check the census to see if this is true.

Also, the 743 still utilized the tired old P&W JT9D turbofans which by the time the -300 went into service were way behind the technology curve of comparable RR or GE powerplants. I know, the other powerplants were available as well but maybe the JT9D being the "standard" turned customers away. Additionally it seemed like the 743 was transitional as it went into service in 1983 and the 744 came along only a few years later.
 
dnalor
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 7:58 pm

RE: What Went Wrong With The 747-300?

Fri Apr 14, 2000 12:47 am

like I said its all a compromise, but I'll check out boeing figures now
 
dnalor
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 7:58 pm

A Little More Info

Fri Apr 14, 2000 12:54 am

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747/facts.html

I think this makes the whole topic a non event now*L*

270 miles less range for an extra 40 odd pax
 
turbulence
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 1999 1:33 am

RE: What Went Wrong With The 747-300?

Fri Apr 14, 2000 2:49 am

I agree with TriStar500, with N949WP and Dnalor.
I saw a video about the history of the 747 from “before” the beginning. Actually, all the things said here are true:
The 743 is able for more pax than the 742.
But the extra weight makes it shorter able.
Actually, the 743 was, somehow (and with no offence intended) a kind of “bluff 742C”, after the 742B had done well. This is what the video explains. It is Made in U.S. and has the explanations of the man who “created” the 747 idea as widebody, as double-decker, etc. (Can't remember his name now)
The product 744 was made under the pressures of the companies wanting to “improve” the 742B in BOTH pax capacity and range.
Finally, altough the 744 is bigger and can carry more pax to longer distance, its “clear” weight is lower than that of the 743. (NOT the MTOW, which is quite higher -400 MTons-)

Best turbulences
 
exnonrev
Posts: 598
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 1999 4:26 am

RE: What Went Wrong With The 747-300?

Fri Apr 14, 2000 2:56 am

Another thing that cut into sales of the 743 was Boeing's stretched upper deck retrofit program. As with the new airframes, most 747 operators (KLM being a notable exception) decided to wait for the 744.











 
MAS777
Posts: 2757
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 7:40 am

RE: What Went Wrong With The 747-300?

Fri Apr 14, 2000 7:27 am

In terms of range - the 743 did actually have a longer range as Singapore Airlines introduced non-stop LHR-SIN flights with the 743 previously unattainable with the 742 - albeit the non-stop service only flew one-way (Eastwards) due to weather constraints flying west.

Many airlines who flew the 743 have actually done away with them - its probably because they were rather dated in terms of efficiency. MAS mistakedly purchased just the one aircraft which was used to launch its first USA service (to LAX) - the service was soon superceded with the more efficient 744.
 
Navion
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

Woodsboy,Pratt JT9D State Of The Art.

Fri Apr 14, 2000 7:46 am

Woodsboy, I wanted to point out an error in your post, namely when you say the JT9D was a "tired" old engine "behind the technology curve." Actually, the opposite is true. The 743 debuted the JT9D-7R4G/H. These engines were in fact state of the art at the time, and in fact had more changes to them than the CF6-50E's or the RB211-524C/D's at the time. The latter two were probably the least changed engines offered on the 743.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alfa164, anrec80, ba319-131, Baidu [Spider], bennett123, dennypayne, dk44, ei737ng, flydia, flyguy89, garpd, iadadd, JBH, LAX772LR, log0008, mstx44, santos, seahawk, SInGAPORE_AIR and 209 guests