flywithjohn
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:59 am

Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:28 pm

Why was the 747-300 so unpopular? What are some on the differences other then having a longer upper deck and what is different from it's sister ships -100 and -200?
Always Blue Sky's.....
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:37 pm

1500 miles less range for starters.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:37 pm

Quoting Flywithjohn (Thread starter):

Why was the 747-300 so unpopular? What are some on the differences other then having a longer upper deck and what is different from it's sister ships -100 and -200?

Basically, the 743 was a 742B with a longer upper deck. In that, it wasn't much of an improvement and most carriers already had large 742B fleets flying or on order. As it was, the 744 didn't follow that far behind and combined the greater capacity with significantly longer range and lower costs.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:37 pm

... maybe because it was only sold for a few years before the -400 came up?
 
vincewy
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:32 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:42 pm

The launch customer, Swissair, could only go as far as BOM in Asia using 743, the plane had to refuel and onward to HKG, MD11 improved with nonstop extending toward BKK.
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13072
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:51 pm

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 1):
1500 miles less range for starters.

Make that 200 statute miles (300 km less in metric system, though 200 miles are actually 320 km) less than the -200B, according to Boeing.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_classics.html

The 747-300 has a range of around 6890 nm, while the -200B has a range of 7055 nm. Boeing only lists the range of the 747 Classics in either kilometres or statute miles (while with the -400, they list it in both nautical miles and kilometres), so I roughly converted the figures in kilometres into nautical miles dividing by 1.8, so they could be inaccurate. The -400 has a range of 7260 nm (7214 nm for the Combi), while the -400ER can fly up to 7670 nm.
 
brightcedars
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:18 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:13 pm

Yes but there were several versions of the Boeing 747-300. Sabena for instance had 747-300s with the new body to wing design of the 747-400. And they flew BRU-NRT and BRU-JNB nonstop without much trouble most of the time.

Were there performance and range improvements during the life of the 747-300?

I remember they/some could even be retrofit with -400 winglets.
I want the European Union flag on airliners.net!
 
cricket
Posts: 2068
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:23 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:43 pm

AI ordered and still operates two 747-337M's, they were also the first GE-powered planes in AI's fleet. AI liked the planes - they were great as Combi's, better than the the 742 in such a role, because the passenger penalty was eased by the SUD. However, the planes did have a bad habit of going tech quite often, and two was all that AI ordered.
However, KL loved the -300 (they even converted some of their -200's to -300 spec)

Quoting BrightCedars (Reply 6):
I remember they/some could even be retrofit with -400 winglets.

I though the 400 had a completely different, redesigned wing with a longer span.
A300B2/B4/6R, A313, A319/320/321, A333, A343, A388, 737-2/3/4/7/8/9, 747-3/4, 772/2E/2L/3, E170/190, F70, CR2/7, 146-3,
 
jeffry747
Posts: 906
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:26 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:58 pm

Quoting Cricket (Reply 7):
I though the 400 had a completely different, redesigned wing with a longer span.

It does. The wingspan of a 742 is 195 ft, while a 744 is 211 ft. You can confirm this visually by counting the leading edge slat panels on both types. And then there is that "Wing to Body" design difference between the two.

Basically the biggest flaw and turnoff on the 743 was the fact that Boeing added the SUD, yet did not incorporate any other design changes to compensate for the added weight of the SUD. Thus, the range of 743 was reduced by approx. 1500 nautical miles.
C'mon Big B, FLY!
 
gunsontheroof
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:30 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:01 pm

Just to throw another question into the pot...have there been any carriers that have converted passenger 743s into freighters, or are unwanted passenger models simply scrapped?
 
User avatar
ZSOFN
Posts: 1379
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:20 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:13 pm

Quoting BrightCedars (Reply 6):
Yes but there were several versions of the Boeing 747-300. Sabena for instance had 747-300s with the new body to wing design of the 747-400. And they flew BRU-NRT and BRU-JNB nonstop without much trouble most of the time.

First I've heard of this - do you have any more details?
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:23 pm

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 9):
Just to throw another question into the pot...have there been any carriers that have converted passenger 743s into freighters, or are unwanted passenger models simply scrapped?

Yes, there are freighter versions of the 747-300 flying around:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © GSR
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Magnus Trippler

It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:36 pm

What is the difference between a B747-200 (SUD) and a B747-300?.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:42 pm

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 12):
What is the difference between a B747-200 (SUD) and a B747-300?.

The 742 SUD is a conversion of a regular 742B that was done after-market by Boeing
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:51 pm

That's what I wondered.

Thank you.
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13072
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:57 pm

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 12):
What is the difference between a B747-200 (SUD) and a B747-300?.

Basically none. The 747-200SUD has been retrofitted with the stretched upper deck, while the -300 had the SUD straight from the factory. Later in the production though, the -300 got the new wing fairing and it was even offered with the newer CF6-80 engines from General Electric. Only GE did this AFAIK, neither Pratt & Whitney nor Rolls Royce did something similar on the Dash 300.

Here an AI 743 with the newer 744 style wing fairing and CF6-80 engines.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Takko
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Darren Howie


And here a KL 743 with the old wing fairing and CF6-50 engines.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jordi Grife - Iberian Spotters
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © F. de Ruiter


In a way, you could say the later built 743s were kind of a testbed for the future 747-400.  Wink
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:01 pm

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 15):

There are also 4 CF6-80 powered 742Bs out there. All fly for the US Air Force
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13072
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:08 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 16):
There are also 4 CF6-80 powered 742Bs out there. All fly for the US Air Force

4? I thought it was only 2, the VC-25As, aka 747-2G4Bs (28000 and 29000). Though I do know of the US Air Force having ordered CF6-80 powered 747s as VIP transports (mainly as Air Force One), but unlike the -300s, those 747-200s the Air Force got also have the 744's EFIS Flightdeck and these modern 742s were never offered commercially to airlines AFAIK (unless we talk about the 744F, which is a 744 with the 742's fuselage, but that's it).
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:29 pm

Quoting BrightCedars (Reply 6):
I remember they/some could even be retrofit with -400 winglets.

Nope, there was never any retrofit of the 300 with 400 winglets. First of all the wing is slightly different and the LE devices are different on the 400 than the Classics.

One of the biggest drawback was the increase in empty weight of the 300 and no corresponding increase in the MTOW. So you had an aircraft that had a lower payload than the 200B.

Quoting BrightCedars (Reply 6):
Yes but there were several versions of the Boeing 747-300. Sabena for instance had 747-300s with the new body to wing design of the 747-400. And they flew BRU-NRT and BRU-JNB nonstop without much trouble most of the time.

Were there performance and range improvements during the life of the 747-300?

I'm not so sure about that. First of all, BRU-JNB is just over 10 hours, more like 10+25, so that's not a stretch for a 200 at all. The 300 would be stretched going from NRT-BRU with a full load in the winter time. There were no direct improvements on the 300, although the stretched upper deck did result in aerodynamic improvements (increase cruise speed to .855 or so), but you had 10 tonnes less payload on the 300 than you did on the 200, so that either came out of pax/cargo or fuel.

Bottom line is the 300 was a perfect fit for trans Atlantic flights for KLM and Swiss Air.

[Edited 2006-02-09 11:31:02]
Fly fast, live slow
 
User avatar
CCA
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 7:29 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:32 pm

The -300 was a simple solution to get more seats in the A/C for the airlines that wanted them that's all, most used current -200 engines and the -300 has the same fuel capacity and same MTOW as a -200 so there was no increase in range. It was popular for the airlines that wanted more seats but didn't need the range of the -200. Then of course as said the -400 was on offer just over 2 years after the -300 rolled out, which had aerodynamic improvements more fuel capacity, more fuel efficient engines and higher MTOW.

Now the wing to body fairing and the new stabilizer designed for the -400 were fitted to all 747s after line #703. Just evolution. Line number 703 LEFT and #704 RIGHT.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © William Jenkins
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Spijkers



[Edited 2006-02-09 11:43:38]
P1 in A330, A340, A346, B742, B744, B748.
 
Ned Kelly
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2001 8:14 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:41 pm

Did SAA operate the 743 LHR-JNB non-stop, & also JAL NRT-LHR with 743's?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:02 pm

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 17):
4? I thought it was only 2, the VC-25As, aka 747-2G4Bs (28000 and 29000). Though I do know of the US Air Force having ordered CF6-80 powered 747s as VIP transports (mainly as Air Force One), but unlike the -300s, those 747-200s the Air Force got also have the 744's EFIS Flightdeck and these modern 742s were never offered commercially to airlines AFAIK (unless we talk about the 744F, which is a 744 with the 742's fuselage, but that's it).

You left out the E4-Bs
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
jeffry747
Posts: 906
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:26 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:06 pm

Quoting CCA (Reply 19):
the new stabilizer designed for the -400 were fitted to all 747s after line #703.

Are you refering to the vertical stabilizer or the horizontal? And what exactly is the difference between the old and the new?
C'mon Big B, FLY!
 
User avatar
ZSOFN
Posts: 1379
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:20 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:18 pm

Quoting Ned Kelly (Reply 20):
Did SAA operate the 743 LHR-JNB non-stop, & also JAL NRT-LHR with 743's?

I remember flying on a couple of occasions on 743s LHR - JNB nonstop - that was a certainty.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Clements - MC Aviation Images.



And JAL:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Morley



Don't know for sure if it was direct but I believe it was.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:22 pm

Quoting Jeffry747 (Reply 22):
Are you refering to the vertical stabilizer or the horizontal? And what exactly is the difference between the old and the new?

Vertical, and it allows a nice sized tail tank in the 744.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
ZSOFN
Posts: 1379
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:20 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:25 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 24):

Vertical, and it allows a nice sized tail tank in the 744.

Is the shape any different?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:33 pm

Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 25):
Is the shape any different?

Compare those pics of 703 and 704 above. I believe the 744 stab is more sloped than the Classic one
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Oykie
Posts: 1565
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:34 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 13):
The 742 SUD is a conversion of a regular 742B that was done after-market by Boeing

Isn't this a major rework of an existing airplane? I would believe that would be very expensive for only adding a few more passengers and perhaps increase cruise speed.

In my not so technical knowledge, it should not be that more expensive to redo the wings, so it would be similar to the 747-400 and perhaps new engines as well?
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
StarGoldLHR
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:29 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:35 pm

How many 747-300's were built then ?
So far in 2008 45 flights and Gold already. JFK, IAD, LGA, SIN, HKG, NRT, AKL, PPT, LAX still to book ! Home Airport LCY
 
RAFVC10
Posts: 1344
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 9:48 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:38 pm

Pullmantur Air still operates Boeing 747-300 to leisure destinations as HAV, CUN, PVR,...

Great aircraft for a charter airlines.
El dia que los gilipollas vuelen, no podremos ver la luz del sol!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:38 pm

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 27):
Isn't this a major rework of an existing airplane? I would believe that would be very expensive for only adding a few more passengers and perhaps increase cruise speed.

Well, it was cheap enough that KLM ordered it and flew them for years

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 27):
In my not so technical knowledge, it should not be that more expensive to redo the wings, so it would be similar to the 747-400 and perhaps new engines as well?

Wings are much more complicated than a fuselage, particularly when you consider what it takes to fasten them into the wing box
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
CCA
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 7:29 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:45 pm

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 17):
Though I do know of the US Air Force having ordered CF6-80 powered 747s as VIP transports (mainly as Air Force One), but unlike the -300s, those 747-200s the Air Force got also have the 744's EFIS Flightdeck and these modern 742s were never offered commercially to airlines AFAIK

The last time I saw AF1 on TV it had an EFIS but I wouldn't say a 744 EFIS flight deck, it's very close to this.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Finney



[Edited 2006-02-09 12:48:30]
P1 in A330, A340, A346, B742, B744, B748.
 
kiwiandrew

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:45 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
Well, it was cheap enough that KLM ordered it and flew them for years

UTA had a couple converted as well IIRC ... I am pretty sure that KL and UT were the only customers for the conversion
 
Thai A330
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2000 2:55 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:46 pm

Remind me of TG 743. I feel sad as TG only have 2 in its type. They will retire them soon.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:48 pm

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 32):
UTA had a couple converted as well IIRC ... I am pretty sure that KL and UT were the only customers for the conversion

I think KL did it for fleet standardization more than anything.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Webby
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:57 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:57 pm

QF also still operate 743 to PHNL and the economy class cabins have recently been upgraded... in fact i will be on board one of them next week YSSY-PHNL


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gabriel Savit



[Edited 2006-02-09 15:58:05]
 
fraspotter
Posts: 1972
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 8:12 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:35 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 13):
The 742 SUD is a conversion of a regular 742B that was done after-market by Boeing

I think that these were only done to KLM planes to give them the same capacity of their 743s...
"Drunk drivers run stop signs. Stoners wait for them to turn green."
 
User avatar
CCA
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 7:29 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:56 am

Quoting Jeffry747 (Reply 22):
Are you referring to the vertical stabilizer or the horizontal? And what exactly is the difference between the old and the new?



Quoting N1120A (Reply 24):
Quoting Jeffry747 (Reply 22):Are you referring to the vertical stabilizer or the horizontal? And what exactly is the difference between the old and the new?
Vertical, and it allows a nice sized tail tank in the 744.

Sorry missed these, it's the Horizontal stabilizer that is different.

The pre -400 design had cables running through the inside of the stabilizer from the I/B elevator to the opposite side O/B elevator.

Now the -400 design as we know has fuel in the horizontal stabilizer so the cables had to be removed and also plumbing and associated fittings had to be installed, so the -400 design stabs have the cables now running outside the tank along the rear spar from the I/B elevator to it's onside O/B elevator, the classics after #703 and probably all -400Fs have blanks fitted where the fuel pluming would normally be. A result of the new cable runs led to a modification of the hydraulic systems which power the I/B elevators.

As a side note only a few years ago on new build -400s there was some reprofiling done on the fillet where the vertical stab joins the fuselage but it's hard to spot, there is no change to the "slope" or structure, it's just a mod like the fillet at the wing root it probably may be available to the remaining 747s as a service bulletin.

And finally a total of 81, -300s were built between Jan '83 - Sep '90.

[Edited 2006-02-09 17:11:55]
P1 in A330, A340, A346, B742, B744, B748.
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:12 am

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 15):
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 12):
What is the difference between a B747-200 (SUD) and a B747-300?.

Basically none. The 747-200SUD has been retrofitted with the stretched upper deck, while the -300 had the SUD straight from the factory. Later in the production though, the -300 got the new wing fairing and it was even offered with the newer CF6-80 engines from General Electric. Only GE did this AFAIK, neither Pratt & Whitney nor Rolls Royce did something similar on the Dash 300.

Here an AI 743 with the newer 744 style wing fairing and CF6-80 engines.

CX has RR RB211 powered 743s.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
iowa744fan
Posts: 906
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 1:31 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:44 am

Quoting Flywithjohn (Thread starter):
Why was the 747-300 so unpopular?

Largely the same reason that the 747SP wasn't too popular. You gained room for additional passengers, but lost quite a bit of range....versus the 747SP where you lost payload but gained range. Plus, the SP was sort of a niche market aircraft at the time.

When the 744 was announced just a few years after the 743 (a bit later after the 747SP), you had an aircraft that had the additional pax space and payload of the 743 and the additional range of the 747SP (well, still a bit less than the SP from what I remember, but additional range over the 742 and 743).

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 38):
CX has RR RB211 powered 743s.

Make that CX had RR RB211 powered 743s. Most of those are now operated by PIA (PK) now.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:49 am

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 17):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 16):
There are also 4 CF6-80 powered 742Bs out there. All fly for the US Air Force

4? I thought it was only 2, the VC-25As, aka 747-2G4Bs (28000 and 29000). Though I do know of the US Air Force having ordered CF6-80 powered 747s as VIP transports (mainly as Air Force One), but unlike the -300s, those 747-200s the Air Force got also have the 744's EFIS Flightdeck and these modern 742s were never offered commercially to airlines AFAIK (unless we talk about the 744F, which is a 744 with the 742's fuselage, but that's it).

There are four E-4Bs (if they're all still in service) and two VC-25s, so that would make six. However the VC-25s partially supplanted the E-4Bs so maybe a couple have been retired.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:10 am

Quoting Iowa744Fan (Reply 39):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 38):
CX has RR RB211 powered 743s.

Make that CX had RR RB211 powered 743s. Most of those are now operated by PIA (PK) now.

They have cargo 743s that are Rolls Powered I think.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:30 am

Quoting CCA (Reply 31):
The last time I saw AF1 on TV it had an EFIS but I wouldn't say a 744 EFIS flight deck, it's very close to this.

Based on the description of an VC-25A crewer I know, I that it looks somewhat like the cockpit of a 757 these days--a lot more glass than a typical 200, but not a 747-400. It also has four crew members in the cokpit--Pilot, Copilot, Flight Engineer, and Navigator. Several other crew are required for the electronics, defense, and communications systems.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
N501US
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:51 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:44 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 40):
There are four E-4Bs (if they're all still in service) and two VC-25s, so that would make six. However the VC-25s partially supplanted the E-4Bs so maybe a couple have been retired.

The E-4B and VC-25's do not share day to day missions. You will find the VC-25s at Andrews AFB and the E-4Bs (referred to as NAOC) at Offutt AFB, NE. As far as I know there are still 4 E-4Bs (although they cycle one through depot) in service.

Always a treat to see them doing touch and gos!
Fools and thieves are well disguised in the temple and the marketplace.....
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Fri Feb 10, 2006 3:53 am

Quoting N501US (Reply 43):
The E-4B and VC-25's do not share day to day missions

Agreed. But (as a far as I know) when there were just E-4s and VC-137s (707 Presidential Aircraft) the E-4 could do much more than the VC-137. With the VC-25s, much can be done on them (such as comms) that was previously only possible on the E-4s.

I also know Presidential Flight pilots prefer to train air to air refueling on the E-4Bs since scratching the nose doesn't mean a mandatory trip to the paintshop.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
lijnden
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 1:34 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Fri Feb 10, 2006 3:54 am

Reply 30:

Quote:
Well, it was cheap enough that KLM ordered it and flew them for years

(conversion from the humps)

KLM got the conversion deal to make the 747-200's into SUD's after they decided to take the B737 as a replacement for the DC-9's. With KLM being historically always a Douglas client, this was a major achievement for Boeing.

KLM/Boeing deal: (fiction?)
KLM: We will buy 20 B737-300/400 instead of MD-80's if you SUD our existing B747 fleet!
Boeing: OK, but in the next 5 years you must also replace your A310's with B767-300ER and we will add a brand new B747-300 combi for free!

I have flown the 742SUD and 743 many times on long flights like AMS>LAX (always a full flight). I actually thought that the design of the strechted hump made the airflow have less resistance, thus making the planes more fuel efficient? The problem with the 747-200SUD and 747-300 was the 3 man cockpit and the high dollar at that time of Reaganomics.
Be kind to animals! Next trip: ORF-ORD-NRT-IAH-ORF
 
Amy
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:48 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:10 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 13):

The 742 SUD is a conversion of a regular 742B that was done after-market by Boeing

I was under the impression that the 747-200B/SUDs (used by KLM and AF?) and the 747-100SR/SUDs (JAL) were infact manufactured with the SUD and this was not a conversion.

Also, I believe there are a few CF6-80 747-200Fs or SFs flying asround that are not USAF.
A340-300 - slow, but awesome!
 
iowa744fan
Posts: 906
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 1:31 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:13 am

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 41):
They have cargo 743s that are Rolls Powered I think.

They have at least one (and more on the way) RR powered 744 freighters. Dragonair has at least three cargo 743s, but they are not RR powered birds.
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:46 am

"The last time I saw AF1 on TV it had an EFIS but I wouldn't say a 744 EFIS flight deck, it's very close to this."

IIRC, SAM 28000 & 29000 have EFIS instrumentation. However, both have standard (non-CRT/EICAS) engine gauges and a FE and navigator.

744s have PFD/ND (Primary Flight Display/Navigation Display) instruments.
Ain't I a stinker?
 
User avatar
CCA
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 7:29 pm

RE: Why Was The 747-300 So Unpopular

Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:30 am

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 48):
IIRC, SAM 28000 & 29000 have EFIS instrumentation. However, both have standard (non-CRT/EICAS) engine gauges and a FE and navigator.

744s have PFD/ND (Primary Flight Display/Navigation Display) instruments.

I'm confused  Confused isn't that what I said in reply 31?
P1 in A330, A340, A346, B742, B744, B748.

Who is online