YULYMX
Topic Author
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 10:53 pm

B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:27 am

Was spotting at YUL tonight and saw a Corair B747-300 and a AF 747-400 takeoff... on runaway 24L what is the difference between the 2 airplanes?

1- Lenght?
2- Engines?
3- range?

They both look similar but may be it was the color but the Corsair seems or look bigger...(longer) i don't think so...

I think that the 743 got a little bit more range than the regular 744 by about 700 nauticals miles???

i know Corsair fly with 2 class and 497 pax and AF with probably 3 class so less pax

Thanks for your help
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:32 am

They are the same exact length. The 744 has the winglets and also has an EFIS 2 man cockpit, vs 3 man in the 743. The 744's had new engines, though they were available for the 743 for part of its production, the 744 also further reduced fuel burn with better aerodynamics and increased use of weight saving materials. The 744 actually has a longer range than the 743.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
YULYMX
Topic Author
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 10:53 pm

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:36 am

Boeing site says: 7,700 statute miles for the 743 and 7,260 nautical miles
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7068
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:41 am

Quoting YULYMX (Thread starter):
1- Lenght?
2- Engines?
3- range?

1.The 744 has a bigger upper deck. Both have the straight stair entry to upper deck.

2. The engines are diffrent at least for the early 300's. I know RG had the 400 series engines put on theirs. TG also has 400 series engines. CX, and Qantas had/have RR RB211 524D4 engines on their planes. JL, SQ had JT9D pratts on theirs. AI also has updated GE engines. LX had Pratts to. Its intresting to note that KLM had several 200 converted to SUD standard whcih made them 300's. They had the 200 series GE engines. I believe it was the CF650E2 that powered theirs.

3. Range: the 747-400 has the most range. The 300 ranges from 6100miles (CF6-50's) to 6700 (CF6-80's) miles. The RR and P&W fill the gap.

Hope this helps. Go to airliner data section of airliners.net

MCOflyer
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 4870
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:49 am

Quoting YULYMX (Reply 2):
Boeing site says: 7,700 statute miles for the 743 and 7,260 nautical miles

I'm not sure of the exact range but that is incorrect.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:58 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 1):
. The 744 actually has a longer range than the 743.

Significantly. The 743's range is just under that of the 742B, which is lower than either the 744 or 747SP
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
AC320tech
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:32 am

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:13 am

Not to mention the 744 has winglets.
 
da man
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:27 am

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:29 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 5):
The 743's range is just under that of the 742B

Thats because the 743 just added the longer upper deck and sometimes different engines. Because no extra fuel could be carried than the 742B and the SUD added extra structural weight, the 743's range suffered at the expense of carrying more pax.
War Eagle!
 
CanadianNorth
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:35 am

A -400 is basically a -300 with:
-More modern and efficient engines (more power less gas)
-A new, modern, 2-person flt deck (overall better, and 1 less crew member to pay)
-More fuel capacity (more range)
-Winglets (adds to both range and efficiency)
-Some aerodynamic improvements (again to make it more efficient)
-Structural improvements (to save weight)
-A few other minor improvements


CanadianNorth
What could possibly go wrong?
 
Pulkovokiwi
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:17 pm

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:38 am

Cabin wall panelling is a wee bit different as well.
I thought I was wrong but I was only joking!
 
YULYMX
Topic Author
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 10:53 pm

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:39 am

anyone know the engine on the classic 747-300 of corsair?
 
Pulkovokiwi
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:17 pm

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:41 am

If its ex SQ it'll be a Pratt & Whitney.
I thought I was wrong but I was only joking!
 
YULYMX
Topic Author
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 10:53 pm

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:46 am

Prtty sure it was F-GSKY
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:46 am

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 3):
Its intresting to note that KLM had several 200 converted to SUD standard whcih made them 300's.

I don't believe they could simply stretch the upper deck and call it a -300, there were other differences between the classics and the later models.

KLM's were -200SUDs after modification, and even JAL had some -100SUDs delivered fresh from the factory with the longer upper deck already built into the frame.
International Homo of Mystery
 
captaink
Posts: 3987
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 10:43 am

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:50 am

What exactly are these aerodynamic changes? I thought it was just a matter of winglets, newer engines, upgraded avionics and lighter materials..
There is something special about planes....
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:03 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 13):
I don't believe they could simply stretch the upper deck and call it a -300, there were other differences between the classics and the later models.

The first 300s were in essence nothing more than a 200B with a stretched upper deck. There were some internal additions for the upper deck gally, but systems wise, it was identical. The MTOW was the same as a 200B, 830000lbs but the empty weight was higher as a result of the additional upper deck structure. Thus the payload was actually lower on the 300 than the 200B. Some of the later 300s produced took advantage of the introduction 400. There were aerodynamic refinements to the fuselage/wing area to reduce drag.

Quoting YULYMX (Reply 10):
anyone know the engine on the classic 747-300 of corsair?

JT9-7R4G2

Quoting Captaink (Reply 14):
What exactly are these aerodynamic changes? I thought it was just a matter of winglets, newer engines, upgraded avionics and lighter materials..

The 400 had a different wing/fuselage fairing that reduced drag and provided increased fuel efficiency. The LE devices were different than the classic. New engines offered PW 4000. In addition, the option of fuel in the horizontal stabilizer was an option. Increase in MTOW from 830,000lbs to 872,000lbs. Elimination of FE position and introduction of "glass cockpit". Several improvements in the cabin also.
Fly fast, live slow
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:31 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 15):
The first 300s were in essence nothing more than a 200B with a stretched upper deck. There were some internal additions for the upper deck gally, but systems wise, it was identical.

Ah, thanks for the correction. Perhaps you'd know the answer to this. I thought one of the things that made a -300 a true -300 vs. a -200SUD was that the longer upper deck contributed to a more aerodynamic shape, and thus a slightly higher cruise speed. Were the -200SUDs rerated for the higher cruise speed too, or is this a bit of muck I need to sweep out of my brain?
International Homo of Mystery
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:48 pm

Both aircraft had the same VMO/MMO. So there was nothing to really do since the normal cruise MN was below the MMO.

The 300 cruised at .85, the 200B was about .843 and the 400 is just about .855-.86 depending on if you're going LRC or ECON Cruise.

The only difference between a 200SUD and the 300 was the 300 was certificated and built as a 300, while the 200SUD was built as a 200 and then re-worked to a SUD using a STC (supplemental type certificate).
Fly fast, live slow
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:59 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
Both aircraft had the same VMO/MMO. So there was nothing to really do since the normal cruise MN was below the MMO.

Great way to explain this, I'll remember it for the future. Much obliged.  thumbsup 
International Homo of Mystery
 
texdravid
Posts: 1394
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:12 pm

The 300 was the big top. The 400 was and is the megatop. Hey, we just live in SQ's world!!

Otherwise, the 300 was not as successful, as the 200 and 400 were way more popular and sold more types, for the reasons as stated by other posters.

I only flew one trip on the 300, SQ's LAX-NRT-SIN and back in 1987. It was basically just a 200 with a longer top, but same engines, hence the lower range.
Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2085
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:34 pm

The late production 747-300s had the new 747-400 wing to body fairing, and had the new engines. RG and AI took delivery of these, and TG just has the 743 will only the new engines.
 
Tod
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:51 am

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:12 pm

Quoting YULYMX (Thread starter):
Corsair fly with 2 class and 497 pax

Corsair 747 seating is actually closer to 586.


Another 743 v. 744 difference:

743 = Old style "blue juice" lavs.
744 = vacuum waste system.

Tod
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:25 pm

I can't believe no one has mentioned the B744 has a completely new wing complete with winglets. Meanwhile the B743 has exactly the same wing as the B742. Where do you think the additional aerodynamic efficiency has come from?
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:51 pm

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 22):
I can't believe no one has mentioned the B744 has a completely new wing complete with winglets. Meanwhile the B743 has exactly the same wing as the B742. Where do you think the additional aerodynamic efficiency has come from?

No, the 400 doesn't have a completely new wing! Due to the increase in MTOW the wing had to be lengthened. The airlines involved in the initial orders (NW & SQ) had a requirement that the footprint be the same as the 200. That's where the winglets came from.

The 400 has a much more efficient fuselage/wing fairing, that's where the wing joins the fuselage, that results in aerodynamic efficiencies. In addition, the leading edge was redesigned slightly.

One of the biggest drivers of the efficiency was the new engines. On the PW 744, compared to a PW 200B (7Q or 7R) there's about 2tonnes decrease in fuel burn for comparable weights. In fact, the 400 at MTOW (872,000lbs) will burn less than a 200B at MTOW (830,000lbs).
Fly fast, live slow
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13069
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:23 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 23):
The 400 has a much more efficient fuselage/wing fairing, that's where the wing joins the fuselage, that results in aerodynamic efficiencies.

Which I believe was also introduced on later built 743s, while older 743s had the same wing to body fairing as the -200B and -100. I don't recall from which line number on the 743 had this new wing to body fairing though.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:12 am

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 24):
Which I believe was also introduced on later built 743s, while older 743s had the same wing to body fairing as the -200B and -100. I don't recall from which line number on the 743 had this new wing to body fairing though.



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 15):
Some of the later 300s produced took advantage of the introduction 400. There were aerodynamic refinements to the fuselage/wing area to reduce drag.

As I already pointed out, the 300 and 400 lines were ongoing for a short period of time. During that time, the aerodynamic refinements were migrated to the 300.
Fly fast, live slow
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13069
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:15 am

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 25):
As I already pointed out, the 300 and 400 lines were ongoing for a short period of time. During that time, the aerodynamic refinements were migrated to the 300.

I didn't notice you already pointed that out. My apologies.
 
Geo772
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:40 pm

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:26 am

One of the changes to the wing was a whole new wing tip. This allowed for an additional leading edge flap on each wing. This wing tip could either have a winglet or not in the case of the 400D series.

Of the systems that were new - there was a huge revamp of the entire avionics suite including a Central maintenance computing system - which improves maintenance costs by making troubleshooting simpler.
Also more advanced flight computers, autopilots and navigational equipment was used, reducing system complexity and wiring.

The HF radio antennas on the 300 were changed from rod type on the wing tip to a slot type antenna on the leading edge of the fin. This reduced drag and weight.

The Air conditioning packs were changed and made more efficient. A new APU with self monitoring was used, with associated fuel burn improvements. It also has the ability to run all 3 packs on the ground in a high flow state or start 2 engines simultaneously.

The list could go on, but together the various improvements are some of the reasons why the 744 is such a successful aircraft and the 743 only a modest success.

Let us hope that the 748 shows the same quantum improvement again.
Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
 
Airimages
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:13 am

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:46 am

Just a comment: there are also 747-400s without winglets.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David James Clelford



Cheers,

Jerome

[Edited 2006-08-07 20:51:39]
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7068
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:04 am

Quoting Airimages (Reply 28):
747-400s without winglets.

744D models specifly built for ANA and Japan Airlines. for short haul high desity route configs.

ANA configured two of its D aircraft back to long range standards.

MCOflyer
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
bh4007
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:19 am

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:29 am

Compared to the 744&741 the -300 can be underpowered when fitted with the older powerplants - very slow climber when heavily loaded.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stuart Prince

 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17055
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:51 am

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 3):

1.The 744 has a bigger upper deck. Both have the straight stair entry to upper deck.

The 744 and the 743 have the same upper deck. The upper deck stretch was introduced with the 742 SUD conversions.

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 19):
Otherwise, the 300 was not as successful, as the 200 and 400 were way more popular and sold more types, for the reasons as stated by other posters.

The 300 did not sell as much because it was around for only a short time between the end of the 200 and the introduction of the much improved 400.

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 22):
I can't believe no one has mentioned the B744 has a completely new wing complete with winglets. Meanwhile the B743 has exactly the same wing as the B742. Where do you think the additional aerodynamic efficiency has come from?

As has been mentioned, the wing is certainly not new. Tweaked would be the word I use.

Quoting Airimages (Reply 28):
Just a comment: there are also 747-400s without winglets.

The D variant has no winglets because the weight penalty outweighs the savings on shorter flights.


The is also a 744 variant with the original 741/742 short upper deck: the freighter. This does not include conversions of course.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
lufthansi
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 12:26 am

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:35 am

A very smart colleague of mine told me that some 743 have been converted and now have 2 man cockpits. He told me so while both of us where watching an Air Angola 743 passing bye.
Life starts at take-off!
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: B747-400 VS B747-300

Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:43 am

Quoting Lufthansi (Reply 32):
A very smart colleague of mine told me that some 743 have been converted and now have 2 man cockpits. He told me so while both of us where watching an Air Angola 743 passing bye.

Not so. No "classics" have been converted to 2 man cockpits. There is no such conversion available.
Fly fast, live slow

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anomalix, Baidu [Spider], blink182, bw50505, cc47, Dutchy, exFWAOONW, Flyduane, Google Adsense [Bot], iamlucky13, Jal1975, jking629, keesje, klm617, LazarosK, lhpdx, MAH4546, maxbaby01, motif1, oslmgm, SaschaYHZ, seat1a, StTim, SurfandSnow, ThirtyWest and 338 guests