airforceone
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:47 am

747 SP A Waste?

Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:34 am

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?
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:02 am

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 avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17113
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:29 am

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." - John Ringo
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:54 am

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.
 
LimaNiner
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:57 pm

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?
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:10 pm

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
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:21 pm

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 avatar
Jetsgo
Posts: 2697
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:31 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:46 pm

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 avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:41 am

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.
 
BAE146QT
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:58 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:50 am

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 avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 am

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.
 
MD11Fanatic
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:54 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:56 am

Well of course! How can you go wrong with three engines? Four is too many, two is not enough. Three is juuuuuuuust right.
 
speedracer1407
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:51 pm

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.
 
BAE146QT
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:58 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:07 pm

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 avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2316
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:24 pm

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 :shock: .
 
oly720man
Posts: 5754
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:49 pm

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
 
SP90
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 12:39 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:24 am

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?
 
BAE146QT
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:58 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:54 am

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

Yep.

http://www.747sp.com/
Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:59 am

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.
 
speedracer1407
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:00 am

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.
 
Airgypsy
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 1999 11:02 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:13 pm

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
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Thu Nov 16, 2006 2:05 pm

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
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:16 pm




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
 
airforceone
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:47 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:47 pm

Srry bout the short range thing i really meant long range  ashamed   ashamed 
 
747400sp
Posts: 3850
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:54 am

If it was not for the 747sp, routes like LAX-SYD or LAX-HKG may not have happen, till the 90's.
 
avconsultant
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:18 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:39 pm

Quoting Speedracer1407 (Reply 12):
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.

LMAO!!
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:36 am

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

Not all aircraft designers are English  Wink

At the time it was pretty much a necessity.
4 engines was becoming overkill due to increasing engine power, twins were as yet barred from flying over the ocean (ETOPS restrictions).
So threeholers were the answer for aircraft smaller than the 747 to gain economics over their 4 engined counterparts while not being restricted to very long slow routes winding their way over island chains.

When the 767 and contemporaries got ETOPS and could fly the shortest routes from the US to Europe it was all over for threeholer production.

For medium range threeholers the story is similar.
4 engines were overkill, 2 weren't yet powerful enough, so they put in 3.
I wish I were flying
 
BAE146QT
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:58 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:21 am

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 itself.

I was however referring to the obsession with them here on A.Net which "Jetlagged" brought up. Can't say I disagree with that either, since there is something more appealing about the lines of a 727 than a 737 - which is ironic considering their common roots.
Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17113
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:53 am

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 26):
Quoting BAe146QT (Reply 9):
I think the 3-engine thing has more to do with aesthetics than any practical, engineering or efficiency factors though.

Not all aircraft designers are English Wink

At the time it was pretty much a necessity.
4 engines was becoming overkill due to increasing engine power, twins were as yet barred from flying over the ocean (ETOPS restrictions).
So threeholers were the answer for aircraft smaller than the 747 to gain economics over their 4 engined counterparts while not being restricted to very long slow routes winding their way over island chains.

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 requirements were significant in the specs for both the Tristar and the DC-10.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:55 am

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 departments whose function is to weigh actual demand based on paid delivery slots (or "earnest money", if you will) and forecast potential demand for the type against potential change and production costs. I suspect Boeing made money on the SP.
 
flight152
Posts: 3212
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 8:04 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Thu Nov 23, 2006 7:01 am

Does anyone have any links with technical information on the 747SP's systems and how they differed from early 747 models?
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5253
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Thu Nov 23, 2006 7:46 am

Quoting Speedracer1407 (Reply 19):
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.

Given that LockMart is currently a highly successful and profitable ongoing concern (militarily, at least) perhaps a cheaper and less complicated option would be to acquire the McDonell Douglas name.  Wink

Quoting Flight152 (Reply 30):
Does anyone have any links with technical information on the 747SP's systems and how they differed from early 747 models?

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=98

Curiously, Boeing's site does not include the 747SP in their Out-of-Production or Classic models (but lists the 707). Consequently, technical info for it are not available for comparison.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Thu Nov 23, 2006 7:56 am

Quoting Flight152 (Reply 30):
Does anyone have any links with technical information on the 747SP's systems and how they differed from early 747 models?

From the same book that I mentioned earlier,

Quoting N231YE (Reply 18):
Jenkins, Dennis R. Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP. AirlinerTech Series Vol 6. Specialty Press. North Branch: 2000.

it lists some of differences between the SP and the 747. Some of these include single-slotted flaps to shave off 12,000lbs of unnecessary weight (over the 747's triple slotted flaps), and an lengthened vertical stabilizer.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:51 am

Quoting AirForceOne (Thread starter):
Hi there I was just looking over the 747 SP. Do guys think it was a waste?

Maybe not a waste but certainly not very successful, only 45 were built. Plus the 747-400 made the SP completely obsolete.

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 10):
Anything "tri-jet" seems to get people going, especially relating to the DC-10 for some strange reason.



Quoting MD11Fanatic (Reply 11):
How can you go wrong with three engines? Four is too many, two is not enough. Three is juuuuuuuust right.

Gotta love the trijets  bigthumbsup 
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:20 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 33):

Maybe not a waste but certainly not very successful, only 45 were built

45 is certainly a significant number for a widebody derivative...
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:16 pm

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 34):
Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 33):

Maybe not a waste but certainly not very successful, only 45 were built

45 is certainly a significant number for a widebody derivative...

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 factor in the time and money spent developing the SP. I'm sure Boeing built the SP thinking they'd get more than 45 orders. Would you consider the 744 a success if only 45 were ever built? Of course not.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Thu Nov 23, 2006 10:10 pm

Sorry, TrijetsRMissed, but you are truly misinformed.
The -SP was solely designed for only a few operators, and achieved its expectation with regard to sales.
Profitable for Boeing?
Only slightly, but it helped achieve more sales later on of other 747 models.
IE, it retained an airline customer.
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:44 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 35):

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 factor in the time and money spent developing the SP.

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... do you think some anetter knows retroactively more about the profitability of the SP than the people who analyzed launching it?

A loss over that many widebody airframes would have been huge, but that doesn't seem to be the case now, does it?
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:20 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 36):
The -SP was solely designed for only a few operators, and achieved its expectation with regard to sales.

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 never even took the full initial order.

Quoting 411A (Reply 36):
Profitable for Boeing?
Only slightly

You just proved my point, thanks.

Quoting 411A (Reply 36):
but it helped achieve more sales later on of other 747 models.
IE, it retained an airline customer.

Sorry, but you are truly misinformed. Pan Am, SAA, and Quantas were the notable customers. Pan Am never ordered another 747 from Boeing. SAA and Qantas would have bought more 747's anyway. Are you forgetting 777's and A340's were not around back then?

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 37):
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... do you think some anetter knows retroactively more about the profitability of the SP than the people who analyzed launching it?

Are you kidding? This information is not exactly classified, do some research.

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 37):


A loss over that many widebody airframes would have been huge, but that doesn't seem to be the case now, does it?

Ridiculous, Boeing would have sold just as many wide bodies. The SP, which had poor operating economics, is irrelevant if when discussing sales of the 777, 767, 744.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
rufruf
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:55 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:32 pm

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 to the middle east. Two run out of Oman.

Fast .... No ... Real Fast.
 
pilotaydin
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:30 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:32 am

god the 747 sp looked sexy in saudia colors!!!!! i miss those days lol
The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:09 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 38):
You just proved my point, thanks.



Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 38):
Are you kidding? This information is not exactly classified, do some research.

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 profitable?

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 35):
Forty-five orders is never a success when you factor in the time and money spent developing the SP.

Your attempted point is that the -SP was not a success, based on time and money. I am asking for an explicit reference that shows what the IRR was on the -SP, or any other reference. I am highly suspect that your comments on the relative success are you OPINIONs, not fact. As I said, 45 frames is a significant amount for a widebody a/c, and I would assume it was profitable.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 38):
Boeing would have sold just as many wide bodies. The SP, which had poor operating economics, is irrelevant if when discussing sales of the 777, 767, 744.

What??? The -SP was being offerred 25 plus years ago. If some operator had a need for the range capability that the -SP offerred, and a 747-100 or -200 was too much a/c, then the 767 certainly wouldn't be enough... And just one more difficulty with your "point"... the 777 wasn't availabe, and I don't believe the -400 was either as it debuted for NWA in 1989.
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:11 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 38):
The SP, which had poor operating economics, is irrelevant if when discussing sales of the 777, 767, 744.

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 think...

Your comparison is not valid, you have no specific references as to the IRR of the -SP, and therefore your opinion the -SP was unsuccessful is wrong.

[Edited 2006-11-24 22:21:44]
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:24 am

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 42):
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 think...

edit...

The -400 entered service in -89.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:24 am

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 41):
Boeing would have sold just as many wide bodies. The SP, which had poor operating economics, is irrelevant if when discussing sales of the 777, 767, 744.

What??? The -SP was being offerred 25 plus years ago. If some operator had a need for the range capability that the -SP offerred, and a 747-100 or -200 was too much a/c, then the 767 certainly wouldn't be enough... And just one more difficulty with your "point"... the 777 wasn't availabe, and I don't believe the -400 was either as it debuted for NWA in 1989.

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 the time for long range flights was the DC10-30, so those airlines would have went with the 747 anyway. Also the 747SP had poor operating economics compared to the 742.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:21 am




Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 44):
Also the 747SP had poor operating economics compared to the 742.

I'm not sure you can make such an all-encompassing statement like that without first defining the mission requirement(s)....



2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:41 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 44):
Also the 747SP had poor operating economics compared to the 742.

What exactly do you mean by "poor operating economics"? Seat mile cost? Trip costs? Depreciate rates?

On comparable stage lengths for a 742, of course it would have higher seat mile costs... It was designed for ultra long range. But if compared to a long haul trip that would have required a 742 to stop, all of the sudden the -SP has a lower seat mile cost, and trip cost, because a stop was eliminated. It also has a lower contribution to life cycle costs than the -742 trip, as one less pressurization cycle is put on the airframe.

By your original logic, the 764 is also "unsuccessful" due to the lower #s produced as compared to the 762, but again it fufills a different need than the 762.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 45):

I'm not sure you can make such an all-encompassing statement like that without first defining the mission requirement(s)....

Concur, strongly. The most overused word in this forum is "efficient" followed by "economics" as they are most often used with any defined parameters.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:10 pm

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 45):
Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 44):
Also the 747SP had poor operating economics compared to the 742.

I'm not sure you can make such an all-encompassing statement like that without first defining the mission requirement(s)....

Your own website is the source of this information.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:47 pm

Well, lets see.
Trijets claims that the B747SP has poor operating economics, and this statement is true ONLY compared to other airline jet transports available NOW, not when the -SP was offered to respective customers.

For example.

SaudiArabian Airlines ordered two, specifically for these flights...

JED-JFK
RUH-JFK
RUH-IAD
RUH-SEL

Now, the other B747 aircraft they had in the fleet could not make these flights non-stop, so the -SP was used.
If, on the other hand, astandard body 747 was used on (for example) JED-JFK, a technical fuel stop was required (normally CDG) so operating economics went right and truly out the window, with extra landing fees paid
Couldn't SV make up for this by adding more passengers, thus increasing revenue, by using the larger aircraft, with the technical stop?

Route analysis done at the time proved conclusively that this latter idea was not reasonable, nor profitable.

I really do believe that our friend TrijetsRMissed, has no idea what he is talking about, which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

There are experts, and then there are folks who THINK they are so-called experts.
Sadly, Trijets... falls in the latter group.
 
BAE146QT
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:58 am

RE: 747 SP A Waste?

Sun Nov 26, 2006 6:16 am

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 1st generation Pentium-class workstation. There were compromises in its contruction, but it gave the raw processing power that their customers* demanded. It did the job, it did it faithfully, and when 2nd generation processors were available, the customers bought from their trusted supplier.

The computer company just about broke even on sales, (but did well on support contracts, since the unit was so reliable), but their customers remained loyal, since the company had a reputation for delivering.

Maybe that's the model that Boeing used? I don't know.



* Banks mostly, who were just getting into the use of artifical intelligence for predicting the futures markets.

[Edited 2006-11-25 22:24:06]
Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests