Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
blacksoviet
Topic Author
Posts: 1784
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Wed Apr 27, 2016 4:27 pm

Ive heard that the 747-200 had more range. If that were true, why was the 747SP produced until 1989?
 
Kiwinlondon
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:24 pm

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:10 pm

The answer to your question is in some circumstances, sometimes the 742 could fly at least the same distance. For example NZ on occasion did fly their 742's AKL-LAX and LAX-AKL non stop. That said not sure if there were weight restrictions, I also know that it was not unusual for them to have to make a diversion sometimes for more fuel, particularly east bound. Whereas PA used to fly the SP nonstop AKL - LAX and SYD - LAX nonstop. The difference being there were no ifs, no buts, the SP did not need to make a fuel diversion with a full load. I am 99.9999% certain that a 742 could not do SYD - LAX non stop with a full load.

kiwinlondon
 
User avatar
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1363
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:40 pm

Northwest Airlines was going to buy some 747SPs to fly nonstop from JFK to HND or NRT as their earlier 747-251s could not do that. But Pratt & Whitney came out with the JT9D-7Q engines that would allow the 747-200 to fly these routes nonstop if a portion of the seats in coach were blocked off. Northwest then bought the 747-251 with the JT9D-7Q engines and dropped the idea of using the 747SP.
I am sure a 747SP will fly farther than a 747-200 when equipped with the same model engine as the 747SP has to weigh less so therefor the nonstop range would be longer.
Another interesting point, United Airlines liked to fly the 747-100 rather than the747-200 as it weighed less and thus would fly longer flights due to it's lower weight. They actually only bought two new 747-200s which were sold to Northwest and converted to freighters. The 747-100 was dog when it first came with the original Pratt & Whitney JT9D-3 engines as it was under powered and took forever to take off. Northwest upgraded theirs to the JT9D-7A and that made a big difference as they were more powerful.   
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
mmo
Posts: 2059
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:18 pm

Quoting blacksoviet (Thread starter):
Ive heard that the 747-200 had more range. If that were true, why was the 747SP produced until 1989?

The last SP had it's first flight in March 87. However before that the last one had it's first flight in Aug 82. So your time frame is a little off.

As has been pointed out, the introduction of the JT9D-7Q was a big factor. The other factor was the introduction of the 200B model. That model had additional fuel in the 2/3 reserve tanks. With that combination the flight could go easily full from JFK-NRT all year round. NWA used those on the JFK-NRT and DTW-ITM during the winter months and the F powered aircraft during the summer. That way there was no payload restrictions year round.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
trex8
Posts: 5611
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:23 pm

CI got the SP to fly TPE-SFO/LAX which would be difficult on a 742 westbound.
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 7054
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:25 pm

Quoting Kiwinlondon (Reply 1):
For example NZ on occasion did fly their 742's AKL-LAX and LAX-AKL non stop.

In a way you can say those were 742s from the '80s and powered by RR. If I remember well CX managed to operate nonstop between HKG and LGW with the same version.
 
trex8
Posts: 5611
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:39 pm

CI got the SP to fly TPE-SFO/LAX which would be difficult on a 742 westbound.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 5):
In a way you can say those were 742s from the '80s and powered by RR. If I remember well CX managed to operate nonstop between HKG and LGW with the same version.

They stopped in Bahrain when they first started in 1980. Cant remember when overflights of China allowed maybe by 83 per 2nd article. The first article seems to indicate non stop London -HK only came with the 744 but thats obviously not correct if it happened in 83..
http://www.airhighways.com/cathay_pacific.htm
With delivery of its first Boeing 747-200 in 1980, Cathay Pacific launched its inaugural Hong Kong London service, and then became the world's first airline to take delivery of the Rolls-Royce-poweded Boeing 747-400, which revolutionized long haul travel, bringing destinations such as Vancouver, London and Los Angels within nonstop range.


https://www.cathaypacific.com/cx/es_ES/about-us/press-room/press-release/2005/en_HK_pressrelease_32.html
The airline’s maiden flight to London departed Hong Kong on 16 July 1980, and operated three times a week via Bahrain. The service went daily in 1981, and on 2 July 1983 Cathay Pacific made aviation history with the world’s first non-stop service from Hong Kong to the UK capital.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7418
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:08 pm

There were 3 routes that PA flew where the 747SP flew nonstop but only one of those flew nonstop with the 747-200B. The three routes were LAX to SYD, SFO to Hong Kong and JFK to NRT. JFK to Tokyo was the only one where full sized 747-200 flew nonstop. United and NW plus ANA and JAL flew 747-200 to NRT from JFK.

One has to wonder if the PA 747SP seating configuration was a reason why did badly to Asia. IT had 47 FirstClass and 100 Clipper seats and less then 100 Y seats. IF they had 25 less J class seats and 50 more Y class would that have made a difference.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:41 pm

Quoting MMO (Reply 3):
Quoting blacksoviet (Thread starter):
Ive heard that the 747-200 had more range. If that were true, why was the 747SP produced until 1989?

The last SP had it's first flight in March 87. However before that the last one had it's first flight in Aug 82. So your time frame is a little off.

The last 747SP for an airline customer was delivered in 1982. One more was built 5 years later in 1987 (and delivered 1989) as a VIP aircraft for the United Arab Emirates. By the early '80s there was little an SP could do that the latest model 747-200s couldn't do much more economically.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7418
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:55 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 8):
By the early '80s there was little an SP could do that the latest model 747-200s couldn't do much more economically.

There are many things an SP could do a 747-200 could NOT, Qantas nor Cathay never flew a 747-200 nonstop from Sydney or Hong Kong to LAX or SFO. In all fairness to Cathay it was a pioneer in full size 747-200 flights doing Vancouver and Gatwick nonstop from HKG in the 1980's.

Many airlines did not buy the SP because it had lousy economics and waited for the 747-200 just a few years later. JAL started their nonstop to JFK in 1983 with 2 747-200B with JT9D-7R4G2 engines which also were Swissair and JAL 743 airplanes. The SP was in many ways an Research and Development plane for future long range full size 747's which of course came to be a 747-400.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:19 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 9):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 8):
By the early '80s there was little an SP could do that the latest model 747-200s couldn't do much more economically.

There are many things an SP could do a 747-200 could NOT, Qantas nor Cathay never flew a 747-200 nonstop from Sydney or Hong Kong to LAX or SFO.

That's why I said there was "little" the SP could do that the latest -200s couldn't. The few routes you mention are rather few. And few other longer routes had enough demand for nonstop service in those days.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7418
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:32 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 10):
here are many things an SP could do a 747-200 could NOT, Qantas nor Cathay never flew a 747-200 nonstop from Sydney or Hong Kong to LAX or SFO.

That's why I said there was "little" the SP could do that the latest -200s couldn't. The few routes you mention are rather few. And few other longer routes had enough demand for nonstop service in those days.

Viscount,

Using the word "little" for LAX to Sydney or SFO to Hong Kong is like describing a commuter flight on a "little" airplane. There is nothing "little" about a 747 including an SP. The number of routes may have been small but none were "little".

Perhaps you should use the word "little" for a Concorde post since it had fewer routes and only flew 100 passengers at a time. But Concorde afcionados would probably not like such a majestic plane being "little". Use of the would " little" for planes should be regional jets.
 
timz
Posts: 6580
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:44 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 11):
Using the word "little" for LAX to Sydney or SFO to Hong Kong is like describing a commuter flight on a "little" airplane.

"is like" in that both sentences use the word "little". His use of "little" was unexceptionable.

Don't recall offhand whether PA ever did LAX/SFO to SYD nonstop-- I'll check.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:52 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 11):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 10):
here are many things an SP could do a 747-200 could NOT, Qantas nor Cathay never flew a 747-200 nonstop from Sydney or Hong Kong to LAX or SFO.

That's why I said there was "little" the SP could do that the latest -200s couldn't. The few routes you mention are rather few. And few other longer routes had enough demand for nonstop service in those days.

Viscount,

Using the word "little" for LAX to Sydney or SFO to Hong Kong is like describing a commuter flight on a "little" airplane. There is nothing "little" about a 747 including an SP. The number of routes may have been small but none were "little".

Perhaps you should use the word "little" for a Concorde post since it had fewer routes and only flew 100 passengers at a time. But Concorde afcionados would probably not like such a majestic plane being "little". Use of the would " little" for planes should be regional jets.

You're misunderstanding my wording. Saying "there's little the SP could do" has a totally different meaning than saying the 747 is "little". That's certainly not what I meant.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7418
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:19 am

Quoting timz (Reply 12):

Don't recall offhand whether PA ever did LAX/SFO to SYD nonstop-- I'll ch

Pan AM did fly an SP nonstop to Australia.
 
RetiredWeasel
Posts: 816
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 8:16 pm

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:31 am

I don't know a lot about the SP, but asking the question 'did it have a longer range than a 200' is a simple question and deserves a simple answer. However, the problem is that is not that simple because of several reasons to include engine differences, fuel capacities, and weight differences.

But keeping it simple, if you were to load 200 pax, 300,000 lbs of fuel, and the same cargo weight on both aircraft, (and both aircraft had the same engines), then the fuel burn on the SP would be lower simply because it would weigh less (~30,000 lbs) and would have less drag (shorter a/c) and would fly farther.

Maxing things out, though, would entail more complex computations. And of course, you couldn't put 380 pax on a SP as far as I know.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3673
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:38 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 14):
Pan AM did fly an SP nonstop to Australia.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Richard Millington
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Graham Dives



Surely the answer to the original question is...

The same era's SP, with the same engine as the comparable -200, could fly further with the same payload.
come visit the south pacific
 
BostonBeau
Posts: 547
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 11:55 pm

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:41 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 7):
There were 3 routes that PA flew where the 747SP flew nonstop but only one of those flew nonstop with the 747-200B. The three routes were LAX to SYD, SFO to Hong Kong and JFK to NRT. JFK to Tokyo was the only one where full sized 747-200 flew nonstop.

I vaguely remember that at first, on the JFK-NRT route, Pan Am would file the flight plan to Fairbanks AK, and then if the fuel remaining and headwinds were OK, they would amend the flight plan en route to continue to NRT. I wonder how often they had to stop for fuel in Fairbanks. In the B707 days, Fairbanks was a scheduled stop on the route I believe.
 
blacksoviet
Topic Author
Posts: 1784
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:54 am

So i assume the 1980's era 747SP still had more range than even the newest 742? Otherwise, why would the United Arab Emirates' government have ordered it in 1986? Perhaps lower maintenance costs?
 
User avatar
Adipasquale
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:01 am

Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 18):
So i assume the 1980's era 747SP still had more range than even the newest 742? Otherwise, why would the United Arab Emirates' government have ordered it in 1986? Perhaps lower maintenance costs?

Or maybe they didn't need a "full size" 747. Just a guess.
DH8A DH8B CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 D93 M88 318 319 320 321 333 343 712 732 733 734 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77L 77W
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7202
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:51 am

Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 18):
So i assume the 1980's era 747SP still had more range than even the newest 742? Otherwise, why would the United Arab Emirates' government have ordered it in 1986? Perhaps lower maintenance costs?

Range could be the reason, although Boeing offering the -SP at a very attractive price to boost sales seems a likelier motivation...plus most of the -SP Government transports in the Middle East were former airline aircraft.

Quoting Adipasquale (Reply 19):
Or maybe they didn't need a "full size" 747. Just a guess.

They seemingly were not afflicted by the "mine is bigger than yours" mentality yet...or the VC-25 capacity and performance combination simply was not made available to anyone else then...to preserve the exclusivity of the "shock and awe" factor.

Far as I can tell, only the Dubai Air Wing had a 742, dedicated to transporting racehorses -- which was parted out at Kemble in 2010.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jan Kertzscher



It was "open season" afterwards for everyone with the moolah when the 744 came out later.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
blacksoviet
Topic Author
Posts: 1784
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:34 am

What if Boeing designed a 747SP NG?
They could take the fuselage of a 744 with the wings and engines of the 748. Then it could have enough range to fly GRU-SYD, SYD-JNB or even SCL-CPT non-stop with a full load of passengers. They could call it a 747-500.
 
triple7man
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 1:36 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:03 am

My friend flew 747SP's for Pan Am until he retired in 1981. His last flight was SYD-LAX, now flown by 747-400's, 777-300ER's and 777-200LR's. I flew UA 747SP in 1989 SFO-SEL-SFO. I asked the captain how does flying this compare with flying the 747. He said we are lighter so we will climb to our cruising altitude faster and we can fly higher. Our final cruising altitude was 43,000. He also said we can fly further but we can't carry as many passengers. He told me that he would soon start training to fly the 747-400's.
Have you kissed a 777 today?
 
n729pa
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:16 pm

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:56 am

SAA used their SPs on routes the 200 couldn't do non-stop as I recall, and made good use of them due to the operational constraints they had at that time. From memory I seen to recall they did the CPT-LHR flights as well as flights to JFK.....and BRU was it? Anyway, SAA made full use of the range.
 
User avatar
vhqpa
Posts: 1722
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:01 am

I can't seem to find it but there was a 742 v 74L thread years back and someone summerised it as between a 747-200B and 747SP with identical payloads and identical engines. The SP would have a range advantage. I don't have a production list handy at the moment but from what I remember the 747SP was basically finished by the time the JT9D-7Q/7R became available for -200B. As the 742 could now do nearly all missions that previously required a SP.

Another factor why airlines bought (well Qantas as least) the SP was for the short field performance. QF bought it so it could fly SYD-WLG-SYD. The Qantas pair were among the last 747SP built and were part of a handful of RB211 powered frames.

I've read that Pan Am with their earlier generation of JT9D engines needed to make unscheduled fuel stops on SFO/LAX-SYD a lot more often than QF and their RB211 frames. It would be interesting to see what sort of payload a JT9D-7R4G2 powered 747-200B could haul LAX-SYD

Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 21):

With EDTO 330 and the 777-8X/9X just around the corner what's the point? Also QF have flown SYD-JNB with a standard 747-400 for about 20 years.

[Edited 2016-04-28 01:25:12]
"There you go ladies and gentleman we're through Mach 1 the speed of sound no bumps no bangs... CONCORDE"
 
blacksoviet
Topic Author
Posts: 1784
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:04 am

Quoting vhqpa (Reply 24):

I believe PER-GIG is beyond the limits of EDTO 330.
Any flights between Brasil and Perth will have to be flown by an 744ER, 748, A388 or an A345. I dont believe the MD-11 has the range for this route. If the economy in Brasil ever grows the way it has in China, QF will have to consider purchasing 748's. I think the 744ER will take to much of a payload hit and wont be able to haul any cargo and the A380 will probably be too big. The 748 just might be the perfect size aircraft for this route in the future.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7202
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:45 am

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 20):
It was "open season" afterwards for everyone with the moolah when the 744 came out later.

Forgot to mention that the 33 year old Saudi Royal Flight 743 preceded the Head of State 744s...    ...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rainer Bexten
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Vincent


.....which pretty much killed further interest in VIP -SPs and 742s.



Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 21):
Then it could have enough range to fly GRU-SYD [.....] non-stop with a full load of passengers.

GRU-SYD is 7,228nm GC. Assuming the 748i could do 7,500nm ESAD after the PIPs, then a comparatively lightly loaded 748i BBJ approved for 330-minute EDTO might just make it.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2015-03-...-FAA-Approval-for-330-Minute-ETOPS

GRU-SYD&MS=wls&DU=nm&E=330" target="_blank">http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=GRU-SYD&MS=wls&DU=nm&E=330
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
blacksoviet
Topic Author
Posts: 1784
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:59 am

GRU-PER is a whole different ballgame. I dont think this will ever happen in our lifetime
 
rw774477
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2001 4:15 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:51 am

ESAD ?

PIPS ?

not familiar with these terms ... please help
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:14 am

Only late model 747-200B aircraft, certified with the highest possible MTOW of 833.000 lbs and the latest engines installed (RB-211-524D4, PWJT9D-R4G2) available from mid eighties, had almost the same range as the late model, high MTOW 747SP, produced until 1987.

From Jane's all the world aircraft 1988/1989 edition.

747SP and 747-200B with the same engine type :

747SP, MTOW 700.000 lbs, RR RB211-524D4 powered
6650 Nm range, long range cruise, step cruise, typical international reserves, 276 pax plus bagage
8000 Nm ferry range, long range cruise, step cruise, typical international reserves

747-200B, MTOW 833.000 lbs, RR RB211-524D4 powered
6600 Nm range, long range cruise, step cruise, typical international reserves, 366 pax plus bagage
7500 Nm ferry range, long range cruise, step cruise, typical international reserves

The "ultimate" 747-200B, offered, but not sold for airliner use. exceeded the 747SP range performance.
747-200B, MTOW 833.000 lbs, GE CF6-80C2B1 (only built as VC25 " airforce one ")
6900 Nm range, long range cruise, step cruise, typical international reserves, 366 pax plus bagage
7900 Nm ferry range, long range cruise, step cruise, typical international reserves

The older JT9D-7A, -F or J powered 747SP aircraft had less range and were surpassed by most MTOW 833.000 lbs capable 747-200B's, especially the ones with extra fuel tanks installed

[Edited 2016-04-28 04:52:02]
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
blacksoviet
Topic Author
Posts: 1784
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:28 am

So i guess the VC-25 was not available in 1987 when United Arab Emirates ordered their SP. The 747SP was the longest range plane Boeing could offer. Anyone know if it's still flying?
 
jfk777
Posts: 7418
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:43 am

Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 30):
So i guess the VC-25 was not available in 1987 when United Arab Emirates ordered their SP. The 747SP was the longest range plane Boeing could offer. Anyone know if it's still flying

VC-25 is the US Air Force designation for Air Force One, its only available to the Americans and was never made available to any one else. The Sheiks from the Persian gulf countries have VIP 747 with customized interiors but that is what they are. AF1 is more then a VIP Presidential airplane.
 
blacksoviet
Topic Author
Posts: 1784
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:55 am

So does the VC-25 have the same engines as the 743?
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:08 pm

Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 32):
So does the VC-25 have the same engines as the 743?

Yes, seven 747-300 aircraft were produced with these engines.

The GE CF6-80C2B1 was certified for the 747-300 series in December 1987.

It was also offered for the 747-200 series, but no orders came up.

In Januari 1989 the 747-200B /CF6-80C2B1 combination was certified , only for both 747-2G4B (VC25) aircraft.

Note : Both VC25 aircraft are FAA certified , incl. many STC's for the extra installed equipment.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
United_fan
Posts: 6691
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 11:11 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:15 pm

I remember reading that QF kept the best RR RB211's for the -SP . And sometimes PA's P&W -SP's had to stop in Tahiti on the way to SYD.
"Suspicion is a matter of opinion"
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2363
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:19 pm

Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 21):
What if Boeing designed a 747SP NG?
They could take the fuselage of a 744 with the wings and engines of the 748. Then it could have enough range to fly GRU-SYD, SYD-JNB or even SCL-CPT non-stop with a full load of passengers. They could call it a 747-500.
Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 25):
QF will have to consider purchasing 748's. I think the 744ER will take to much of a payload hit and wont be able to haul any cargo and the A380 will probably be too big. The 748 just might be the perfect size aircraft for this route in the future.

I gather you're a fan of the 747 and want to see it sell even more (and, from an enthusiast's perspective, there's nothing wrong with that). But, the reality is, the 747 in passenger form is dead. Up thread, it was mentioned there was little the 747SP could do that the 747-200 couldn't also do; likewise, there's little a 747 today in any form can do that another type couldn't do better.

Decades ago, the 747's benefit was its range. Today, that is simply no longer the case. If you need a long-range airliner, there are numerous options: 787 and A350 if you don't need the capacity, 777 (300ER for the current generation, -8/9 for the next generation) if you do, A380 if you really do. IIRC, the 777-200LR has more range than any other airliner flying today. No need to waste money shrinking a 747 far beyond its economical size.

The 747 had its day, and its day is over (unless the cargo market picks up some time soon, as the 747 is the only in-production freighter in that size class). This may be hard for aviation fans to accept, but that's the reality. People may complain about how "boring" planes look today because they're all twin-engine planes, but "boring" economics will sell hundreds of times over "good-looking" inefficiency.

QF won't "have to" consider the 747-8 for anything. I'm sure they've already considered it numerous times since it went on offer. But they, like almost every other airline, rejected it. There are plenty of reasons why the 747-8 has failed to sell, and "airlines don't read airliners.net enough" isn't one of them.
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7418
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:22 pm

Quoting HOMsAr (Reply 35):
QF won't "have to" consider the 747-8 for anything. I'm sure they've already considered it numerous times since it went on offer. But they, like almost every other airline, rejected it. There are plenty of reasons why the 747-8 has failed to sell, and "airlines don't read airliners.net enough" isn't one of them.

While 777 & A350 are more efficient then 748 what makes the 748 successful at Lufthansa that other airlines can't seem to find ? LH loves their 747-800's.
 
User avatar
CARST
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:00 pm

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:29 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 36):
While 777 & A350 are more efficient then 748 what makes the 748 successful at Lufthansa that other airlines can't seem to find ? LH loves their 747-800's.

LH is a large airline which never was afraif to order niche aircraft. They ordered aircraft for all sizes:

A380 488 seats
748i 364 seats
744 344 seats
A346 281 seats
A343 221 seats
A333 221 seats

There are no gaps, thanks to the 747-fleet (744 & 748). Other airlines either just accept the gaps or have different aircraft.


Different aircraft means they have 777s and most likely have 777-300ERs which are more or less direct 744 replacements. Thus they have no need for a gap- or inbetween-aicraft like the 748.


Would have LH gone with the 777 instead of the 340 in the early 90s, I guess there would have been never a 748 order. Boeing wouldn't even have started the whole 748i model.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2363
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:59 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 36):
LH loves their 747-800's.

How much does LH really "love" their 747-8s? They cancelled one of the frames they had on order, declined to exercise any of the options for additional frames, and became a launch customer for the 777-9, a plane that has essentially the same range and capacity.
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26604
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:37 pm

Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 18):

So i assume the 1980's era 747SP still had more range than even the newest 742?

Yes
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Transpac787
Posts: 1421
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:47 pm

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:03 pm

This is a question best answered by payload / range curves, which Boeing provides on their website:

The curves begin at page 57 in the 747-100/200/300/SP document, and detail the different model and engine combinations. To answer your question, in a fairly rough way, here are some numbers. First, let's take a look at the 1980's configurations of the PanAm 747's:

741/742: 33/32/329 (394 total)
747SP: 47/100/86 (233 total)

This is me just eye-balling the charts, but here are some approximate numbers for you. Let's assume pax weights of 215# per person, as this will account for passenger, carry-on bag, and checked bag(s).

747SP (-7J motors, 233 pax): 6500nm
742 (-7J motors, 233 of 394 pax): 6000nm

Now, for late-model 742's, with the bigger motors, we get:

742 (-7Q motors, 233 of 394 pax): 6100nm
742 (-7R motors, 233 of 394 pax): 6300nm

Keep in mind, these numbers account for passengers and bags only; no cargo. One of the main advantages to a 741/742 was its significantly increased cargo capacity over the 747SP. If a 742 were carrying pax, bags, and ~20k pounds in cargo, its range would be even less than those numbers quoted above. But to keep all things constant for the sake of direct comparison, those are the numbers we get.

So, even if you operated a 742 restricted down to 747SP capacities, you still wouldn't have quite the range the 747SP did. That all said, the business case for operating a full 747SP, versus a restricted 742, was one the airlines themselves had to decide on. PanAm went the SP route, Northwest Orient went the IGW 742 with big motors route.
 
timz
Posts: 6580
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:32 pm

Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 25):
I believe PER-GIG is beyond the limits of EDTO 330.

That is, the great circle doesn't stay within 330 minutes. But a route that does stay within 330 minutes won't be prohibitively longer. (No one knows if Hao is an allowed alternate?)
 
ACD8Y
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:35 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:01 pm

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 2):
...Another interesting point, United Airlines liked to fly the 747-100 rather than the 747-200 as it weighed less and thus would fly longer flights due to it's lower weight. They actually only bought two new 747-200s which were sold to Northwest and converted to freighters. . . 

United must have greatly restricted the TOW in order to achieve longer flights than their 2 -200Bs, correct? I ask as I know someone whom used to do weight and balance at AC in the '80's when they were flying their -133s YVR-LHR. I've been told that quite often AC were bumping baggage, let alone getting cargo on, in order to make the distance. That being said, I do not know what version of JT9D AC had on the -133s at that point.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:12 am

It's currently shown as "stored". The last A.net photos are dated April and May 2015.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Soos Jozsef
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dani Guerrero



The former A9C-HAK registration has been transferred to Bahrain's VIP 744, previously part of the Abu Dhabi Amiri flight.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James Mepsted

 
jfk777
Posts: 7418
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:26 am

Quoting HOMsAr (Reply 38):

How much does LH really "love" their 747-8s? They cancelled one of the frames they had on order, declined to exercise any of the options for additional frames, and became a launch customer for the 777-9, a plane that has essentially the same range and capacity.

They have 19 748, they could have cancelled the order and paid the cancellation penalty. They ordered the 777-9 because its the new Big Boeing Plane, if the 748 had sold 200 passenger version LH might have ordered more. The 777-9 is the future so they went there. On the Airbus side they ordered A350-900 not more A330 ceo or neo, so they went for the new Airbus plane too. LH usually operates the latest version of planes available.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3673
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:21 am

Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 21):
Then it could have enough range to fly GRU-SYD, SYD-JNB or even SCL-CPT non-stop with a full load of passengers.

There are already aircraft equipped to cover those routes but airlines only see SYD-JNB as having the demand. You need a lot of premium demand to make an ULH route economic and four-engines on a smaller plane is not going to help.
come visit the south pacific
 
User avatar
135mech
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:56 pm

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 5:03 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 44):
Quoting HOMsAr (Reply 38):

How much does LH really "love" their 747-8s? They cancelled one of the frames they had on order, declined to exercise any of the options for additional frames, and became a launch customer for the 777-9, a plane that has essentially the same range and capacity.

They have 19 748, they could have cancelled the order and paid the cancellation penalty. They ordered the 777-9 because its the new Big Boeing Plane, if the 748 had sold 200 passenger version LH might have ordered more. The 777-9 is the future so they went there. On the Airbus side they ordered A350-900 not more A330 ceo or neo, so they went for the new Airbus plane too. LH usually operates the latest version of planes available.

Hi,

The "canceled" LH 20th frame, wasn't because they just didn't want it... it was an earlier model that was heavier and needed improvement. So, LH and Boeing agreed for Boeing to take it back and continue using it for constant updating and upgrading along with the program to lighten the airframe (as they were diligently trying to shave off around 5,000 pounds (or more) from the total weight. It was also used to help with the engine improvements.

As was mentioned earlier, LH is incredibly smart at using the right amount of "niche" airplanes and if the markets actually improved they might have taken the options of more of the 748i. BUT, they have 19 in use, so that's pretty good for a declining model in a market that just can not sustain that specific airframe.

Regards,

135Mech
135Mech
 
jfk777
Posts: 7418
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:18 pm

Quoting 135mech (Reply 46):

The "canceled" LH 20th frame, wasn't because they just didn't want it... it was an earlier model that was heavier and needed improvement. So, LH and Boeing agreed for Boeing to take it back and continue using it for constant updating and upgrading along with the program to lighten the airframe (as they were diligently trying to shave off around 5,000 pounds (or more) from the total weight. It was also used to help with the engine improvements.

As was mentioned earlier, LH is incredibly smart at using the right amount of "niche" airplanes and if the markets actually improved they might have taken the options of more of the 748i. BUT, they have 19 in use, so that's pretty good for a declining model in a market that just can not sustain that specific airfram

I know they had an issue with one Boeing kept. LH is brilliant at finding the right airplane for each route and has done it well with the 748. Its sad though no other airline uses it for a niche like LH has done. BA with its 4 class planes and huge Club World cabins and lots of shorter routes to the USA would have been a great choice for the 748. But that ship has sailed.
 
Jetxdammit
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:12 pm

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:27 pm

Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 21):
What if Boeing designed a 747SP NG?

Back in the mi-80s Boeing did propose a 747SP Advanced (along with a 747-200 Advanced), with a 2 man crew, new engines, and all the updates the 747-400 would have. No one was interested.

In this same sales proposal, the Boeing 747-400 was also being offered. We know how it this turned out.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7418
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Could A 747SP Really Fly Further Than A 747-200?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:20 pm

Quoting Jetxdammit (Reply 48):

Back in the mi-80s Boeing did propose a 747SP Advanced (along with a 747-200 Advanced), with a 2 man crew, new engines, and all the updates the 747-400 would have. No one was interested.

In this same sales proposal, the Boeing 747-400 was also being offered. We know how it this turned out

There have been many times when Boeing has made a multiple proposals of derivatives at the same time. AN "advanced SP" is out there when the full sized plane flies 7,500 miles but maybe Qantas would try LHR to Sydney nonstop. The 747-200 Advanced, esentially what a 747-400F is for passengers( no long upper deck), is another niche machine but it probably flew 500 miles longer then a regular 744.

The difference in building a regular 744 with its long upper deck and a 747 with -400 wings, engines and cockpit is just the long upper deck. Offering another derivative of the -400 family is not as crazy as it sounds.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos