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

747400sp · Sat Apr 30, 2016 2:18 pm

I wished, that I got to see 74Ls, in their hey day, because I heard, that they use just a short amount of runway, and they took off step. In later years, I learned that they may have been runway hogs like 747 200s, so it would have been great, if I got to see them climb out of LAX, with a full load. I did see them landing at LAX, in QF and UA's, livery.

Quoting Kiwinlondon (Reply 1):
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.

I used to love watching these NZ 742s, take off on those LAX-AKL trips. They used almost all of runway 25R, ( LAX's longest runway at the time) and they lift off, behind the AA hangers. Their engines, would be close to full power. Their rumble, would be almost as loud as a DC-8-63's.
QF used 743's, on the LAX-AKL route, in the late 2000's. I was living in VA at the time, but I did see one take off in the summer of 2008, while I was visiting my family in Los Angeles.

cougar15 · Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:35 pm

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

Yes, but.....

Quoting vhqpa (Reply 24):

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

Exactly!
It quickly became (and not in an affectionate fashion might I add!) known as the ´one stop nonstop´! Infact, it was getting a really bad wrap among Business travelers & aviation professionals at the time.PA tried to ´hide´ this dilema by using different enroute ports each day of the week during certain seasons so as not to get riddiculed!
The QF Roller powered birds never had this issue.

Quoting United_fan (Reply 34):
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.

this was indeed true and they loved sticking the famous finger to PA on this particular subject!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 31):
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.

The UAE Version had additional tanks fitted in the hold, so I expect it would have creamed the VC25 on range anyway. The Saudi Version as I recall also had this feature.

So the RR powered 747SP really was a great bird, but as others have stated above, the RR powered ´200s operated by the likes of CX and NZ were that close in performance to the 74L that there really was no need for it anymore .

RayChuang · Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:47 pm

If I remember correctly, JL (I believe) bought several modified 747-200's with GE engines and extra fuel capacity so they could fly JFK-NRT non-stop. One of them actually set the record for the fastest JFK-NRT flight.

747classic · Sat Apr 30, 2016 7:13 pm

All JL 747-200/300 aircraft had P&W engines installed, the latest with the JT9D--R4G2's, some were indeed equiped with extra fuel capacity.

zkncj · Sat Apr 30, 2016 7:21 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 50):
QF used 743's, on the LAX-AKL route, in the late 2000's. I was living in VA at the time, but I did see one take off in the summer of 2008, while I was visiting my family in Los Angeles.

QF25/26 with the 743 became an regular guest into NAN or HNL on the way or sometimes even both.

135mech · Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:05 pm

Quoting cougar15 (Reply 51):
The UAE Version had additional tanks fitted in the hold, so I expect it would have creamed the VC25 on range anyway. The Saudi Version as I recall also had this feature.

Hi,

The reason that the (USAF) VC-25's do not have these extra tanks, is that they don't need it. The VC-25's are air-refuelable and have unlimited range if this option is used.

Regards,

135Mech

blacksoviet · Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:23 pm

Quoting 135mech (Reply 55):

Don't the engines have to be shut down after 36 hours to allow them to cool down so that they don't overheat?

NWAROOSTER · Sat Apr 30, 2016 9:50 pm

Quoting ACD8Y (Reply 42):

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.

I did not make myself clear enough in my posting. United liked the 747-122 better than the early build 747-200 in that they were lighter, using less fuel than the 747-200s so they had a longer stage length. Both United and Air Canada used the Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7A engine. Original 747-100s came with the underpowered JT9D-3 engine which the airlines replaced with the JT9D-7A engine, which improved the operation of the 747-100 and eliminated the sucker doors on the nacelle. United did buy several used 747-200s from from Qantas before buying only two late new build 747-222s. There were a small number of 747-100Bs built for Saudi Arabian Airlines which used Rolls Royce engines and few built for Iran Air which used the JT9D-7F engine. The 747-100s never used the more efficient JT9D-7Q or JT9D-7R4G engines that came on the later 747-200s along with extra fuel capacity.
I hope this clears up any problems in my original posting.

Devilfish · Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:13 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 49):
AN "advanced SP" is out there

Unconfirmed reports say that it is a shrunk double-decker powered by just two, much higher-thrust (150,000lbs) derivatives of the GE9X engine -- for better efficiency and lower maintenance costs.....

http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/14/20/56/3214254/3/920x920.jpg

http://pages.videotron.com/camsim/Page%20Boeing%20700_1024.jpg

Prototyping is delayed as the wings and wingbox are strengthened to handle the added weight and increased stresses... while the engine nacelle and cowling are being reworked to accommodate the huge fan needed to attain the design thrust.

It is rumored that Boeing would call it the 727MAX-700 to highlight the twin-engine, double-deck, three-aisle configuration...and to pay tribute to its long, out-of-production trijet!

[Edited 2016-04-30 16:52:06]

NWAROOSTER · Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:42 pm

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 58):

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 49):
AN "advanced SP" is out there

Unconfirmed reports say that it is a shrunk double-decker powered by just two, much higher-thrust (150,000lbs) derivatives of the GE9X engine -- for better efficiency and lower maintenance costs.....

Sure hate to have an engine shut down or fail just after takeoff with this aircraft…...

135mech · Sun May 01, 2016 12:23 am

Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 56):

Quoting 135mech (Reply 55):

Don't the engines have to be shut down after 36 hours to allow them to cool down so that they don't overheat?

Um... no...as long as you have sufficient airflow and oil, you can go until your crew and supplies run out. But, saying that the planes with the extra fuel tanks can go further than the VC-25's, would only be true IF and only IF they did not use the in flight refueling capability. It was specifically installed for indefinite range.

Regards,
135Mech

pa747sp · Sun May 01, 2016 1:50 am

Quoting vhqpa (Reply 24):
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

During the southern winter, the PA SPs did sometimes need to do fuel-stops westbound on the trans-Pacific route. It was almost always in NAN. I remember speaking to the station manager for PA in AKL (anyone else remember Wally?), and he said in one week all of the non-stop LAXSYD flights had done fuel-stops. I think that was exceptional but not uncommon.

mandala499 · Mon May 02, 2016 4:14 am

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

What on earth for? The same payload and/or pax numbers can be carried even further on a 777-200LR...

blacksoviet · Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:00 am

Jetxdammit wrote:
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.

Did the Air Force consider purchasing the 747SP as Air Force One?

pa747sp · Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:05 am

I worked at AKL airport during the 80s for CO and knew the Pan Am staff there. They said that sometimes the LAX SYD nonstop SP service was rerouted via AKL because of low loads on the LAX/AKL/SYD service. They'd cancel that flight and combine with the non stop and reroute via AKL. They told pax it was due to headwinds, but it was actually a commercial decision. They could only do it when the return SYD LAX loads were also low, but it happened several times. The reputation that the SP developed for not having the legs for the LAX SYD was therefore not completed deserved.

blacksoviet · Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:36 am

Can a 748 fly PER-SCL non-stop?

johnclipper · Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:54 am

I remember back in 1987 when AA acquired the SP for DFW-NRT, there was an article in AW&ST where Boeing was feeling out operators for the B747ASB (Advanced Short Body) - an updated SP.

texdravid · Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:49 am

Ok, which has more range, the niche 744 ER of Qantas or 748i?

blacksoviet · Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:13 am

texdravid wrote:
Ok, which has more range, the niche 744 ER of Qantas or 748i?

Which companies offer engines for the 744ER?

Gemuser · Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:50 pm

blacksoviet wrote:
texdravid wrote:
Ok, which has more range, the niche 744 ER of Qantas or 748i?

Which companies offer engines for the 744ER?

The passenger version, at least, was only available with GE's

Gemuser

strfyr51 · Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:19 pm

blacksoviet wrote:
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?

Pan Am and Later United flew JFK-NRT, and SFO -SYD with the B747-SP 21's
The SP was later replaced By 2 B747-222B models with the JT9D-7R4G at 833,000# max Gross. from JFK-NRT (which was the only route they ever flew). Northwest later bought them. they were N151UA (8851) and N152UA (8852)

rbavfan · Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:07 pm

timz wrote:
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.

LAX-SYD was the reason they bought the SP in the first place. They set a record back then for longest non-stop flight. Everyone else stopped in HNL.

rbavfan · Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:11 pm

blacksoviet wrote:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 55):
Don't the engines have to be shut down after 36 hours to allow them to cool down so that they don't overheat?

Thats a question the government will not ever answer. Air Force One is a highly customized & classified airframe.

timz · Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:24 pm

rbavfan wrote:
LAX-SYD was the reason [Pan Am] bought the SP in the first place.

Pan Am nonstops were eastward only for the first several years.

blacksoviet · Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:13 pm

rbavfan wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 55):
Don't the engines have to be shut down after 36 hours to allow them to cool down so that they don't overheat?

Thats a question the government will not ever answer. Air Force One is a highly customized & classified airframe.

I don't see Air Force One staying in the air for more than a couple days.

blacksoviet · Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:22 pm

747400sp wrote:
I wished, that I got to see 74Ls, in their hey day, because I heard, that they use just a short amount of runway, and they took off step. In later years, I learned that they may have been runway hogs like 747 200s, so it would have been great, if I got to see them climb out of LAX, with a full load. I did see them landing at LAX, in QF and UA's, livery.

Quoting Kiwinlondon (Reply 1):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.
I used to love watching these NZ 742s, take off on those LAX-AKL trips. They used almost all of runway 25R, ( LAX's longest runway at the time) and they lift off, behind the AA hangers. Their engines, would be close to full power. Their rumble, would be almost as loud as a DC-8-63's.
QF used 743's, on the LAX-AKL route, in the late 2000's. I was living in VA at the time, but I did see one take off in the summer of 2008, while I was visiting my family in Los Angeles.

Did the QF 743 take a payload hit on LAX-AKL? I believe this was the longest-ever recorded 747-300 flight.

Ryanair01 · Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:33 pm

Simple answer is the 747-SP has longer range than a 747-200. However ten years after the 747-SP was released there were a small number of 747-200s which could fly almost as far, but with payload restrictions and of course the 747-200 weighed more, so not an especially economic proposition.

It was the 747-400 which really made the 747-SP obsolete, only 12 years after the 747-SP started flying.

In its time the 747-SP was designed to be optimal for trans pacific, i.e. longer sectors than the atlantic and in those days dramatically smaller loads.

blacksoviet · Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:54 pm

At the time UA operated the 747SP LAX-SYD, were 777-200ERs banned from flying this sector?

mmo · Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:17 pm

Ryanair01 wrote:
Simple answer is the 747-SP has longer range than a 747-200. However ten years after the 747-SP was released there were a small number of 747-200s which could fly almost as far, but with payload restrictions and of course the 747-200 weighed more, so not an especially economic proposition.

It was the 747-400 which really made the 747-SP obsolete, only 12 years after the 747-SP started flying.

In its time the 747-SP was designed to be optimal for trans pacific, i.e. longer sectors than the atlantic and in those days dramatically smaller loads.

I don't think you are correct. The 747-200B series was designed to fly further than the SP. The aircraft could fly from JFK-NRT with a full load and a sizeable amount of cargo just about all year round. That was with the JT9-7Q. It was a 800,000-820,000 MTOW aircraft. The later 200B was an 833,000MTOW aircraft and it was powered by the JT9-7R4G. That could go all year round with absolutely no restrictions on payload.

Your statement of a "small number" is wrong. The 200B was a fairly substantial production run and that really put the nail in the SP sales.

desertjets · Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:34 pm

blacksoviet wrote:
At the time UA operated the 747SP LAX-SYD, were 777-200ERs banned from flying this sector?

IIRC at UA the SP and 777-200ER were never operated at the same time. I want to say the last SP was out of the UA fleet by '95 or so. The first 777-200ERs came in '98 or '99. Plus LAX-SYD was among the first routes to see the 747-400 in the early 90s.

flyingclrs727 · Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:52 pm

mmo wrote:
Ryanair01 wrote:
Simple answer is the 747-SP has longer range than a 747-200. However ten years after the 747-SP was released there were a small number of 747-200s which could fly almost as far, but with payload restrictions and of course the 747-200 weighed more, so not an especially economic proposition.

It was the 747-400 which really made the 747-SP obsolete, only 12 years after the 747-SP started flying.

In its time the 747-SP was designed to be optimal for trans pacific, i.e. longer sectors than the atlantic and in those days dramatically smaller loads.

I don't think you are correct. The 747-200B series was designed to fly further than the SP. The aircraft could fly from JFK-NRT with a full load and a sizeable amount of cargo just about all year round. That was with the JT9-7Q. It was a 800,000-820,000 MTOW aircraft. The later 200B was an 833,000MTOW aircraft and it was powered by the JT9-7R4G. That could go all year round with absolutely no restrictions on payload.

Your statement of a "small number" is wrong. The 200B was a fairly substantial production run and that really put the nail in the SP sales.

The 200B along with the 100B were just the 200 and 100 models built with with all the bug fixes and solutions for airworthiness directives developed after the 747's first entered service in 1970. Eventually the fixes were installed on the earlier 747's as they went through C and D checks.

The 747SP was based on the 747-100B.

DaufuskieGuy · Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:52 pm

blacksoviet wrote:
At the time UA operated the 747SP LAX-SYD, were 777-200ERs banned from flying this sector?

I've read elsewhere on this site that the use of the 200ER on AUS routes is often involved with tech stops and/or blocked off seats. So even if both types had operated concurrently I don't think it would have mattered.

blacksoviet · Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:14 pm

Were JT9D-R4G2 engines ever installed on a 747SP?

blacksoviet · Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:24 pm

jfk777 wrote:
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.

I wonder how much range could be gained by putting a "classic" short upper deck on a passenger 744.

blacksoviet · Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:26 pm

DaufuskieGuy wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
At the time UA operated the 747SP LAX-SYD, were 777-200ERs banned from flying this sector?

I've read elsewhere on this site that the use of the 200ER on AUS routes is often involved with tech stops and/or blocked off seats. So even if both types had operated concurrently I don't think it would have mattered.

I don't see how that is possible. I though the 777-200ER has more range than a standard 744.

ZK-NBT · Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:46 pm

DaufuskieGuy wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
At the time UA operated the 747SP LAX-SYD, were 777-200ERs banned from flying this sector?

I've read elsewhere on this site that the use of the 200ER on AUS routes is often involved with tech stops and/or blocked off seats. So even if both types had operated concurrently I don't think it would have mattered.

I'm not aware of regular tech stops happening on the SYD route when UA ran the 772's between 2014/16. They probably take a hit on cargo, the PW powered birds also do ORD-HKG which is long.

Cunard · Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:46 pm

trex8 wrote:
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/ ... se_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.

Just to add

Cathay Pacific inaugurated the first ever 'non-stop' service from Hong Kong Kai Tak airport to London Gatwick Airport over flying Russia on 2 July 1983 using Boeing 747-300, in 1989 this changed to the Boeing 747-400, in 1993 the London airport changed to London Heathrow Airport.

timz · Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:52 pm

mmo wrote:
The later 200B was an 833,000MTOW aircraft and it was powered by the JT9-7R4G. That could go [JFK-NRT] all year round with absolutely no restrictions on payload.

Boeing's graph shows 5300 nm still-air range with 115,000 lb payload

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... _123sp.pdf

(Turns out Pan Am started a weekly LAX-SYD nonstop in Nov 1982-- anyone find one before that?)

Swadian · Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:17 am

Who the heck resurrected an 8-month-old thread?

blacksoviet wrote:
DaufuskieGuy wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
At the time UA operated the 747SP LAX-SYD, were 777-200ERs banned from flying this sector?

I've read elsewhere on this site that the use of the 200ER on AUS routes is often involved with tech stops and/or blocked off seats. So even if both types had operated concurrently I don't think it would have mattered.

I don't see how that is possible. I though the 777-200ER has more range than a standard 744.

Check the spec sheets. 744 has longer range than 77E.

blacksoviet · Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:36 am

Swadian wrote:
Who the heck resurrected an 8-month-old thread?

blacksoviet wrote:
DaufuskieGuy wrote:

I've read elsewhere on this site that the use of the 200ER on AUS routes is often involved with tech stops and/or blocked off seats. So even if both types had operated concurrently I don't think it would have mattered.

I don't see how that is possible. I though the 777-200ER has more range than a standard 744.

Check the spec sheets. 744 has longer range than 77E.

Not according to Wikipedia specs. They show the 77E with 500 miles more range.

timz · Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:11 am

People like to scoff at Wikipedia, though it's actually useful. But it's not useful if you're trying to learn an airliner's range. The guy who writes one article isn't using the same criteria as the guy who writes the other article.

Best not to trust the range given in any enthusiast publication, unless they spell out what payload they're assuming, and how much reserve fuel, and what cruise speed.

incitatus · Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:13 am

Wasn't one big factor on the reach of the 747-200s flying JFK-NRT for UA, NW and JL in the 80s a very premium configuration? In some of them coach was relegated to behind door 3. US corporations used to have very generous travel policies that allowed first class travel for flights longer than 12 hours.

Byron1976 · Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:29 am

I love threads like this one here on A-net. It's fully enjoyable learning material and historic facts related to airlines and their ops.

mmo · Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:17 am

timz wrote:
mmo wrote:
The later 200B was an 833,000MTOW aircraft and it was powered by the JT9-7R4G. That could go [JFK-NRT] all year round with absolutely no restrictions on payload.

Boeing's graph shows 5300 nm still-air range with 115,000 lb payload

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... _123sp.pdf

(Turns out Pan Am started a weekly LAX-SYD nonstop in Nov 1982-- anyone find one before that?)

I think you might want to go back and revisit that document. Just ensure you are looking at the Q or 7R charts. I only flew that route for several years and never diverted on a R powered aircraft and can count on 1 hand the number of diversions for fuel in a Q. I didn't fly as a pax, but in right and left seat. But, what do I know!!

quiet1 · Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:00 pm

incitatus wrote:
Wasn't one big factor on the reach of the 747-200s flying JFK-NRT for UA, NW and JL in the 80s a very premium configuration? In some of them coach was relegated to behind door 3. US corporations used to have very generous travel policies that allowed first class travel for flights longer than 12 hours.

The two 747-200's UA operated exclusively JFK-NRT-JFK only had Y seating behind door 4. From the nose to door 2 was F, from door 2 to door 4 (and the Upper Deck) was Business. UA had a similar configuration for a sub-set of 747-400s.

blacksoviet · Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:58 pm

quiet1 wrote:
incitatus wrote:
Wasn't one big factor on the reach of the 747-200s flying JFK-NRT for UA, NW and JL in the 80s a very premium configuration? In some of them coach was relegated to behind door 3. US corporations used to have very generous travel policies that allowed first class travel for flights longer than 12 hours.

The two 747-200's UA operated exclusively JFK-NRT-JFK only had Y seating behind door 4. From the nose to door 2 was F, from door 2 to door 4 (and the Upper Deck) was Business. UA had a similar configuration for a sub-set of 747-400s.

Were those cloth coach seats?
How many gates did UA own at JFK Terminals 6/7?

CARST · Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:43 pm

mmo wrote:
I don't think you are correct. The 747-200B series was designed to fly further than the SP. The aircraft could fly from JFK-NRT with a full load and a sizeable amount of cargo just about all year round. That was with the JT9-7Q. It was a 800,000-820,000 MTOW aircraft. The later 200B was an 833,000MTOW aircraft and it was powered by the JT9-7R4G. That could go all year round with absolutely no restrictions on payload.
...
The 200B was a fairly substantial production run and that really put the nail in the SP sales.

Hi mmo, as you flew the aircraft and trans pacific routes yourself, I don't want to question your memory on the performance of the -200 and -200B, but are you sure about the fact that the -200B killed of the SP?

The -200B was already delivered from February 1971, but the first SPs didn't were delivered before March 1976 (ordered by PA in 1973). And SPs were produced until 1983 and only replaced by the -400, which was marketed as the "full size first jumbo jet with a longer range than the SP".

So it looks to me that there was a niche for the SP despite the -200B already being available before the SP. It seems like it was more like the 77L, 778 or A345 of its time...

7BOEING7 · Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:51 pm

Just to keep things in perspective, the first JT9D-7Q wasn't delivered until 5/25/79 -- by which time 22 (of 45) SP's had been delivered.

timz · Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:16 pm

mmo wrote:
you might want to go back and revisit that document. Just ensure you are looking at the Q or 7R charts.

Anyone who's interested can click the link and see that the -7R4G2 chart shows 5300 nm at 500000 lb ZFW. It's page 72 of the PDF, page 66 of the book.

mmo · Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:29 pm

timz wrote:
mmo wrote:
you might want to go back and revisit that document. Just ensure you are looking at the Q or 7R charts.

Anyone who's interested can click the link and see that the -7R4G2 chart shows 5300 nm at 500000 lb ZFW. It's page 72 of the PDF, page 66 of the book.

Obviously, you doubt my statement. First of all, if you look at the configuration you have selected, you will note it is 565 pax plus bags. NO ONE flew the NOPAC in that configuration! You are at MAX payload. The configuration of the 200Bs (Q and R power) I flew had about 384 seats, that works out to about 77,000 lbs plus another 25 tons of cargo and bags. You are well above the typical payload and weights used in revenue operations conducted by airlines.

The 200B did fly in the early 70s, but what Wikipedia doesn't tell you is that the powerplant was the 7F engine. The 7R didn't enter operation until the early 80's. The Q was the mid 70s and it did increase the performance beyond the SP!

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net