User avatar
AA777223
Topic Author
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:12 am

747-300 GE Engines

Wed Mar 04, 2020 7:37 pm

I had a quick question about the GE engines on the 747-300. I ran across this photo and noticed something that seemed out of place:


The GE engines on this frame appear to be the CF6 model found on the 747-400. The only other instance I am aware of seeing this engine on anthing other than a -400 model is the VC-25 (though that is a -200 frame with a -400 cockpit and countless other upgrades/mods), though we can all agree those two highly specialized aircraft are oddballs for a number of reasons. Was it common place to put the newer GE engines on -300s?

I was always used to seeing the older GE engines on -300 models, such as this:
I've always found the -300 a bit of a strange model, being very similar to the 742 but with an SUD, though I am wondering if more of the -400 upgrades were introduced on the -300 than I initially thought. Got to fly on one for my first 747 flight with SR back in 1994 (ish). In particular, I assumed they had the three man cockpit of the -100/-200 model.

Any info about the engines or general items of note are appreciated.
A318/19/20/21, A300, A332/3, A343/6, A388, L1011, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, B722, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9, B743/4/4M, B752/3, B762/3/4, B772/E/W, B788/9, F-100, CRJ-200/700/900, ERJ-135/145/175/190, DH-8, ATR-72, DO-328, BAE-146
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:38 pm

For late built 747-200/300 aircraft the new GE CF6-80C2B1 was offered as a new option, the SFC was approx 9-10% better than the older GE CF6-50E2 engines.

Only two 747-200 aircraft powered by GE CF6-80C2B1 engines, were produced : both VC-25A aircraft (747-2G4B)

Also seven 747-300/80C2 aircraft were produced, two for Thai, three for Varig and two (combi's) for Air india

747-200/300 / CF6-80C2B1 summary :

L/N, Serial number, Type, Registration, Roll-out, F/F, Delivery, Basic number, Variable number, Initial operator.

679 23824 B747-2G4B 82-8000 87-04-16 87-05-16 90-08-23 R1251 RD166 USAF
681 23721 B747-3D7 HS-TGD 87-05-18 87-06-22 87-12-16 R1252 RS341 Thai
685 23825 B747-2G4B 92-9000 87-07-10 87-10-29 90-12-20 R1254 RD167 USAF
688 23722 B747-3D7 HS-TGE 87-09-08 87-11-16 87-12-03 R1255 RS342 Thai
701 24106 B747-341 PP-VOA 88-03-28 88-04-22 88-04-30 R1262 RS331 Varig
702 24107 B747-341 PP-VOB 88-04-10 88-05-07 88-05-13 R1263 RS332 Varig
703 24108 B747-341 PP-VOC 88-04-26 88-05-18 88-05-27 R1264 RS333 Varig
711 24159 B747-337(M) VT-EPW 88-08-17 88-09-26 88-10-21 R1626 RS781 Air India
719 24160 B747-337(M) VT-EPX 88-10-18 88-11-08 88-11-22 R1628 RS782 Air India

Regarding the General Electric CF6-80C2 engine :

Early built, non-FADEC GE CF6-80C2 engines, as installed on the 747-200/300, were (cable) controlled by a Woodward Main Engine Control (MEC), supervised by Power Management Control (PMC).
All later -F models (FADEC) are controlled by a Electronic Control Unit (ECU).
Thrust rating can be changed by changing both the MEC and PMC on non-FADEC engines.
Thrust rating can be changed by changing the rating plug of the ECU only on FADEC engines.
CF6-80C2 Non-FADEC and FADEC engines are NOT interchangeable.
Only during a total engine overhaul a FADEC engine can be modified into a non-FADEC engine and the other way around, because many sensors (for input to the FADEC) are integrated in the engine casing.

For some detailed GE CF6-80C2 history see : http://www.iasg.co.uk/pdfs/articles/eng ... istory.pdf
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:20 pm

I thought Qantas had some of those. Specifically, some Qantas SYD-LAX flights were on 747-300. Did they not have new engines?
 
744SPX
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:22 pm

9-10% is huge, about the same as going from the CFM-56 to the LEAP. I wonder what the 743 range was at the 833K TO weight with the CF6-80 compared to the 744/CF6-80 at the same TO weight.
 
Rudenko
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:38 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:53 pm

LCDFlight wrote:
I thought Qantas had some of those. Specifically, some Qantas SYD-LAX flights were on 747-300. Did they not have new engines?

Qantas 300s were RB211s
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:29 am

Rudenko wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
I thought Qantas had some of those. Specifically, some Qantas SYD-LAX flights were on 747-300. Did they not have new engines?

Qantas 300s were RB211s


Okay, so I was wrong about the GE part, but weren't those also "744 engines"... sort of off-topic, but it is pretty much on topic too, sort of.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 954
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:59 am

Slightly off topic, the -400 wing leading edge was also installed on some of the late-build -300. Made then look very similar to a -400D
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
User avatar
nuke
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:21 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Thu Mar 05, 2020 4:03 am

LCDFlight wrote:
Rudenko wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
I thought Qantas had some of those. Specifically, some Qantas SYD-LAX flights were on 747-300. Did they not have new engines?

Qantas 300s were RB211s


Okay, so I was wrong about the GE part, but weren't those also "744 engines"... sort of off-topic, but it is pretty much on topic too, sort of.


No, they were the RB211-524D4 engines which were only fitted to the 747 Classic, the -400 had the -524G and -524H.
Dependable Engines.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:12 am

744SPX wrote:
9-10% is huge, about the same as going from the CFM-56 to the LEAP. I wonder what the 743 range was at the 833K TO weight with the CF6-80 compared to the 744/CF6-80 at the same TO weight.


833K Range* 747-300/80C2 : 6700 nm, ferry range 7750 nm
833K Range* 747-300/50E2 : 6100 nm, ferry range 7000 nm

* Boeing defined range : long range cruise. typical international reserves of 5% tripfuel, 200 nm alternate, 30 minutes hold at 1500 ft, with 400 pax and baggage.

Source : Jane's all the world aircraft, edition 1988/1989. page 359.

The reason that only a few 747-300 aircraft were produced with 80C2 engines is that at that time most orders were add up orders for airlines with an already established 747-200/300 fleet with CF6-50E2 engines. For fleet standarization most airlines ordered more 50E2 powered aircraft.
Also changing already ordered 747-200/300 aircraft from 50E2 to -80C2 proved to be difficult or even impossible. (MP wanted to change the already ordered PH-MCF from 50E2 to -80C2, but this was practically impossible)
With the 747-400 already on the horizon , most airlines decided to wait for the introduction of the 747-400.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
744SPX
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Thu Mar 05, 2020 3:56 pm

Interesting- Since 744 range at 875k was ~7260, I'm guessing fuel would account for pretty much all of that meaning the 744's modified wing to body fairing and increased span/winglets added very little if anything at all to range. Payload/range chart for 744 with CF6-80C2B1 shows ~6700 nm at 833k...
thanks!
 
User avatar
Ruddman
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:02 pm

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Sat Mar 07, 2020 10:58 pm

And speaking of the 743, I’ve read recently that the JT9D-7R4G2 was mostly developed for the -300. Is that correct? And the claim made was that most later 747-200’s had the -7Q rather then the 7R.

Can’t confirm or deny. I’m sure there’s somebody here that could though. :)
 
mmo
Posts: 1897
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Sun Mar 08, 2020 9:10 am

Most of the late build PW 200s had the 7R4G2. It allowed the aircraft to fly at MTOW (833,000lbs) pretty much at any temp and out of most airports. In addition, the SFC was better than the 7Q, so it also had a slightly better range.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Sun Mar 08, 2020 11:21 am

- JT9D-7R series, improved fan with 40 wider blades, with only a single ring of snubbers, higher efficiency 4 stage LPC, single crystal first stage turbine blades, improved use of turbine cooling air and added supervisory Electronic Engine Control. T/O thrust 48.000 - 56.000 lbs.

This third and last JT9D series was initialy developed and certified in 1980-81 to counter the new GE CF6-80A series that were designed to power the B767 and A310 series.

A310-221 : JT9D-7R4D1 (48.000 lbs)
A310-222 : JT9D-7R4E1 (50.000 lbs)
A310-322 : JT9D-7R4E1 (50.000 lbs)
767-200 : JT9D-7R4D, JT9D-7R4E, JT9D-7R4E4*.
767-300 : JT9D-7R4D, JT9D-7R4E, JT9D-7R4E4*.

*Note : JT9D-7RE4, same as -7R4E except incorporates burner and high turbine configuration of the -7R4H1, flat rated 50,000 lbs up to 115 degrees F

747-200/300 : JT9D-7R4G2 (54.750 lbs), certified July 1982, Same as -7R4D/E except incorporates an improved durability hot section including wide chord vanes.

Finally Pratt powered the A300B4-620 series with the last variant of the JT9D-7R series , JT9D-7R4H1 (56.000 lbs), same as -7R4G2 except for external arrangement required for installation and also incorporates single crystal first and second stage turbine blades and single crystal second turbine vanes.

However, with the introduction of the GE CF6-80C2 series , Pratt had to develop a new series of engines, the PW 4000 series, to keep up with GE.

As stated already by MMO, most late built PW powered 747-200 series and all PW powered 747-300 aircraft had JT9D-7R4G2 engines installed, the most fuel economical engine available at the 747 classic series, until the arrival of the GE CF6-80C2B1 engine at seven (7) of the last built 747-300's (and both VC25A aircraft.).
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:41 pm

Adding to above :

Because of the approx. 10.000 lbs increase in OEW (stretched upper deck structure) of the 747-300, compared to the 747-200 and the fact that the MTOW (833K) could not be increased, wihout a major redesign (wingbox, center wing structure and rudders), only the engines with the lowest TSFC were certified at the 747-300. Some even derated due engine out limitations (rudder effectivity).

- PW JT9D-7R4G2
- GE CF6-50E2
- GE CF6-80C2B1
- RR RB211-524B2-19, RB211-524C2-19, or RB211-524D4-19, RB211-524D4-39.

Note : At that point in time Boeing was already designing the 747-400 and didn't want a drain of orders from the 747-400 to a possible 747-300IGW
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4456
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:27 am

AA777223 wrote:
I had a quick question about the GE engines on the 747-300. I ran across this photo and noticed something that seemed out of place:


The GE engines on this frame appear to be the CF6 model found on the 747-400. The only other instance I am aware of seeing this engine on anthing other than a -400 model is the VC-25 (though that is a -200 frame with a -400 cockpit and countless other upgrades/mods), though we can all agree those two highly specialized aircraft are oddballs for a number of reasons. Was it common place to put the newer GE engines on -300s?

I was always used to seeing the older GE engines on -300 models, such as this:
I've always found the -300 a bit of a strange model, being very similar to the 742 but with an SUD, though I am wondering if more of the -400 upgrades were introduced on the -300 than I initially thought. Got to fly on one for my first 747 flight with SR back in 1994 (ish). In particular, I assumed they had the three man cockpit of the -100/-200 model.

Any info about the engines or general items of note are appreciated.

the SUD was a modification before it was a model. The -300 evolved into the -400 with even newer engines and a 2 man primary pilot crew as the Flight Engineer Position was eliminated.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4456
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:33 am

747classic wrote:
Adding to above :

Because of the approx. 10.000 lbs increase in OEW (stretched upper deck structure) of the 747-300, compared to the 747-200 and the fact that the MTOW (833K) could not be increased, wihout a major redesign (wingbox, center wing structure and rudders), only the engines with the lowest TSFC were certified at the 747-300. Some even derated due engine out limitations (rudder effectivity).

- PW JT9D-7R4G2
- GE CF6-50E2
- GE CF6-80C2B1
- RR RB211-524B2-19, RB211-524C2-19, or RB211-524D4-19, RB211-524D4-39.

Note : At that point in time Boeing was already designing the 747-400 and didn't want a drain of orders from the 747-400 to a possible 747-300IGW

some of the very last 747-200B's had a max gross of 833K Max Gross, The -400's came out at 877K max gross
 
User avatar
Ruddman
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:02 pm

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Mon Mar 09, 2020 2:29 am

Nice, thanks for the update and correction.
I'd be curious to know how many -200's were sold with the -R with the possibility that the -300 was coming along?
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:27 am

strfyr51 wrote:
747classic wrote:
Adding to above :

Because of the approx. 10.000 lbs increase in OEW (stretched upper deck structure) of the 747-300, compared to the 747-200 and the fact that the MTOW (833K) could not be increased, wihout a major redesign (wingbox, center wing structure and rudders), only the engines with the lowest TSFC were certified at the 747-300. Some even derated due engine out limitations (rudder effectivity).

- PW JT9D-7R4G2
- GE CF6-50E2
- GE CF6-80C2B1
- RR RB211-524B2-19, RB211-524C2-19, or RB211-524D4-19, RB211-524D4-39.

Note : At that point in time Boeing was already designing the 747-400 and didn't want a drain of orders from the 747-400 to a possible 747-300IGW

some of the very last 747-200B's had a max gross of 833K Max Gross, The -400's came out at 877K max gross


The 833K MTOW could be upgraded on many 747-200 aircraft, if that aircraft was factory built with wing type 6 or above and an engine type with more than 50,000 lbs T/O thrust * was installed.

* PW JT9D-70A (53K), -7Q (53K), -7R4G2 (54K), GE CF6-50E/E2 (52,5K), GE CF6-80C2B1 (56K), RR RB211-524B2 (50,1K), -C2 (51,5K), -D4 (53,1K)

The relation between installed engine type and MTOW - aircraft structure permitting - can be found at page 15/263 of the 747 classic ACAPS, see : https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... _123sp.pdf

Example : L/N 271, built 1975, was one of the first built with wing type 6 and the first (civil 747) to be powered by CF6-50E engines of 52.500 lbs thrust. First the aircraft was certified at 800K, after the first HMV it was upgraded to 820K, after SUD modification is was finally upgraded to 833K.*
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
mmo
Posts: 1897
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:06 am

Ruddman wrote:
Nice, thanks for the update and correction.
I'd be curious to know how many -200's were sold with the -R with the possibility that the -300 was coming along?


You have to realize the 300 was not designed for the same mission the 200B was. The 300 had a lower MTOW, it's been a while but it was either 813 or 800,000 lbs. but the OEW was much heavier than the 200B which reduced the payload. The 300 was a perfect aircraft for airlines such as Swiss, KLM who wanted to go from central Europe to the US west coast. Not having the motivation to dig deep, IIRC, the 300 would have a tough time, going JFK-NRT with any payload restrictions. In reality, it would have been in a position to move a lower payload than the 200B if you were looking at a Transpac flight. NW was the launch customer for the 400 simply mainly due to the 300 not being able to increase the payload available. Thus the 400 was conceived.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:32 am

mmo wrote:
Ruddman wrote:
Nice, thanks for the update and correction.
I'd be curious to know how many -200's were sold with the -R with the possibility that the -300 was coming along?


You have to realize the 300 was not designed for the same mission the 200B was. The 300 had a lower MTOW, it's been a while but it was either 813 or 800,000 lbs. but the OEW was much heavier than the 200B which reduced the payload. The 300 was a perfect aircraft for airlines such as Swiss, KLM who wanted to go from central Europe to the US west coast. Not having the motivation to dig deep, IIRC, the 300 would have a tough time, going JFK-NRT with any payload restrictions. In reality, it would have been in a position to move a lower payload than the 200B if you were looking at a Transpac flight. NW was the launch customer for the 400 simply mainly due to the 300 not being able to increase the payload available. Thus the 400 was conceived.


The 747-300 had exactly the same MTOW options up to 833K as the 747-200B, but a 10.000 lbs higher OEW, conseq. the range was indeed reduced.
We operated the 747-200B(SUD) and 747-300 aircraft with full passenger payload from Europe to the US West Coast (e.g. AMS-LAX), after increasing the MTOW to 833K.

Some airlines even tried to convince Boeing to increase the 747-300 MTOW of 833K (Would have been possible with the GE CF6-80C2B1 or JT9D-7R4H engines ), but Boeing was not interested, because the 747-400 design had already been started.

Even very late produced 747-200B/F and 747-300 aircraft, built after the first 747-400's, and assembled with a 747-400 type wing (without the extension and winglet), were not cleared for a higher MTOW, because the required certification was not seen as "cost effective" by Boeing.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
Balerit
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:14 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Sun Mar 15, 2020 10:28 am

The -300 SUD had engine fan blade problems caused by the airflow pattern being disturbed by the stretched upper deck on take-off, especially when the aircraft banked left of right. We, SAA, had a few inboard engines throw fan blades due to this phenomenon and P&W had to send out a team to investigate this problem. Boeing eventually had to reshape the wing to body fairings amongst other mods.
Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (retired).
 
Flanker7
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:21 pm

Balerit wrote:
The -300 SUD had engine fan blade problems caused by the airflow pattern being disturbed by the stretched upper deck on take-off, especially when the aircraft banked left of right. We, SAA, had a few inboard engines throw fan blades due to this phenomenon and P&W had to send out a team to investigate this problem. Boeing eventually had to reshape the wing to body fairings amongst other mods.



Was this a strictly P&W issue or did the GE engine's had the same problems?
Flying blue only if possible
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Sun Mar 15, 2020 1:29 pm

Flanker7 wrote:
Balerit wrote:
The -300 SUD had engine fan blade problems caused by the airflow pattern being disturbed by the stretched upper deck on take-off, especially when the aircraft banked left of right. We, SAA, had a few inboard engines throw fan blades due to this phenomenon and P&W had to send out a team to investigate this problem. Boeing eventually had to reshape the wing to body fairings amongst other mods.



Was this a strictly P&W issue or did the GE engine's had the same problems?


Throwing fanblades would be listed as a serious incident and the FAA would be involved.
I could have missed it, but i have never seen anything about these issues in any Boeing documents or in 747 AD's.
Do you know an AD about this subject ? Perhaps triggered by the many high altitude T/O's at JNB with thin air and higher N1 RPM's than during normal ops ?

At the GE powered 747-300 aircraft there were AFAIK no issues (also not at JNB, NBO or MEX) and I have operated GE powered 747-300's and 747-200B(SUD) aircraft from 1983 until 2006.

Note : We had excessive fan vibration (no fanblade trowing) with PW JT9D-7 engines on our early 747-200B aircraft, but this was caused by too large fan seal clearances.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
Ruddman
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:02 pm

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Tue Mar 17, 2020 12:59 am

So how many of those 'late built' -200B's with 7R's were there? So hard to find info nowadays.
After reading the claim I mentioned, a little search on airfleets (not 100% convinced of it's accuracy) of various fleets show some interesting stats of the 742.

Northwest : 11 x -7Q. 8 x 7R
Kalitta ; 6 a piece of both
Japan Airlines. Lots of 7A's and 7J's
Singapore. Lots of 7J's and odd 7R.
Atlas - couple 7R's and plenty of GE's (CF6-50E2)
KLM - lots of 7W's and GE's.

Not doubting any of the above statements at all. As I said, I'm not totally convinced airfleet is totally accurate. But it seems to support the claim that the 7R - despite being the most powerful and fuel efficient, still doesn't seem to be in the majority when it comes to the -200. AND maybe the -300.

More often then not, the -7Q and CF6 seem to be motors of choice for various airlines.
I'm assuming though on those all important long haul routes, that's where it came into its own. And made its mark.

But hey, none of this really matters one way or the other. Purely for interest's sake while I sip on some whiskey. ;)
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4456
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:46 am

Ruddman wrote:
And speaking of the 743, I’ve read recently that the JT9D-7R4G2 was mostly developed for the -300. Is that correct? And the claim made was that most later 747-200’s had the -7Q rather then the 7R.

Can’t confirm or deny. I’m sure there’s somebody here that could though. :)

the PWJT9D-7R4G was just another version of the 7R4D on the 767 with 56-62K thrust . They were not interchangeable between airplanes either. the first interchangeable engines came with the 767-300 and the 747-400 where the engine pylon wiring and FADEC were the same. One you could dial up to 62K or down to 56K with a wired plug to program the FADEC. That's probably the reason United is still flying the PW powered 767-322ER's Because we have loads of spare engines now that the 744's are gone.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Tue Mar 17, 2020 1:08 pm

I will try to answer the Question(s) about the JT9D-7R4G2 powered 747-300 and 747-200B and -F aircraft.

The -7R is first certified on the 747-300 series (the combination -7Q / 743 has never been certified), so the -7R is the only PW engine certified at the 747-300 series.

First certified at L/N 570 for Swissair.
The following airlines selected the -7R on the 747-300 series :
Singapore (-312), Swissair (357), Korean (3B5), JAL (346), SAA (344), Egyptair (366), Malaysian (3H6) and Saudia govern (3G1).

The combination 747-200 series and -7R was certified at L/N 579 for JAL
The following 747-200 (-B and -F) are delivered with PW JT-9D-7R4G2 engines, however several earlier built PW powered 747-200 aircraft were later re-engined with spare engines or engines from early retired 747-300 aircraft :

Air China : L/N 591, 628, 670, 814
China Airlines : 752, 462 (re-engined),
Korean : 718, 720
JAL : 579, 581, 635, 754, 684
Singapore : 710
NWA : 594, 595, 642, 644, 651 (many engines changes at NWA , most freighters -7Q, all late built 251B to -7R)
United : 673, 675
SAA : 154, 158, 160, 194, 198, 301 (all re-engined)

All Data from the Commercial Jet Aircraft Census by Bill Harms, update September 1998.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
Ruddman
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:02 pm

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Tue Mar 17, 2020 7:45 pm

Oh nice . Thanks. Fascinating stuff there.
And I'd love that book!

Appreciate the reply and thank you for researching the info.
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1620
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Wed Mar 18, 2020 7:14 am

747classic wrote:
mmo wrote:
Ruddman wrote:
Nice, thanks for the update and correction.
I'd be curious to know how many -200's were sold with the -R with the possibility that the -300 was coming along?


You have to realize the 300 was not designed for the same mission the 200B was. The 300 had a lower MTOW, it's been a while but it was either 813 or 800,000 lbs. but the OEW was much heavier than the 200B which reduced the payload. The 300 was a perfect aircraft for airlines such as Swiss, KLM who wanted to go from central Europe to the US west coast. Not having the motivation to dig deep, IIRC, the 300 would have a tough time, going JFK-NRT with any payload restrictions. In reality, it would have been in a position to move a lower payload than the 200B if you were looking at a Transpac flight. NW was the launch customer for the 400 simply mainly due to the 300 not being able to increase the payload available. Thus the 400 was conceived.



Even very late produced 747-200B/F and 747-300 aircraft, built after the first 747-400's, and assembled with a 747-400 type wing (without the extension and winglet), were not cleared for a higher MTOW, because the required certification was not seen as "cost effective" by Boeing.

If Boeing had certified these aircraft, would they have range equal to the 747-400?
 
mmo
Posts: 1897
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Wed Mar 18, 2020 7:54 am

blacksoviet wrote:

If Boeing had certified these aircraft, would they have range equal to the 747-400?


Not quite certain what you are asking, but the answer is NO.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Wed Mar 18, 2020 8:09 am

blacksoviet wrote:
747classic wrote:

Even very late produced 747-200B/F and 747-300 aircraft, built after the first 747-400's, and assembled with a 747-400 type wing (without the extension and winglet), were not cleared for a higher MTOW, because the required certification was not seen as "cost effective" by Boeing.

If Boeing had certified these aircraft, would they have range equal to the 747-400?


No, a SFC difference of approx 3-4% will still remain between the 747-400 and a 747-300IGW variant :

Installation of 747-400 wing extension"+ winglet versus basic 747 wingplatform : approx 3 - 3,5 %
Installation of FADEC engines versus non FADEC at a 747-300IGW , approx 0,5 -1 %
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
Balerit
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:14 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Wed Mar 18, 2020 8:36 am

Yes SAA re engined its aircraft. The -7r4g2 engine had much better fuel consumption and basically killed off the 747 -SP.
Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (retired).
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1620
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:33 am

747classic wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
747classic wrote:

Even very late produced 747-200B/F and 747-300 aircraft, built after the first 747-400's, and assembled with a 747-400 type wing (without the extension and winglet), were not cleared for a higher MTOW, because the required certification was not seen as "cost effective" by Boeing.

If Boeing had certified these aircraft, would they have range equal to the 747-400?


No, a SFC difference of approx 3-4% will still remain between the 747-400 and a 747-300IGW variant :

Installation of 747-400 wing extension"+ winglet versus basic 747 wingplatform : approx 3 - 3,5 %
Installation of FADEC engines versus non FADEC at a 747-300IGW , approx 0,5 -1 %

Why didn’t Boeing pay for the certification of the JT9D-7R4G2 engine on the 747SP? Wouldn’t this have created even greater range than the 747-400?
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Wed Mar 18, 2020 10:26 am

blacksoviet wrote:
747classic wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:

Why didn’t Boeing pay for the certification of the JT9D-7R4G2 engine on the 747SP? Wouldn’t this have created even greater range than the 747-400?


Most 747SP aircraft were already delivered with earlier JT9D variants BEFORE the certification of the -7R engine on the 747-300/200B.
No customer wanted to re-engine these 747SP's and/or was willing to pay for the certification of the 747SP / -7R combination.
The introduction of the -7R (and other more efficient engines from GE and RR) created finally a 747-200B aircraft with approx the same range as the 747SP, so conseg killing the 747SP.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1620
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: 747-300 GE Engines

Wed Mar 18, 2020 6:47 pm

There is only one 747-300 remaining in service. It has GE engines. It is an old former Sabena -300M in Belarus. Sabena ordered the combi variant because they knew they could not fill all the seats on a standard 747-300.

It is possible that Mahan Air will return a 747-300 to service at a later date. They just need to find the parts. They recently returned a 747-400 to service after ten years in storage.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: N353SK and 48 guests

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