They were out of Uganda, I had a friend that jumpseated on them.
Posted on 01/20/2007 8:47:51 PM PST by txroadkill
It had a horrible CASM. RayChuang88 says one reason for the SP getting so few orders was improvements to later 747-200's with upgraded engines and additional body fuel tanks that had enough range to fly JFK-NRT nonstop. The upgraded 747-200's could carry a normal passenger load rather than the DC-10 sized load of the SP. I'm sure the 200's also had a higher residual value once it was time to convert them to freighters too.
The SP was the fastest 747 ever built and the highest flying. NASA has converted one into an infrared astronomical observatory called SOFIA precisely due to its ability to fly at high altitudes up to 50,000 feet. Pratt and Whitney has converted a 747SP into a aircraft engine testbed to take advantage of the flight envelope of the SP. These SP's should be flying for a long time to come due to the low number of cycles on them and their special missions.
I've seen the SOFIA, its nice, it was one of the 2 SP's that United painted in their 'bowling shoe' livery. Qatar and Oman still fly SP's as presidential jets, and a few still fly in Namibia.
The Global Peace Ambassador SP (former Pan Am) is still in disrepair.
I saw it in BWI about a year and a half ago, get this, its on the tarmac, next to a ATA L-1011, and crossing right in front of them is a passenger DC-8 charter.
I had no camera, and the weather was lousy, it was the perfect shot.
While the upgraded 747-200B's (Japan Airlines was the primary user) could fly from New York JFK to Tokyo Narita nonstop, they were not the ideal solution due to the additional fuel capacity reducing the cargo space capacity. That's why Boeing developed the 747-400, which had far more fuel capacity without sacrificing passenger or cargo load.
And once the 747-400's were available, the value of 747SP's plummeted. An airline using a 747-200 with extra fuel tanks could at that point take out the fuel tanks and use it as a normal 747-200, while a 747SP couldn't economically be converted to other uses.
Here's a link to a picture of the coolest 747SP livery. I wasn't sure about the copyright status, so I didn't post the picture here.
http://www.747sp.com/viewphoto.asp?826
They were out of Uganda, I had a friend that jumpseated on them.
Well in that end, the 747-300 had a place.
I remember those other versions of the 757. I think they should have made that platform a P-3 Orion replacement offering. It would have a lot more potential than the 737 based ideas.
I don't follow it all as much as I used to, and that is interesting about the 767-400. IMO the E-10 will most likely incorporate more than the glass cockpit. I like your idea on the GENx engine derivatives for these aircraft, but most likely that engine would be downsized a degree.
That is the Ernest Anglely Ministery plane.
Formerly TWA, then American, then Dubai Royal plane, then a UAE government jet.
Its still flying, was in Cleveland last month.
P3 Orion was built for low level sub hunting over the ocean.
The 757 could never do that.
Maybe the KC-767 would have a derated version, but the 767-400 is actually under powered. It could actually benefit from a more powerful engine. Ironically, the EU deliberately prevented the development of ETOPS certified versions of the GE/PW Alliance GP 7000 developed for the A380 for use in twin engined aircraft. Boeing wanted to develop a longer ranged version of the 767-400 using that engine. The prohibition prompted Boeing develop the 787 and to get GE and RR to develop the even more advanced engines that will be used in the 787 and the bleeded GENx derivative for the 747-8.
So why is the 737 suitable, but the 757 isn't?
I just can't see a 57 or a 37 running low and slow over the ocean.
But a P3? Hell yeah!
I had a buddy that flew the Electra for Kalitta. He did the coral routes from Hawaii to Majuro and Phonpei and Truk. No traffic, he could do whatever he wanted.
Probably so, I still think of low running planes as being for props.
I'm an old schooler.
The beauty of MS Fsim (and I am an addict) is that you dont have to land one, the big jets pretty much land themselves. Type in the VOR freq. for the runway, set all the autopilot options, align airplane along the glide slope, and you are done.
Once you touchdown, set spoilers up, reverse thrusters and apply brakes, you should not overshoot the runway. Unless its a big plane on a small strip.
I meant ILS freq, not VOR.
I do all my FS flying hands on. I still have an ancient flight yoke that plugs into the gameport (Try finding one of those!).
FSX is great, but even with a killer computer, it still lags. I wish Microsoft had built in some support for dual core systems.
Have you done the 737 to Groom Lake flight yet?
I had one of those coming to SF from VA. While the cabin crew did a scramble dance and started wrapping babies in blankets, one of them came on the intercom crying and in near hysterics asking us to "G...g...get Y...y...your E...e...emergency P...ppp...procedures card from behind your seats".
Let me tell you, THAT really inspires confidence, NOT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.