[Paleo Conservative]

Actually, it took almost two years for Pratt & Whitney to overcome their JT9D problems with the 747-100. But by then, Boeing had started its design process for the 747-200B with the General Electric CF6-50 engine and the Rolls-Royce RB.211-524 engine, which by the early 1980's overcame the early issues with the 747-100 and by the early 1980's achieved ranges almost as good as the 747-400!

But the 747-100 was still able to be certified and fly in revenue service with the PW JT-9 engines even before all the issues with that engine had been resolved.

Those improvements sure killed the 747SP. Did anyone ever put CF6-80's on a 747SP? What kind of range would it have?

[RayChuang88]

I do know a few 747SP's were fitted with Rolls-Royce RB.211-524 engines and they had a range approaching 7,000 nautical miles. But what really killed the 747SP was the development (through a project for Japan Airlines) a modified 747-200B with extra fuel tanks and GE CF6-50 engines that could fly between Tokyo and New York City non-stop year-round. Indeed, the current record for the fastest JFK Airport to Narita Airport transit was done by a JAL 747-200B.

[COEXERJ145]

What killed the 747SP was its higher seat-per-mile cost than the 747-200 and the fact that was it built to fill a niche market.

[SW6906]

Have a comment about Post 21?