Talk:Boeing 747SP/Archive 1

Untitled
Many people asked me to create a full SP page, so I did! When I get time, I will add more pictures and specs here. For now do some editing yourself or write to me and I will put it on here. But please be correct with your facts and stories --Bangabalunga 17:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Flying Hospital of The Saudi Arabian Govenrment
I saw this http://www.saudiembassy.net/2006News/News/NewsDetail.asp?cIndex=5949 when I made a search at Google, so I would rather not mention that operator for the 747SP. If anyone has any piece of news/pictures of this use of the 747SP, please share it!! ;-) Adleos 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

anonymous revert
To the anonymous editor who reverted the recent changes: there is a WikiProject Aircraft which has guidelines on aircraft articles. My recent edits were in line with these guidelines and improved the overall clarity and flow of the document, as well as converting it in many places to a more encyclopedic tone and structure. Yes, I did remove irrelevant data like the specifications for the 747-200 and other models; this article is about the 747SP. If you're going to speak for wikipedia, consider registering an account. ericg ✈ 06:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As this issue has been raised on WikiProject Aircraft and peer review has been requested, I came here to see what the fuss was all about. For my part, I believe the edits that ericg made did improved the encyclopedic quality of the article. And I echo his statement above: if you're going to make statments as if you own WP, at least register and join the community. Akradecki 15:2

0, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Ericg did make improvements to the page. I also believe that comparison specs should not occur. But in this case since the SP is a sister plane to the 747-100, maybe we should have a table that has both types. This is not a case of comparing Airbus to Boeing and so on, I dont agree with that. The SP should be compared to atleast the 747-100. Other than that, Im ok with it. --Bangabalunga 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did the delivery table go? Nothing wrong with that. --154.20.74.115 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No question the edits were an improvement. I know we're supposed to "assume good faith," but the snide comment that went with that revert makes it hard to do. —SkipperPilot 17:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I see both points of view. Eric you drastically changed the whole article to your liking. I know we have a wikiproject aircraft layout but sometimes commonsense should prevail. I saw both edits. This person kept almost all your changes except your spec table. Whats wrong with that? This person's edit comment was a bit harsh I give you that, but overall I was ok with the last edit of this person. He/she kept your info box. He/she kept your layout. He/she kept your wording changes. He/she put the spec table back but took 747-400 out. So lets not dismiss this person either but at the same time support eric.--Anais1983 22:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The look I took at the diff, then and now, showed basically a complete revert - including layout and wording. The grammar and structure changes were not retained. I'm not convinced that a per-year breakdown of orders is beneficial to readers; likewise with a large comparison table of specifications for aircraft not discussed in the article. These issues probably could be raised with WP:AIR. ericg ✈ 23:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

False Photograph
Hey, the QANTAS 747SP photo was taken from Microsoft Flight Simulator, not from real world. It was edited to seem real (and the author nearly did it!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.185.77 (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Longer range
One thing that could be added is a brief explanation of how the 747SP has a longer range than a standard 747. My assumption on first seeing the 747SP was that it was a short-range variation of the 747, because it's physically smaller, but obviously this is not the case. I assume the extra range comes about because the aircraft is lighter, but has the same fuel tankage, but the article doesn't say. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That is correct. Same wings and fuel capacity, but lighter weight. That translates into more nautical miles per pound of fuel consumed, and that means greater range. EditorASC (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents
I have removed the China Airlines accident as I believe it does not meet guidelines for inclusion. No serious injury and aircraft returned to service. MilborneOne (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally in the incident has an article, as this one does at China Airlines Flight 006, then it's notable. Perhaps the accident article should be reviewed, and AFDed if the incident truly is non-notable. - BillCJ (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point BillCJ I have asked the question at the accident article. I will revert the change and wait for any further opinions. Is being on a TV programme notable enough for an article? MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a notable incident. Even if the aircraft was deemed airworthy afterwards and returned to service, accidents such as this one will have a lasting effect on some of the airframe's components (which can cause very serious trouble down the line), although I suspect this plane has since been retired from service without further incident? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F5EE:E8EE:243B:2C66 (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Records
The records section lists three flights but does not say what records were set! not sure what tag to add but I think it needs to be made clearer to the reader what is going on. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange 747-SP variant
The 747 in the looks like a 747-SP (judging by the length), however the engine configuration is one I've never seen before - the engines are paired together on single pylons, and there appear to be fuel tanks on the outer pylons. Is this a 747-SP, and if so, does this article need an update to mention this unusual variation? Thanks  Socrates2008 (  Talk  )   10:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a 747-236B, modified for use as a prop in Casino Royale. . There's something wrong with the aspect ratio in that YouTube clip which is what's put you off.  Correct aspect ratios can be seen in other clips - such as this version of the advert, but there's also versions from Fifth Gear and other doco pieces.. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just in case you thought you were seeing things - the aircraft has been modified as a Skyfleet S750 with twin mock-up engines on each of the inner engine pylons, with the external fuel tanks on the outer pylons. More info at G-BDXJ. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, thank you! PS: Are you a plane spotter, by any chance :-)    Socrates2008 (  Talk  )   06:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed AA route
London to Tokyo route, to New York to London on to Tokyo. I flew this route and aircraft many times in 1992. Jacob805 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Extended Range
I think the description of the Boeing 747SP as having a longer range AND being faster is misleading in the context of longer range. The longer range was \ is result of a higher cruising altitude (~45,000 feet) and a SLOWER cruising speed, not just the higher fuel proportion of maximum gross takeo-off weight. I flew on the San Francisco - Hong Kong non-stop flight several times in the early 80s; a VERY long flight of > 6900 miles taking three meals and nearly 18 hours I can't easily find a reference to support this memory; perhaps a direct approach to Boeing?

Neonorange (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is correct. Both the longer range and higher cruising speed are possible because the 747SP has the same wings (lift) and engines (thrust) of a 747-100 without all the weight of the longer fuselage.  By being lighter it is able to do more with both the lift and thrust.  Weight (a.k.a. gravity) is the enemy of flight.  With less weight everything is technically more efficient.  Though the economics were a gamble because fewer paying passengers per flight meant less revenue.  That's where the engineering tradeoff was for the 747SP. Ikluft (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I used the word 'misleading', not incorrect. The Boeing 747SP was designed for ultra-long routes. A higher cruising altitude and a lower cruising speed contributed to that goal. Until a definitive answer based on 747SP operations is available, I'll go with my experience as a 747SP passenger on one of those ultra-long routes.

Neonorange (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume the faster cruising speed is based on released specs and other sources. That has nothing to do with whether a particular airline used them at slower cruising speeds in order to extend range on ultra-long routes, which is what I think you are describing. That's not being misleading, as airlines are not obligated to use aircraft in a certain way, nor does our description here mean they could not have been used otherwise. If you have a reliable source that states that certain airlines flew the 747SP at slower cruising speeds to extend range an certain ultra-long routes, it might by worth including in the article. If the 747SP proved not to be capable of higher cruising speeds, however, that is a wholly different issue, but one that would still need a reliable source. - BillCJ (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked in several print sources that I have, and only one mentioned increased speed. I also looked at Boeing's 747 pages, and found this: "Boeing also built the 747-100SP (special performance), which had a shortened fuselage and was designed to fly higher, faster and farther non-stop than any 747 model of its time." As I said above, that deals with the 747SP's designed capability, but has nothing to do with actual usage by airlines, or even whether its actual performance lived up to its disigned performance. I'm going to add the Boeing source to the article in place of the fact tags I had added a bit earlier. - BillCJ (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a retired UAL Captain, holding Captain's type ratings on the B-747-100/200/300, and the 747-400. I have flown the long haul SFO/LAX to HKG flights many times, in all versions of the 747, including the SP.  While the SP can cruise at mach .88, it will still guzzle a significant greater amount of fuel (lbs of fuel, per nautical mile), than if it cruises at the standard mach .84/.85 speed, that is routinely used as the most economical speed  for all versions of the 747.  That holds for the longer versions of the 747, as much as it holds for the SP.


 * I once cruised the 747-400 at mach .88/.89, from LAX until I reached the first check point in Russia. I did that because we were delayed on takeoff at LAX for a few minutes by ATC, and we had to make a certain time over the first Russian checkpointthey refused to relax or change that time.  That was less than 1/3 of the total time/distance of that flight, but it cost me an additional 10,000 lbs. of fuel, eventually forcing me  to make a refueling stop at TPE.


 * The point is that although the 747-400 & SP CAN cruise all the way up to mach .92, no airline or captain would do so, unless faced with a situation like I was on that day. It is very expensive and wasteful of fuel to cruise any version of the 747 faster than mach. 84/.85, so that was always the SOP cruise speed, on all normal flights.


 * Additionally, while some aircraft are more efficient when flying at slower mach speeds (like the 737, which normally cruises at mach .77/.78), the 747s will not increase their fuel efficiency by flying slower than mach .84/.85. That is because slowing down causes the  AOA drag to increase faster than the parasite drag is reduced. EditorASC (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Mach conversion to speed inconsistent
In this article, the specification table uses mach/kph/kts conversion factors that are inconsistent with the other 747 articles and the 757 article (at least). They are not even consistent between the two mach values in the table. The mach 0.92 item implies mach 1 of 642 kts and 1190 kph, while the mach 0.88 item implies mach 1 of 608 kts and 1125 kph. By comparison, the other articles consistently use a mach 1 value of 579.5 kts and about 1073 kph (ignoring all rounding issues for the moment) for mach values between 0.845 and 0.92.

(I think) I understand that there are issues of compressibility that can make the relationship non-linear, and it depends on temperature and humidity, but is there a standard that we should follow that is normally used for publication of specs (or are they always in mach)? This came up, BTW, because I started to edit this article to include a mph conversion, like the others, and ran into trouble calculating the necessary constant.

While I'm at it, the range item says: 6,650 nm (7,650 mi, 12,325 km). Assuming the spec was given in nm with a precision of 3 sig figs, the original writer apparently correctly rounded 6650 nm * 1.150779 mi/nm = 7652.68 mi to 3 sig figs – 7650 mi. However, the conversion to km (6650 nm * 1.852 km/nm = 12315.8 km) should be rounded to 12300 km, right? —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 09:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Runway lenght
Something I wanted to know-and that is NOT covered on the page-is the length needed at an airport for an SP to land. Could someone fix that? Thanks, God bless! Antonio Juan Pendedjo Martin aca 23:43, 13 February, 2013 (UTC)

How they achieved the speed?
Interesting mystery about 747SP. Hundreds of pages written about it, how they made it lighter, shorter, more powerful, etc. But nowhere they say what they did to increase the speed. It flew just 200 kph slower than the speed of sound. And it's a good thing. But neither Boeing themselves, nor any other manufacturer ever tried to repeat this feat. Why? With modern airliners being able to cover up to 19,000 km why nobody makes them faster? What was done to the airfoil in that regard? Does anyone know a source where this angle is covered? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, nothing what you say fits. First, the SP wasn´t MORE powerful, but LESS so than other 747s. Then, it flew only 85 kph slower than Mach1, not 200. The higher cruise- and max-speed also is no secret whatsoever. A close look on (or better: under) the wings reveals a special SP-feat: Single Slotted Flaps, and therefore no need for canoes. So this much cleaner wing caused much less drag, resulting in higher speeds etc. And for todays a/c: Latest generation engines are different to the 70ies´ gas guzzlers. They lose efficiency much quicker above Mach 0.85 due to various reasons. The upside of course is way better fuel consumption in their sweet spot around 0.85. 89.15.238.92 (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll bite: What's a "canoe"?  Captain Quirk (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Height wrong?
The page reads that height was 65'10" but on this page I found it should be 65'5" : http://www.747sp.com/story-b747sp/ (see schematic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.48.42 (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Operators
Hi! The Las Vegas sands article on Wikipedia says they own 2 SPs. This one says 1. I've been to Vegas and have actually seen both. I have also seen the a340 there more recently instead of the 2nd SP. does anyone know if they still own both SPs or if they deactivated one?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.140.60 (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

WTF?
From the article: "(New York to Tehran may have been the longest non-stop commercial flight in the world for a short time, until Pan Am started Tehran to New York in mid-1976.)"

They didn't take a different route or something? Can someone look into this and see what's gone wrong? As it stands, that sentence needs fixing! --Pete (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

"Its main deck doors are reduced to four on each side to compensate for its lower capacity."
Clumsy English. The doors are not reduced; their number is, while the individual doors stay as they were. Furthermore, compensate is not the correct term here (I think the writer was looking for a fancier variant of make up for, which would have been fine if a tad colloquial). In keeping with the lower capacity of the aircraft, there are only four main deck doors on each side in this variant.