Flying the 747-200

[Coffin Corner]

What is it like flying the 742? I am currently on a "modern" heavy TP and may be moving to type soon, I was wondering what your thoughts on flying it are considering it's antiquated, more than 20 years old etc etc as far as a safety aspect is concerned, I know this is all down to specific company maintainance & safety culture etc etc but take the lifestyle aside I would love to convert, but as always having a family puts you in touch with your mortality so I have a very small reservation about it.
Comments on the positives would be most welcome :ok:

Also what's the bird like to fly in general?

Thanks in advance

CC

[SNS3Guppy]

CC,

You're making some fairly broad brush assumptions...namely that there's a safety issue associated with the -200. There isn't. It's hardly "antiquated," and hardly performance limited. The airplane is still in active use all over the world, making money, on a daily basis.

20 years old is antiquated???

It flies just fine.

[Coffin Corner]

SN

I resent what you said, I didn't make any assumptions, I merely asked what it was like from a safety aspect considering it is antiquated (yes, 20yrs old in my eyes is antiquated, that makes me a relic then). Not once did I assume it has a chequered past. However, I didn't want to say it but I will now, the company has had a bit of history that's all (hence my comments regarding company specifics).

Thanks for your input anyway :ok:

CC

[sisyphos]

I think it is not a great a/c to fly for a first officer, since you are really a bit out of the game, all non-normals are handled by the cpt and the engineer, you fly the holding..

In the left hand seat a different story, probably your last chance to experience the old technique.. but be prepared for getting used to a few pages of MEL reading before the flight, plus it is a steep learning curve coming from a glass cockpit:}

[RSFTO]

It is a great airplane, very safe and very redundant.

Airforce 1 is a 747-200 and if they are not changing it is for a reason.

Flyingwise is absolut classic , I mean R.M.I. , H.S.I. and attitude indicator , if you are not able to maintain your situation awareness picture you will have difficulties, there is no navigation computer or fms showing your position on a moving map.

However some have been upgraded with fms but for what I know they still interface with an H.S.I. .

You will have a FE who is a valid crewmember and learn how to use him at his maximum potential.

I have limited experience but I will not change it with anything and I heard from many very experienced aviators and pilots that if they could choose an aircraft in which to experience any system failure or malfunction or serious emergency they would choose the 747-200.

[Coffin Corner]

Guys exactly what I was looking for, pos - neg.

Thank you for your comments, appreciated

[SNS3Guppy]

I resent what you said,


You resent what I said? Rather thin skinned, don't you think? I said nothing objectionable, nor insulted you in any way, shape, or form.

I didn't make any assumptions, I merely asked what it was like from a safety aspect considering it is antiquated (yes, 20yrs old in my eyes is antiquated, that makes me a relic then).


You did. You insinuated that having a family makes you question the safety, gives you concerns, gives you a small reservation. How do you suppose an internet conversation will change that? First you indicated you want to know how it flies, with a small reservation about safety...your second post indicates your primary concern,and your primary reason for asking, is safety.

The record of the Classic speaks for its' self. If you want to know about the specific company's safety record, then you'll have to either name the company and ask for insight, or research it separately. The 747 is simply a design. It's a good design. It's a proven design. It's a universally recognized design that has a lot of good service left in it. What you're not going to find is that anyone can tell you about risk based on the design; it doesn't really have bad habits. Any risks you might face will exist in the way it's operated and maintained, and as you've noted twice, yourself...that's most certainly company-specific.

Flyingwise is absolut classic , I mean R.M.I. , H.S.I. and attitude indicator , if you are not able to maintain your situan awareness picture you will have difficulties, there is no navigation computer or fms showing your position on a moving map.


The thing about the Classic is that they're all different. Vastly different in the instrumentation, displays, nav, etc. We have moving maps, EFIS, etc. We have FMS plus INS and GPS.

The systems design is very well thought out, with redundancy on many levels. It's very much a hydraulic airplane, and there's no manual reversion for the flight controls. With four different systems and each major control served by two systems, in different ways, it's a safe airplane.

The airframe has had a number of years and a lot of hours of operation...long enough for problems to become manifest. It's proven. It's also far from antiquated.

[Dakotablue]

I totally agree with your comments SN. I personally didn't think you wrote anything harsh or questionable. I think you have been very helpful as I'm also curious on what it's like to fly the classic!:ok:

[Coffin Corner]

You did. You insinuated that having a family makes you question the safety, gives you concerns, gives you a small reservation. How do you suppose an internet conversation will change that? First you indicated you want to know how it flies, with a small reservation about safety...your second post indicates your primary concern,and your primary reason for asking, is safety

What is it with this forum? I'm not saying you said anything harsh, I would of asked should the type have been the L10-11 etc, you are reading into it too much, my first post asked both questions, my second was answering your comments regarding the safety aspect of it from my first post. As you gave no constructive comments as to how she is to fly I was answering your reply.

SNS3Guppy

Just to clarify and put it to bed, I have, as stated slight reservations about converting to an old type, hence why I asked, that's what this forum is for isn't it? It is vastly different in all areas to what I fly now hence why I asked in the first place about what she's like to fly plus the safety etc etc.

Thank you for taking the time to type the rest though, it's all useful information :ok:

CC

[SNS3Guppy]

As you gave no constructive comments as to how she is to fly I was answering your reply.


Actually I did...it flies fine. The thing is this...if it were a dangerous airplane, would it be in service around the world today with the history it has? Of course not. Have you ever seen any statement that it's a challenging airplane to fly? Of course not, because it isn't. It is a very straightforward airplane.

You're correct that it's not a front runner in advanced technology. Many of the 747's out there are being navigated with INS models such as the Litton 92...if you haven't seen one, it looks like a 1970's calculator with a LED screen. It's not nearly as intuitive or clear as a modern FMS type system. Boeing delivered models set out specific to the airline that bought the airplane; the switches are different, the avionics different, the layouts different...one some airplanes the switches move one way to accomplish a function, but on other airplanes the switches move the other direction to do the same thing. Today with many of these airplanes having been bought and sold around the world, a 747 operator may have all kinds of differences between airplanes in the same fleet, as they've been bought from other companies.

As our training department likes to say, we had a uniform fleet...until we bought our second airplane. They also like to say "Get in, sit down, strap on, see what you've got, and go fly.

We fly the -100 and the -200. I don't have any reservations about flying either one, else I wouldn't fly it.

The 747 is a big, stable airplane that's more about numbers and mass management than it is about flying finesse. If you fly the numbers, the airplane will do what you expect it to do. Nothing happens fast in the airplane. Planning ahead and being stable are the keys to making it do what you want.

It's a crew airplane. A good flight engineer is a valuable part of the crew. When you handle an emergency, you fly...that's it. You ask for an engineer report, and a living, breathing professional is right behind you to come to your aid, to manage systems, run checklists, analyze the problem, take care of it. Worth his weight in gold. It's really the flight engineer's airplane...pilots pretty much just drive.

You do fall back to the basics...planning your descents with math in your head rather than waiting for the green arc to guide you down, and VNAV is in your mind rather than your fingertips...but it's no different than you'd do if you were flying a light twin, and no more complicated. Plan ahead, know the numbers you want, then apply them. The airplane will do what you want it to do.

[MerlinV8]

I heard that the FE had to clean the spark plugs at the end of each flight, is that true?

[point8six]

Some of the -400s are now 19 years old - I wouldn't classify them as antiquated!
The -200 is a lovely, stable aircraft to fly, with good performance. How much handling you get will depend on the airline's operating culture. Mine was leg and leg-about, with more sectors on the -200 than the longer sectors of the -400. Go on, enjoy it!:ok: (21 years and 15,000 hrs+ B747's).

[Intruder]

I flew the 744 as FO for 7 years before I transitioned to Classic Captain. It took about 2 sim sessions to get my old instrument scan back. It took about 2 years to more-or-less figure out most of the quirks of all the various configurations we have. I still learn something new almost every flight.

The Classic hand-flys MUCH better than the 400.

If you can't "turn off the magic" and keep your Situational Awareness, you don't belong in the Classic.

[zerozero]

As our training department likes to say, we had a uniform fleet...until we bought our second airplane. They also like to say "Get in, sit down, strap on, see what you've got, and go fly.

Ha!

Our cockpits are hardly standardized either. But I like to say, "You don't need a pilot's license to fly this airplane, you need a SEARCH WARRANT!"

:}

But Coffin Corner, my friend, you have to admit, with a name like that you seem a LITTLE preoccupied with disaster.

The Classic flies great. It's an incredible design. And if I can learn to fly it then all the credit goes to Boeing (and my very patient sim instructor).

Try this: Go to these sites and do a search for 747-200 accidents and incidents. You'll learn a lot about how OTHER crews found the Achilles Heel.

I do this for every new airplane I fly. Good pilots learn from OTHER'S mistakes, right?

:cool:

N T S B - Aviation Accidents - Index of Months (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/month.asp)
Aviation Safety Network > (http://aviation-safety.net/index.php)

[Dengue_Dude]

If you want a Test Pilot's opinion, I recommend reading this (ancient) book.

It is both informative and objective and not only describes the handling characteristics, but also discusses the system redundancy etc .

Reading against the aircraft's history SINCE is a revelation because it shows how accurate the author's assessment was.

Now whether you're thick skinned, thin skinned or even leaking is immaterial - this book would fill in the information you asked for. What's more, you won't get abused either!

Handling the Big Jets (Hardcover) by D.P. Davies ISBN 0903083019

[SNS3Guppy]

But I like to say, "You don't need a pilot's license to fly this airplane, you need a SEARCH WARRANT!"


That's a good one. I haven't heard that before.

[Junkflyer]

The classics are great to fly. Easy handling and easy to land just manage the mass. I transitioned into a 767 which is a "smarter" airplane, but prefer the 747. Safety is just fine-its the operator not the plane you need to be careful of.

[stilton]

If I could only ever fly one more type the classic would be it, she is well named.

[Old Fella]

RSFTO & SNS3Guppy. Thank you both for your comments regarding the role of the F/E on the Classic, which of course is just as important on other aircraft which carry a F/E. Although retired for quite a while now I still miss "going to the office" and spending my working hours doing a very fulfilling job in the company of professional and skillful pilots. My military and civil careers were very different in most ways, but the crew environment was just as enjoyable in each. Keep flying as long as you enjoy it.

[FirstStep]

I have to second Dengue Dude's suggestion about the book "Handling the big jets". Good luck finding one, as they are out of print and I'll bring mine to the grave with me. Try Amazon.
The -200 has no unusual flying charasteristics, at least that I have found. As PIC in both the -200 and -400, of course I prefer the -400 as the days seem shorter.( better A/C, APU,SATCOM,ACARS,ect, and with 3 guys, someone is always resting). The steering on the ground takes some getting used to, as the nose wheel is behind you quite a ways, and during 90 degree tight turns, your ass may well have to be over the sod as to keep the mains on concrete. With dual tillers( I believe all -200 have them), you won't have to wait till your PIC to start learning.
The Biggest problem, of course, is the damm coffee makers.
Have fun. Size does matter.

[Iver]

Perhaps you should buy this video to prepare for your transition:

AirAtlantaMASKargo742 (http://www.worldairroutes.com/AirAtlantaMASKargo742.html)

The big nav display could be a bit advanced for your particular aircraft. This video may be more relevant:

MK Airlines (http://www.worldairroutes.com/MK.html)

It may be sold out on that site so I would look on Ebay if you are interested...

Have fun flying the WHALE!

[Dan Winterland]

Quote: "You're making some fairly broad brush assumptions...namely that there's a safety issue associated with the -200. There isn't."

The stats seem to show that there seems to be a higher risk of 747C cargo operations than other forms of jet transport. Here are some hull losses that I can remember. (I could probably find more if I do a search).

El Al at Amsterdam.
Korean at Stanstead.
Air Atlanta at Sharjah.
MK at Kano.
MK at Halifax.
CAL at Liege.
Atlas at Dusseldorf.
Kalitta at Brussels.
Kalitta at Bogota.

[SNS3Guppy]

The statistics based on what?

The thing about statistics is that they can be used to paint whatever picture one wants.

Number of fatal crashes per thousand hours flown? Per miles flown. Per ton of cargo moved? In what way is the safety record of the 747 quantified?

If 747's are moving more cargo than other types, might it stand to reason that from a statistical point of view, one might expect a higher number of 747 mishaps...even if the actual rate were the same as other aircraft?

Yes, you could find more, such as Tradewinds out of Bogota, etc. However, in many of those cases, the fact that the airplane was on a cargo mission wasn't particularly relevant. A pilot who rejects a takeoff and overruns, for example, could just as easily have done it in any aircraft...what's behind the flight deck isn't really germain to the statistics or the mishap itself. Likewise, the biggest single loss of life in an aircraft mishap, at Tenneriffe, involved two 747's. Could one say this represents an unsafe aircraft, or could it have happened to any type aircraft?

A cargo company operates only 747's...and experiences one, then another mishap. Does this mean the cargo company is operating a dangerous aircraft because the only type in the fleet that's experienced a mishap is the 747...or does it mean that any other type would be statistically unlikely or impossible, because at that company, it's the only kid on the block?

I don't know that viewing the various unrelated mishaps that have occured in cargo ops with the 747 really point in any meaningful way to an unsafe airplane, or an unsafe combination of airplane and mission. Such is the hazard of statistics.

[Semu]

I am working on an accident summation for the classics for our safety committee. Basically going through the previously mentioned NTSB database and analyzing it. Once you wash out hijackings, you are left with largely pilot error, often from deviations from SOP, unstable approaches, etc. Like nearly every other transport category airplane. So decide how safe you are going be and stick to it. It is a superb design.

[Dan Winterland]

OK, my use of the word 'stat' wasn't strictly correct because I was remembering incidents from the top of my head. However, the fact I can remember these without having to recourse to any reference is significant in my view.

The aeroplane is a good one, but it's getting old. The last ones were built 17 years ago, and they are now operated in an environemt where cost control is rife and often to the peak of their performance limits. I rarely made a MTOW departure in a pax 747. Many of the departures I flew in a Cargo 747 were at MTOW or close. It's no suprise that overruns are a common theme amongst the examples I gave.

I would say that cargo flying on older aircraft has a higher risk than other types of commercial flying - based on my experience. But if you want a statistic - here's one. Kalitta have lost 12.5% of their fleet this year.

[Old Fella]

Statistics such as Kalitta having lost 12.5% of their fleet this year are meaningless. If they had operated only two B747's they would have lost 100% of their fleet. Dan Winterland says "Many takeoffs he conducted in B747 Freighters were at MTOW or close. It is no surprise that overruns are a common theme"

Sorry Dan, I have operated on many flights at or very near to MTOW, both Pax and Cargo. It doesn't matter whether the flight is a Pax or Cargo flight, if the Takeoff Performance Data is valid there is no reason one should be more likely to suffer an overrun than the other. Most overruns I am aware of have been the result of attempts to abort after V1 or too slow to implement the abort close to V1. Some result due to other pilot errors as is the case with most landing overruns, eg QF in Bangkok. As for the age of the aircraft being of concern, this should not be so. With proper ongoing maintenance any aircraft should have as long in service as is financially viable for the operator. The RAAF C130H has been in service for over 29 years and been subjected to much harsher operating conditions than most civil freighters, many more cycles too. The fact that they receive first class maintenance is evidenced by their longevity and the fact that in 50 years of C130 operations the RAAF has never lost an aircraft is testament to the skill of the aircrew flying them. Some other operators have suffered losses, but that does not mean the C130 is an unsafe aircraft. Same goes for the B747.

[Phil Squares]

The aeroplane is a good one, but it's getting old. The last ones were built 17 years ago, and they are now operated in an environemt where cost control is rife and often to the peak of their performance limits. I rarely made a MTOW departure in a pax 747. Many of the departures I flew in a Cargo 747 were at MTOW or close. It's no suprise that overruns are a common theme amongst the examples I gave.

Dan, I have to jump in here. Having over 6000hours on the classic and another 3000 on the 400 I think I might be in a position to say a few things.

First of all operating at or close to MTOW (structural) in any aircraft is not a thing to be taken lightly. The entire issue of V1 and stopping is a discussion that applies to any aircraft, old or new. If you look at the rejected takeoff decision, one could make an argument the entire logic of V1 speeds is illogical. In reality, V1 speeds only apply once, that is during certification when the aircraft is new, with new brakes, new tyres and test pilots in the seats. The speeds, in my opinion, are very optimistic and do not represent the actual ability of the aircraft to reject in a normal line operation.

I have flown with many carriers who realise that problem and have adopted a wet V1 policy at all times. Both Boeing and Airbus have lengthy discussions about rejected takeoffs and how the logic should be applied. In fact, there was a AA DC-10 that rejected a take off at DFW below V1 and still departed the runway. There was nothing wrong with the aircraft, crew or the decision. However, the brakes were well worn, still within limits, the tyres were worn, but within limits. The NTSB certainly had some harsh words to the FAA about the entire V1 problem.

Having flown all the Classic models, I find the aircraft extremely pilot friendly and probably the most enjoyable aircraft to fly, after the 400. The examples you cited were for the most part not aircraft related but more CRM and decision making.

Just my $.02 worth!

[galbracha2000]

Hello Cc
I Fly This Bird As A Captain In Israel Its A Great Plane, But Dont Think Of It As A Plane, Think As A Big Ship And Then U Know How 2 Feel N Fly It Enjoy

[Dan Winterland]

If you read and understood what I said, it's about the whole operation in general, not just the aeroplane. I too have many hours on 747s. Pax 744s and cargo 74Cs. And from my experience, the cargo aircraft get filled to the brim and are therefore operating at the limits of their performance. They have greater MTOWs and MLWs than pax models - and use them. I know they should be able to stop if the performance says so. But taking into consideration with ageing brakes, tyres, reversers, multiple MEL items and tired crews - the safety margins are reduced considerably.

Taking off from HKG 07R in a 74C at 378 Tonnes, the book V1 was 160, VR 182. At V1, there was only about 4000' of runway left. At V1, what was the chance of stopping before ploughing across the railway, the road and into the water? Not good in my opinion. The Air Atlanta aircraft at Sharjah aborted at V1 (IIRC) and went off the end.

I felt I was rarely faced with that situation in a Pax 744.


AirDisaster.Com: Download Notice (http://www.airdisaster.com/download/tradewinds.shtml)

[Phil Squares]

Dan,

If you read and understood what I wrote, you would realise the problem you are trying to point directly at the 747 is a problem with all aircraft.

As I wrote previously, the V1 calculation is flawed. The data is based on a brand new aircraft, with brand new brakes, brand new tyres and test pilots in the seat. That's not a "normal" line operation. As such, the data is invalid.

I have operated pax aircraft in the same weight range as a fully loaded freighter and the feeling is just the same. It's not a function of the aircraft carrying boxes vs. bums. It's the total weight.

That's why Boeing is so adamant about their "load shedding" philosophy on rejected takeoffs.

[BelArgUSA]

My favorite of all planes = 747 Classic... 100, 200 or 300... all the same to me.
The 747SP was ok, but not as "stable".
The 200/300s seem to be at their best when takeoff at 377 tonnes.
For landing, smoothest are at 285 tonnes, and flaps 25...
xxx
I flew a 1972 (1973...?) 747-SR46 in early 2005...
That makes it about a 32 or 33 years old airplane.
Wish I had made a note of its total flight time and number of cycles.
Was a Hajj contract - 498 passenger seats...
xxx
:D
Happy contrails

[Old Fella]

Dan Winterland says: "They (Freighters) have greater MTOW's and MLW's than Pax models - and use them." I don't know where Dan gets his info from, or his recollections, but they sure are different to mine. Pax B747-200 MTOW 377840 Kgs - B747-200F MTOW 371945 Kgs. MLW all versions 285760 Kgs. Dan may have confused MZFW for MTOW where the MZFW for the -200F was 272155 Kgs against 243350 Kgs for the Pax version. BTW, I accept that the V1 figures used are based on new aircraft flown by test pilots and therefore may be optimistic. My figures are for RR RB211-524 powered aircraft.

[18-Wheeler]

The steering on the ground takes some getting used to, as the nose wheel is behind you quite a ways,

Not really, it sits pretty much right under the F/E's seat. That's a little over one metre behind you.

[Old Fella]

If FirstStep thinks the NLG is a long way behind the pilot in a B747 he should try a L1011. I can't recall the exact figure, but it is in excess of 20 feet aft of the pilot. In the L1011 making a turn on almost any runway will require the flight crew to be out over the weeds. The NLG is several rows aft of the L1 & R1 Doors. The DC10 family NLG are also well aft of the pilot.

[Atlanta-Driver]

Egos aside and lets stay on the subject. Seems that some sensitivities where touched by what was supposedly an insesitive comment about the age of the 747 "Classic", very girlish really.

It is an old airplane and old technology. 1960's technology to be precise. Over 40 years old, not 20. The 767 is 70's tech and the A320 from the 80's. Not to be picky but the first fligth of the type is just that: The first flight. Design is a minimum of a 5 year process prior to flying the airplane.

Systems are starting to get very unreliable compared to more modern designs and failures happens more and more often. Laws of getting old I guess or inadequate maintenance procedures and practices.

The aircraft is a high workload aircraft in a busy enviroment and you MUST maintain situational awareness at all times. With the addition of GPS and better RNAV systems the aircraft became easier to operate but is is still an old airplane and has its own quircks. The autoflight system is ancient and does only certain things for you and some of them, depending on the airframe, not very well requiring constant attention and extensive monitoring. FFRATS (Auto Throttle) is only as good as the INS platform that gives it info. Etc etc.

There are certainly more reasons than the above why first line carriers are retiring the classic all around the world and delegating them to "Bottom Feeders" like my name sake, no offence meant, just a fact.

Most classics flying around are now airframes built in the early -80s with some of saltier ones from late -70's still soldiering on. Many have reached or are approaching D-checks and with present economic enviroment, last few years if we look at cost of maintenance for the classic in general, the economy of running an aircraft through a D is un-economical.

There is no doubt about it being a pleasure to hand fly and to operate. I really like the airplane. It is fast and gets to places quick. Carries 100+ tons of freight and flies +8h with full load. Fuel price has come down so it is not as bad for the wallet of the owner or customer than it was some months ago.

The 747 has a place in my heart and I really enjoy the airplane. Anyone having a chance to fly it who turns the it down will surely miss something.

[BelArgUSA]

Attn - Old Fella and Dan Winterland
xxx
You gentlemen both are correct but might have "fat fingers" at times.
I am careful when typing numbers, as some of our friends here study/verify numbers from "their books".
As you know, I deal with training (often on contract) and I have been exposed to many weight options.
Besides all that, some of my many Boeing AOM editions are in kilos, others come in pounds.
xxx
747-200/300 WEIGHT OPTIONS -
xxx
Max Taxi/Ramp Weights
My notes from Boeing all give a difference of 3,000 lbs (1,360 kilos) between the Max Ramp and Max T/O weight.
One ridiculous difference - A 200F I had, showed 8,000 lbs difference, between Ramp and Max T/O.
Boeing engineering told me that it was the case of planes that had 805,000 MTOGW reduced to 800,000 lbs.
But they kept 808,000 Max Ramp Weight...!
Nice for taxi at JFK when you have to queue for 2 hours...
xxx
MAX T/O WEIGHT
The original 200s were certificated to 351,534 kilos (or 775,000 lbs). Was the case of QF's VH-EBA.
Soon that weight was increased to 356,069 kilos (or 785,000 lbs). Soon was offered on 200F then pax planes).
Many 200s (and the first 300s) were offered with 362,873 kilos (or 800,000 lbs) option.
Again, 200F were later increased to 371,945 kilos (820,000 lbs) option.
And finally the 200/300s were offered at 377,842 kilos (833,000 lbs). NO CLASSICS ARE HEAVIER.
Dan's typing 391,945 kilos as a weight for a 200F is a mistyping of 371.945.
xxx
MAX ZFW
The original 200s (passenger) were limited to 238,816 kilos (526,500 lbs).
Same as the 100s were...!
That was quickly increased to 242,671 kilos (535,000 lbs)...
The Combis (SCD) with 9 pallets (Cabin E Combis) had MZFW at 247,207 kilos (or 545,000 lbs).
The Combis (SCD) with 13 pallets (Cabin D+E Combis) MZFW were 256,279 kilos (or 565,000 lbs).
All 200F or 200C cargo planes had their MZFW increased to 267,619 kilos (or 590,000 lbs).
There was even an option to bring the MZFW to 281,680 kilos (or 621,000 lbs) with CG envelope restrictions.
I recall that one with Cargolux 747-271C and some El-Al 258Cs as well.
xxx
MAX LANDING WEIGHT
With weight increases, expect many options for landing weights.
The early 200 passenger planes (and 300s) were certificated to 265,351 kilos or 585,000 lbs).
Then the 200/300s (includes freighters) got the Max Landing at 285,762 kilos (or 630,000 lbs).
And those few planes with the extra heavy ZFW got 302,092 kilos (or 666,000 lbs) as langing limit.
xxx
Compare the numbers to your manuals, you will recognize your airline's figures in some.
I save you the numbers for 100s, or the SP...
It does not matter which engines. JT9, CF6 or RB211 were available for all options.
Took me years of flying the 747, and teaching them to compile the weight options.
Make a note, as I am retiring next month, and throwing all that in the rubbish...!
xxx
:ok:
Happy contrails

[BelArgUSA]

Teaching the 747 in classrooms, or differences for some airlines instruction on contract, I came across "real differences" between 747 airplanes. You want an extra 10,000 kilos, ok, for that, you need to put bigger bolts, bigger tyres, or install "beefed-up" components.
xxx
Some as an example were extending the pitch trim "green band". Other were the flap load relief. Originally, the light weight 200s had their trailing edge flaps hydraulically retracting from 30 flaps to 25 flaps when IAS was excessive until speed was reduced again. That feature, for additional weight increases included flap load relief from 25 flaps further to flaps 20 retraction.
xxx
So, weight increases... required extra $$$ to pay to Boeing engineering.
But I have to smile on one increase that my airline got, in about 1995.
They had installed a small auxiliary forward center wing tank for extra fuel.
Now they wanted a TOGW increase from 371,945 to 377,842 kilos.
xxx
So Boeing engineering did the increase for... some $350,000...
How did they do it...?
They printed a new page for the AFM, the AOM and MX Manuals...
Did they change anything to the airplane...? NO...
Quite expensive for a few pages... Seattle has high printing costs.
Makes me smile.
xxx
:D
Happy contrails

[Dan Winterland]

Thanks BelArgUSA. I used to fly 747-300 conversions and 747-200Fs. Our 200Fs were actually certifed to a MLW of 292 tonnes (or thereabouts). I don't remeber the exact figures as the poor old girls have gone and I kept none of the documents. But like Atlanta Driver, I loved flying the classic. I preferred it over the 744 anyday!

Enjoy your retirement!

[Old Fella]

BelArgUSA. Thanks for pointing out my error, which has been corrected, it was not Dan. I obviously did not 'proof read' my post, or my eyesight has degraded such as to have missed the 'typo'. I hope you enjoy your retirement as much as I have mine. For anyone who thinks life after work is boring, I can assure you it is not. :ok:

[Coffin Corner]

Guys thank you so much for your input & answers, I never intended this to be a "is she safe - is she not safe" debate but all inputs regarding safety & what she's like to fly has been most useful.
Thanks also for the book & video links chaps, will certainly source them out.

As a side note what is it like converting from GPS/FMS etc to INS? The only experience I have had with INS was ATPL groundschool some years ago and it filled me with dread, what about flying N.A.Tracks with the INS etc? Or am I showing my niaveity and it really is straight forward?

I look forward to getting started on her :ok:

CC

[Dan Winterland]

It really depends on what equipment the aircraft has. A lot of classics have been upgraded, but there are still some flying with units such as the Delco Carousel which only has the ability to accept nine manually inputted waypoints at a time. The ones I flew had Marconi FMS900s fed from Litton 92 IRSs and glass instruments. Those FMCs were actually better than the 744s.

If you're using the older types of kit, yes it can be a bit of a challenge. Cross checking every waypoint is essntial. But I can't believe there are many aircraft still flying with those. Modern RNP requirements demand better in some parts of the world. For example, European RNP requirements state you have to have a Nav display.

[SNS3Guppy]

We use two marconi FMS units built on the Litton 92, which is updated through a GNS/XLS for GPS input (self aligning), and an additional independent GPS unit. Displays are glass for EADI and EHSI, the everything else analog.

[Intruder]

We use 3 LTN-92s with no FMS. Crossing the pond is no problem. Just check accuracy at the start and ensure all waypoints are correct.

The only "problem" is when occasionally at the east end, Scottish Control gets concerned as the airplane wanders back & forth a mile or 3 across track as the DME updating resumes and the airplane appears to be "lost" for a few minutes...

[BelArgUSA]

Our vintage 747-200s have -
Three LTN-92 INS with two GPS update, and two FMS900 (Marconi)
Works great - Fully RNP-5 compliant -
Accuracy is equal as a brand new 2008 airplane would be.
xxx
Airplanes are going to be retired next month, Desert sands of Arizona...
They probably will sell these avionics.
I am retiring too. Beach sands of Brazil.
My avionics will be salvaged too when comes the time.
Heart, kidneys and eyes. Still good operating status for these items.
For the other thing, sorry, use Viagra, should you wish a transplant.
xxx
:D
Happy contrails

[bermudatriangle]

747-200 is probably the most rewarding aircraft you will ever get the chance to fly.it handles superbly,with the minimum of effort and is amazingly responsive for such a large machine.enjoy the chance to fly the 200,before you become trapped,operating a computerized,more upto date alternative.many still in regular service,with a superb reliability and safety record.nice to have a 3rd crew member to chat to on longer sectors.

[Jumbo Driver]

I agree - having been fortunate enough to fly both Classics and the 744, I have to say I enjoyed my time on the 747-200 the best. The integrated three-crew arrangement on the Classic was, in my opinion, a far better operation than the two-crew 744 - in the same way that a triplex system is superior to duplex. Additionally, the fact that the F/Eng was not a pilot brought a further healthy ingredient to the three-way operation, in that he would tend to view any problem from a different standpoint.

Having said that, the 744 is of course developmentally superior to its antecedents in most respects. The downside is that advances in automation and presentation bring a consequent reduction in exposure to some basic skills and techniques, with the inevitable result that the overall background "skill set" of many younger pilots is significantly diminished.


JD
:)

[BelArgUSA]

When we replaced our 747-200s one by one, we were to retire F/Es...
However, an option was offered to them. Make them "Cruise F/O".
xxx
A few of them were pilots, PPL and CPL... obvious no jet pilot experience.
But they had years of experience as 747-200 F/E...
They knew the maps, the routes, R/T... pilot procedures.
So, 19 of them qualified for CPL and as Cruise F/O for our 747-400s.
And... all the 747-400 F/Os got qualified as... Cruise Captains.
xxx
Our SOP in the 400s are quite similar to the 747-200.
The cruise F/Os (former F/Es) do walkaround as before. Same flight documents.
They participate in the check lists, and remain in the flight deck to 10,000 ft.
They act as F/O in cruise, time in pilot seat is shared with the other pilots.
They can remain in pilot seat during descent until 10,000 ft.
Extra pair of eyes. In case of a system malfunction, they troubleshoot.
Just as before... but from the jump seat, or a pilot seat.
xxx
Some were still young guys, in their late 30s... We saved their job.
By the way, my claim to fame - I instigated this.
Director of Operations and the Chief Pilot approved.
And we kept a few in the 200 as F/E until the last 200 is retired.
xxx
:ok:
Happy contrails

P.S. We had a problem in training with most of these F/Es...
When they heard "Traffic 12 o'clock", they turned their head to the left.

[Dan Winterland]

The main problem with a crew without an FE is that you spend far more time finding the coldest beer in town!

Air France flew their 744s with FEs acting as a third crew member. I'm not sure if they acted ad cruise pilots, but it did have the ability to extend the crew's duty hours. And Ansett actually had FE staions installed in their 767s!

[Jumbo Driver]

The main problem with a crew without an FE is that you spend far more time finding the coldest beer in town!

That - and also the cheapest all-day breakfast with unlimited coffee - yes. I miss them still ...


JD
;)