CX and aviation.

[broadband circuit]

Misleading Title

When I read the thread title "CX and aviation.", I thought it was going to be about how CX invented aviation.

And didn't CX invent ULH flying?

[GroundScot]

SUD's

Wasn't it CX that introduced the B747-400 and called it the exceptional B747-SUD in all their marketing - Stretched Upper Decks.... press launch.... fanfare.. dancing hosteses....

until someone pointed out that SUD in the Western world meant Sudden Unexplained Death.......

OOps.......

[Yonosoy Marinero]

SUD is how Boeing has always labelled the extended upper deck on when it was first introduced on the -200.

It's just that CX invented it, of course, right before they gave Boeing the blueprint for the 777.

[Chaac]

Stretched upper deck on a B747-200, would that be a B747-300?

[Yonosoy Marinero]

Not exactly.

Before it became known as the -300, it was offered for sale and indeed designated the -200 SUD.

There are even a few frames which have been converted from -200 to -200SUD:




Coincidentally, it happened right around the time beancounters started running airlines...

[tdracer]

Actually the -200 SUD came out after the 747-300 was designed. Since there was little difference between the -300 and the -200 (aside from the longer upper deck) it was a relatively cheap way to get the benefits of the -300 without buying a new airplane.


IIRC, Boeing did the -200 SUD retrofit on 20 airplanes.


BTW, the longer upper deck didn't just add some seats - it gave the airplane better area ruling leading into the wing which improved the high speed drag characteristics. Improved cruise Mach by about .01

[Meikleour]

Does anyone remember the "pod nod" modification that CX engineering came up with in consultation with Boeing for the B747?

[Flying Mechanic]

Yes I remember it, helped those 747's get to London with more payload/fuel, I think the idea came from Stewart John.

[B-HKD]

Great thread on the subject (from 2004):

Cathay Pod Nod's [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Pod nod was indeed a L1011 and not a Boeing problem, as described above. As for the 747 the angle of incidence of the engine nacelles was changed from about the second -300 on, nothing to do with SJ, but a refinement by the manufacturer (probably when the -400 RR design was verified) Supposed to make a small difference on fuel burn, but not enough for retrofitting costs. If you look at HVY and compare the engine 'angle' on the wing to the -400 you will see the difference.