Flying the 747-200
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps you should buy this video to prepare for your transition:
AirAtlantaMASKargo742
The big nav display could be a bit advanced for your particular aircraft. This video may be more relevant:
MK Airlines
It may be sold out on that site so I would look on Ebay if you are interested...
Have fun flying the WHALE!
AirAtlantaMASKargo742
The big nav display could be a bit advanced for your particular aircraft. This video may be more relevant:
MK Airlines
It may be sold out on that site so I would look on Ebay if you are interested...
Have fun flying the WHALE!
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids
Age: 49
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Dan Winterland; 22nd Oct 2008 at 02:01.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B747 safety
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Suitcase....
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Last edited by Phil Squares; 22nd Oct 2008 at 13:38.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: israel
Age: 57
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747-200
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
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
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Suitcase....
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old 747s -
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
Happy contrails
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
Happy contrails
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B747-200 Pax v's Freighter
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.
Last edited by Old Fella; 24th Oct 2008 at 00:12. Reason: Correction 391945 Kg to 371945 Kg. Apologies for FAT fingers.
The steering on the ground takes some getting used to, as the nose wheel is behind you quite a ways,
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NLG position
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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Classic's old?
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747-200/300 weights...
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
Happy contrails
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
Happy contrails
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anecdote on Boeing 747 weight increases...
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 $$$ to pay to Boeing engineering.
But I have to smile on one increase that my airline got, in about 1995.
They had installed a small auxiliary forward center wing tank for extra fuel.
Now they wanted a TOGW increase from 371,945 to 377,842 kilos.
xxx
So Boeing engineering did the increase for... some $350,000...
How did they do it...?
They printed a new page for the AFM, the AOM and MX Manuals...
Did they change anything to the airplane...? NO...
Quite expensive for a few pages... Seattle has high printing costs.
Makes me smile.
xxx
Happy contrails
xxx
Some as an example were extending the pitch trim "green band". Other were the flap load relief. Originally, the light weight 200s had their trailing edge flaps hydraulically retracting from 30 flaps to 25 flaps when IAS was excessive until speed was reduced again. That feature, for additional weight increases included flap load relief from 25 flaps further to flaps 20 retraction.
xxx
So, weight increases... required extra $$$ 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
Happy contrails
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!
Enjoy your retirement!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fat fingers and dim eyes.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
CC
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
CC