Re: Q:747-400F vs. 747-200

Date:         05 Aug 97 03:15:46 
From: (Filip De Vos)
Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium
References:   1 2 3 4
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM) wrote:
: >: The biggest advantage of the -400F (or factory built -2/300F) over a converted
: >                                                          ^^^^
: >(I know of no 300Fs)

: There were none.  No reason, since the only difference between late
: -200s and -300s was the longer upper deck on the -300, which was just
: for passenger capacity.  (Earlier -200s had lower weights.)

: >Doesn't the 400F also have the top deck removed aft of the door?

: Its upper deck has the same, or very similar, exterior dimensions as
: the original -100 and -200, but it's quite different structurally.

Apologies for not being clear. Of course the hump is the same. What I
meant with top deck in the above phrase, is the actual floor where the
first class bar used to be, or seats. I know cargo airlines put first
class seats there, which pilots really like, since they do not have to
cook coffee themselves.

SO my question was, does the 747-400 has an upper-deck cabin, or does the
deck (there is that dual-meaning word again) terminate behind the

: >I read in Flight International (30 April-6 May )that KLM is to convert
: >747-200 SUD (747-200 converted to 300 standard, with Stretched Upper
: >Deck).

I missed writing 'two' in the above sentence. Two aircraft are sheduled
to be modified.

: You're most probably correct, since KLM has only three -300s while
: they have ten -200s (seven which, like the -300s, have side cargo
: doors).  However, I've heard that converted -200s are "officially"
: known as -200SUDs, while the planes built with the extended upper
: deck were known as -200EUDs until Boeing retroactively created the
: -300 designation.  I have no idea how official this really is, but
: wouldn't be at all surprised to see the terms mixed up quite often.

: One exception is the two 747-100B(SR/SUD) aircraft, which appear to

Do you mean the 747-300SR for ANA and JAL? I'll guess that what the
marketing department decides a plane is called is not allways the same
what the people working them call them. I recall that the domestic
variant of the long-deck version was called that way.

That brings the number of special versions of the Jumbo solely for the
Japanese internal market to three: the 747SR (or 747-100SR), the
747-300SR (which you call 747-100B(SR/SUD)) and the 747-400D.

: have been built with the larger upper deck but nevertheless got the
: SUD designation -- indicating a conversion -- and not the EUD tag
: of a plane built with the big hump.

: >The mod involves shortening the upper deck.

: Very interesting.  I'm a little bit surprised that they'd go to that
: much effort.

Well, it is just an interior floor. The hump will be unaffected, I think.
Presumably, the mod is advantagious because it allows the carrying of
higher-stacked pallets. It appears that aircargo is mostly volume
limited, not (or not mainly) weight limited.

: >I do not know how pilots are going to get into the cockpit, the SUD
: >has a gull-wing door halfway on both sides.

: As noted in this group before, crews usually board 747 freighters via
: the main deck, and use drop-down steps or ladders to access the upper
: deck.  The only reason for the upper deck door is for emergencies, and
Don't they have a hatch in the cockpit-ceiling for that? When a Panam 747
was hijacked in Karachi, the cockpit crew escaped via that. They then
came back on board after the hijackers allowed women and children off.

: I'd guess they'd include that door as part of the conversion.

: >The bill is $48 million for two conversions. What is the price of a new
: >747-400F? $140 million?

: Boeing's web page ( has the 1997 list price of
: a 747-400 as $156 to $174 million.  Nothing specific to a freghter,
: but I'd expect it to be near the low end of that range.


Filip De Vos                  The idea that space travel is inherently
                              enormously expensive is fraudulent.                    John S. Lewis