Of course PA kicked off the program with
their huge (for the time) order for twenty
five -100 series aircraft and later operated
several -200’s acquired second hand

But did they buy any new -200’s directly
from Boeing, freighter or passenger versions ?

No, all Pan Am Boeing 747-200 are second hand. All came from Singapore Airlines (212)

The -100s were the start of the demise of PanAm. They were flying -100s until the end while the competition already had -400s.

WRONG


They got at least 2 x 747-221F c/n 21743 / 21744 direct from Boeing

RalXWB wrote:

The -100s were the start of the demise of PanAm. They were flying -100s until the end while the competition already had -400s.

By the time PA closed the Asian airlines were flying 744 over the Pacific but PA had sold off that division to UA in 1986. In 1990-91 the Atlantic was getting full of 767 and A310-300. Some flights were still by 747, all series, that number was declining. The 744 has never been a large factor over the Atlantic compared to large twins. Many airlines have flown and sill fly it along with smaller planes, BA flies any since LHR is slot constrained.

They took two -200s direct from Boeing, both freighters.

Sorry, I speak only on passenger versions.

The 747 was not Pan Ams demise. There were many factors, but they couldnt turn into a modern airline for deregulation in the 80s and beyond. They flew for 20 years after the 747 became the backbone of the fleet. Most of it in decline. There is a great book called skygods that gives you hundreds of pages of what went wrong.

RalXWB wrote:

The -100s were the start of the demise of PanAm. They were flying -100s until the end while the competition already had -400s.

In a quick nutshell..The 747-100's were eventually the second or third nail in the Pan-Am coffin. The employees held it together with Duct tape and baling wire.
The demise started earlier with too many 707's when the 1973 fuel crises (oil embargo) hit and the subsequent economic downturn.
It's inability to get the CAB to permit domestic flights. (poor relations with the CAB )
It's ill advised purchase of National just months before deregulation was signed by Jimmy Carter. (they knew it was coming)
too much crazy investments in non-airline businesses..sucked money away.

There are several good book on the subject..check out Amazon .

Thank you for the information.

Tan Flyr wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

The -100s were the start of the demise of PanAm. They were flying -100s until the end while the competition already had -400s.

In a quick nutshell..The 747-100's were eventually the second or third nail in the Pan-Am coffin. The employees held it together with Duct tape and baling wire.
The demise started earlier with too many 707's when the 1973 fuel crises (oil embargo) hit and the subsequent economic downturn.
It's inability to get the CAB to permit domestic flights. (poor relations with the CAB )
It's ill advised purchase of National just months before deregulation was signed by Jimmy Carter. (they knew it was coming)
too much crazy investments in non-airline businesses..sucked money away.

There are several good book on the subject..check out Amazon .

National in and of itself wasn't the problem... Lorenzo getting into a bidding war over it and inflating the price was the problem. If they had dropped National on him instead of giving him a massive nest egg the 80s would of looked very VERY different for the US Majors.

OT: My very first flight was in 1989 at the age of 14 on a Pan Am 747 from FRA to JFK, continuing on an A300 (or A310? can't remember, but it was an 8Y Airbus) to SFO. About 9 month after Lockerbie, so we said that "Pan Am is now the safest airline, doesn't happen twice". During the takeoff-roll at FRA one of the bins opened and a backpack fell out. My family wasn't so sure of that claim anymore..at least for a few seconds But at the end, an incredible fascinating experience for a teenager. Four weeks in the states did cost around DM 20k and of that 11k for the flights alone. It was really something special back then.

BTW: does anybody know if it was a -100 or -200 at that time on this route? And did PA use the A300 or A310 from JFK to SFO? Wasn't an enthusiast at the time and missed all these details..

b.

I have a Jan 89 PA timetable, it shows JFK-SFO 2x 747 and 1x 310.

FRA-JFK is 747.

PA didn't differentiate 747-100 or -200 in the timetable. And unless the -200 was specifically needed either could appear on a route. FRA-JFK especially could of been either.

northstardc4m wrote:

Tan Flyr wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

The -100s were the start of the demise of PanAm. They were flying -100s until the end while the competition already had -400s.

In a quick nutshell..The 747-100's were eventually the second or third nail in the Pan-Am coffin. The employees held it together with Duct tape and baling wire.
The demise started earlier with too many 707's when the 1973 fuel crises (oil embargo) hit and the subsequent economic downturn.
It's inability to get the CAB to permit domestic flights. (poor relations with the CAB )
It's ill advised purchase of National just months before deregulation was signed by Jimmy Carter. (they knew it was coming)
too much crazy investments in non-airline businesses..sucked money away.

There are several good book on the subject..check out Amazon .

National in and of itself wasn't the problem... Lorenzo getting into a bidding war over it and inflating the price was the problem. If they had dropped National on him instead of giving him a massive nest egg the 80s would of looked very VERY different for the US Majors.

Respectfully disagree. With deregulation about to dawn, PA didn't NEED to buy NA. The inflated price merely inflicted financial pain; absorbing NA with its totally different culture (including a LONG history of horrible labor relations), incompatible DC-10 fleet, and for PA a totally illogical route network which didn't even provide feed to JFK...well I could go on. From all the books I've read about PA, I have to say it's generally agreed that the NA takeover was one of the single biggest mistakes they ever made, and one of the final nails in the coffin.

jfklganyc wrote:

The 747 was not Pan Ams demise. There were many factors, but they couldnt turn into a modern airline for deregulation in the 80s and beyond. They flew for 20 years after the 747 became the backbone of the fleet. Most of it in decline. There is a great book called skygods that gives you hundreds of pages of what went wrong.

Literally reading it as I write this. Very good

Tan Flyr wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

The -100s were the start of the demise of PanAm. They were flying -100s until the end while the competition already had -400s.

In a quick nutshell..The 747-100's were eventually the second or third nail in the Pan-Am coffin. The employees held it together with Duct tape and baling wire.
The demise started earlier with too many 707's when the 1973 fuel crises (oil embargo) hit and the subsequent economic downturn.
It's inability to get the CAB to permit domestic flights. (poor relations with the CAB )
It's ill advised purchase of National just months before deregulation was signed by Jimmy Carter. (they knew it was coming)
too much crazy investments in non-airline businesses..sucked money away.

There are several good book on the subject..check out Amazon .

Very spot-on. And allow me to clarify my reply above about the incompatible DC-10 fleet. I say that in the context that PA had already ordered the L-1011-500, which itself was not a smart decision.

[list=][/IF PA had canceled the L15 order and kept the NA DC-10's...and...
IF PA had rearranged the NA network to provide more feed to/from JFK as much as possible with the NA 727 fleet...and...
IF PA had done this at once, MAYBE it might have worked out better
list]

Agreed however that if PA had given up and let Lorenzo have NA, things would have been very different indeed. One can only speculate.

cathay747 wrote:

northstardc4m wrote:

Tan Flyr wrote:

In a quick nutshell..The 747-100's were eventually the second or third nail in the Pan-Am coffin. The employees held it together with Duct tape and baling wire.
The demise started earlier with too many 707's when the 1973 fuel crises (oil embargo) hit and the subsequent economic downturn.
It's inability to get the CAB to permit domestic flights. (poor relations with the CAB )
It's ill advised purchase of National just months before deregulation was signed by Jimmy Carter. (they knew it was coming)
too much crazy investments in non-airline businesses..sucked money away.

There are several good book on the subject..check out Amazon .

National in and of itself wasn't the problem... Lorenzo getting into a bidding war over it and inflating the price was the problem. If they had dropped National on him instead of giving him a massive nest egg the 80s would of looked very VERY different for the US Majors.

Respectfully disagree. With deregulation about to dawn, PA didn't NEED to buy NA. The inflated price merely inflicted financial pain; absorbing NA with its totally different culture (including a LONG history of horrible labor relations), incompatible DC-10 fleet, and for PA a totally illogical route network which didn't even provide feed to JFK...well I could go on. From all the books I've read about PA, I have to say it's generally agreed that the NA takeover was one of the single biggest mistakes they ever made, and one of the final nails in the coffin.

Had PA paid the price it was going to for NA it would of been acceptable. Paying the inflated price due to the price war with Lorenzo made it a ridiculous idea and wasted. If they'd got the domestic feed they lacked and something to build on it with without breaking the bank. Paying 3x as much as they should of for NA drained the cash reserves, bundled in a bad fleet mix, a difficult labor situation and basically too little feed for the money. If they had gotten NA cheap which was the original draw to them, the 727s alone were enough to make it worth the price. Sell/trade the DC-10s off for more short haul... and voila.

Flip side drop NA on Lorenzo and TI.... now PA has funds. And if we assume that in 81 BN still fails... 727-200s galore with pilots available... add in 727s from Europe coming on the market... basically give PA the 727 fleet PE got, or PA can go after some small player(s) like PSA, Air Florida, Altair... or even try for a bigger domestic like Allegheny or Piedmont or Western. It does change the whole deregulation era heavily... not to mention keeps Lorenzo away from CO and EA, away from threatening TWA, no PE, no NYA...

Want to get really crazy and the cash gives them the ability to merge with one of the east coast majors on superior terms... PA+EA or PA+DL in 84 or so...

northstardc4m wrote:

I have a Jan 89 PA timetable, it shows JFK-SFO 2x 747 and 1x 310.

FRA-JFK is 747.

PA didn't differentiate 747-100 or -200 in the timetable. And unless the -200 was specifically needed either could appear on a route. FRA-JFK especially could of been either.

Thank you very much!!

northstardc4m wrote:

cathay747 wrote:

northstardc4m wrote:

National in and of itself wasn't the problem... Lorenzo getting into a bidding war over it and inflating the price was the problem. If they had dropped National on him instead of giving him a massive nest egg the 80s would of looked very VERY different for the US Majors.

Respectfully disagree. With deregulation about to dawn, PA didn't NEED to buy NA. The inflated price merely inflicted financial pain; absorbing NA with its totally different culture (including a LONG history of horrible labor relations), incompatible DC-10 fleet, and for PA a totally illogical route network which didn't even provide feed to JFK...well I could go on. From all the books I've read about PA, I have to say it's generally agreed that the NA takeover was one of the single biggest mistakes they ever made, and one of the final nails in the coffin.

Had PA paid the price it was going to for NA it would of been acceptable. Paying the inflated price due to the price war with Lorenzo made it a ridiculous idea and wasted. If they'd got the domestic feed they lacked and something to build on it with without breaking the bank. Paying 3x as much as they should of for NA drained the cash reserves, bundled in a bad fleet mix, a difficult labor situation and basically too little feed for the money. If they had gotten NA cheap which was the original draw to them, the 727s alone were enough to make it worth the price. Sell/trade the DC-10s off for more short haul... and voila.

Flip side drop NA on Lorenzo and TI.... now PA has funds. And if we assume that in 81 BN still fails... 727-200s galore with pilots available... add in 727s from Europe coming on the market... basically give PA the 727 fleet PE got, or PA can go after some small player(s) like PSA, Air Florida, Altair... or even try for a bigger domestic like Allegheny or Piedmont or Western. It does change the whole deregulation era heavily... not to mention keeps Lorenzo away from CO and EA, away from threatening TWA, no PE, no NYA...

Want to get really crazy and the cash gives them the ability to merge with one of the east coast majors on superior terms... PA+EA or PA+DL in 84 or so...

It's not as if Pan Am had $400M in cash in the bank. I believe that Pan Am sold the Pan Am Building in NYC for $400M, coincidentally the same price for acquiring NA in 1980.

Now had Pan Am sold their non strategic assets to compete with UA/DL/AA, that might have been a reasonable strategy. But given what PA knew at the time, coupled with their terrible bond ratings (which would had making borrowing money really expensive), and industrial actions later in the 80's which forced them to sell their Pacific network, I doubt much could have been done to save her.

How many -200’s did Pan Am acquire
from Singapore ?

Were any purchased from other operators?


Did they operate any freighters converted
from passenger use ?

cathay747 wrote:

Tan Flyr wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

The -100s were the start of the demise of PanAm. They were flying -100s until the end while the competition already had -400s.

In a quick nutshell..The 747-100's were eventually the second or third nail in the Pan-Am coffin. The employees held it together with Duct tape and baling wire.
The demise started earlier with too many 707's when the 1973 fuel crises (oil embargo) hit and the subsequent economic downturn.
It's inability to get the CAB to permit domestic flights. (poor relations with the CAB )
It's ill advised purchase of National just months before deregulation was signed by Jimmy Carter. (they knew it was coming)
too much crazy investments in non-airline businesses..sucked money away.

There are several good book on the subject..check out Amazon .

Very spot-on. And allow me to clarify my reply above about the incompatible DC-10 fleet. I say that in the context that PA had already ordered the L-1011-500, which itself was not a smart decision.

[list=][/IF PA had canceled the L15 order and kept the NA DC-10's...and...
IF PA had rearranged the NA network to provide more feed to/from JFK as much as possible with the NA 727 fleet...and...
IF PA had done this at once, MAYBE it might have worked out better
list]

Agreed however that if PA had given up and let Lorenzo have NA, things would have been very different indeed. One can only speculate.

But after taking over NA PA did restructure the route network to provide feed to SFO, JFK and MIA and the NY to FL market not much of the original NA was left after PA took them over.

Max Q wrote:

How many -200’s did Pan Am acquire
from Singapore ?

Were any purchased from other operators?


Did they operate any freighters converted
from passenger use ?

They had 14 ex Singapore 747-212s

Thanks for that, a number of 747’s were
modified to CRAF specifications

Was there any boost to the max gross weight or other performance improvement s in this process or was the result just an
increase in empty weight?

klm617 wrote:

cathay747 wrote:

Tan Flyr wrote:

In a quick nutshell..The 747-100's were eventually the second or third nail in the Pan-Am coffin. The employees held it together with Duct tape and baling wire.
The demise started earlier with too many 707's when the 1973 fuel crises (oil embargo) hit and the subsequent economic downturn.
It's inability to get the CAB to permit domestic flights. (poor relations with the CAB )
It's ill advised purchase of National just months before deregulation was signed by Jimmy Carter. (they knew it was coming)
too much crazy investments in non-airline businesses..sucked money away.

There are several good book on the subject..check out Amazon .

Very spot-on. And allow me to clarify my reply above about the incompatible DC-10 fleet. I say that in the context that PA had already ordered the L-1011-500, which itself was not a smart decision.

[list=][/IF PA had canceled the L15 order and kept the NA DC-10's...and...
IF PA had rearranged the NA network to provide more feed to/from JFK as much as possible with the NA 727 fleet...and...
IF PA had done this at once, MAYBE it might have worked out better
list]

Agreed however that if PA had given up and let Lorenzo have NA, things would have been very different indeed. One can only speculate.

But after taking over NA PA did restructure the route network to provide feed to SFO, JFK and MIA and the NY to FL market not much of the original NA was left after PA took them over.

Yes they did, eventually. But took too long to do it, and didn't "do it right"...some of the markets they went into were just plain dumb, or with too large an aircraft...i.e. 727-200 which couldn't be filled, but a 737-200 might have. And they never built any feed into SFO, only JFK & MIA. And what was the point of starting a route between DCA & IIRC OKC?!?!? Or was it TUL? Either one...totally idiotic.

So many mistakes were made.

A neighbor was retired PanAm VP. They had just taken over National a year or two before. His comment was that by then PanAm was a weak airline than could have taken the best from the well run National but did just the opposite and just got worse. And too many aircraft types did not help either.

cathay747 wrote:

. And what was the point of starting a route between DCA & IIRC OKC?!?!? Or was it TUL? Either one...totally idiotic.

So many mistakes were made.

It was non-stop from TUL and one stop from OKC...politics played an important part in this route..Sen. Bellmon was the ranking member of the US Senate Budget Committee.

The National buy never made any sense. Should have went for at the time a stronger NE airline like Allegheny. There were a number of midsize domestic airlines ( yes, at one time there were 'numerous' carriers in the US instead of the big 3..................shocking, I know) such as Republic would have given them more of a midwest reach. The National angle just does not make sense.

Pan Am made the move to use the A310s ( I believe Airbus was the only one to give them credit) but made it about 10 years too late for TATL flying.

910A wrote:

cathay747 wrote:

. And what was the point of starting a route between DCA & IIRC OKC?!?!? Or was it TUL? Either one...totally idiotic.

So many mistakes were made.

It was non-stop from TUL and one stop from OKC...politics played an important part in this route..Sen. Bellmon was the ranking member of the US Senate Budget Committee.

Was this before, or after Braniff stopped flying TUL-IAD?

klm617 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

How many -200’s did Pan Am acquire
from Singapore ?

Were any purchased from other operators?
9

Did they operate any freighters converted
from passenger use ?

They had 14 ex Singapore 747-212s

Sorry they didn't. They had only 7.
N723PA-N724PA
N726PA-N730PA.

N725PA was old Delta build -132

Any visitor to Stockholm Arlanda we see N727PA as she's the famous 747 hotel.

jfklganyc wrote:

The 747 was not Pan Ams demise. There were many factors, but they couldnt turn into a modern airline for deregulation in the 80s and beyond. They flew for 20 years after the 747 became the backbone of the fleet. Most of it in decline. There is a great book called skygods that gives you hundreds of pages of what went wrong.

But the 747 didn't help. In the great paradox of the age, Pan Am helped bring the 747 and inexpensive international air travel to the masses but also hastened its own demise. The 747 was too large for PA's network. Outside of 3 months of the year, Pan Am's 747s were flying less than half full on long, transoceanic routes. Small twin wide bodies that could cross the ocean didn't exist until the 80s. Plus in an age when Int'l routes were still highly regulated, moving aircraft around seasonly to match demand wasn't easy and the lease payments PA had on them made It hard to park in the soft seasons.

As airlines moved away from interlining and towards running their own integrated networks funneling traffic away from the historic three gateways of NYC, Miami and San Fran the need for large aircraft dissipated. Range protected the 747 on the pacific but PA sold that division to UA. Yes, there were lots of things that hurt PA in the 60s and 70s that lead to its demise in the 80s and the 747 was one of them.

Pan Am's original 747-121s were fitted with the uprated -200 engines, and designated -121Bs.

As N717TW pointed out, Pan Am experienced something of 747 overload. While twins were not available for long haul, the DC-10-30/40 came along in 1972, and would have alleviated some of the overcapacity. As it was, PA exercised options on a second batch of 747s in 1971, when the industry was still dealing with the effects of a recession. For whatever reason, they felt the could not wait for the long range -10, or did not want it in the first place. It would have meant one less engine to feed, no small thing after the 1973 oil embargo.

The biggest catch 22 is that when the 767 or A300/10 was available PA was too cash strapped to make a big splash.

TW had its problems, but they took the lead on ETOPs and pioneered the 762 transatlantic.

PA stuck with the mighty 747. They were late to bring in a significant amount of 310s.

n729pa wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

How many -200’s did Pan Am acquire
from Singapore ?

Were any purchased from other operators?
9

Did they operate any freighters converted
from passenger use ?

They had 14 ex Singapore 747-212s

Sorry they didn't. They had only 7.
N723PA-N724PA
N726PA-N730PA.




N725PA was old Delta build -132

Any visitor to Stockholm Arlanda we see N727PA as she's the famous 747 hotel.

Sorry yes you are correct they were registered so it looked like 14.

N727PA 212B 21162/283 727 N747BH 08/84 /91 C/ BELLE OF THE SKY
N728PA 212B 20712/218 728 N747FT 06/83 04/91 C/ WATER WITCH
N729PA 212B 20713/219 729 N748FT 05/83 04/91 C/ WILD WAVE
N730PA 212B 20888/240 730 N749FT 06/83 /91 C/ GEM OF THE OCEAN
N747BC 212B 21048/253 726 9V-SQD 06/84 11/84 C/ CATHAY; RR N726PA
N747BH 212B 21162/283 727 9V-SQE 06/84 08/84 C/ BELLE OF THE SKY; RR N727PA
N747BK 212B 21439/312 723 9V-SQG 01/85 07/85 C/ FLEETWING; RR N723PA
N747BJ 212B 21316/309 724 9V-SQF 08/84 05/85 C/ FAIRWIND; RR N724PA
N747FT 212B 20712/218 728 N747TA 02/83 06/83 C/ WATER WITCH; LT FT 02/83-03/83; RR N728PA
N748FT 212B 20713/219 729 N748TA 02/83 05/83 C/ WILD WAVE; RR N729PA
N749FT 212B 20888/240 730 N749TA 02/83 06/83 C/ GEM OF THE

CF-CPI wrote:

Pan Am's original 747-121s were fitted with the uprated -200 engines, and designated -121Bs.

PAA returned all of its early 747 aircraft to Boeing to take advantage of the higher weight potential and higher thust engines.
From November 1970 onwards the aircaft came to Everett for refurbishing to a new standard that PAA called 747-100A (no official FAA 747 sub-type).
The MTOW was increased to 755.000 lbs.
This translated into 460 Nm of additional range or a 15% higher payload.
The landing gear, flaps, fuel system, doors and IFE were all upgraded during the modification.
Installed engines : JT9D-3AW, -7, 7A or 7W

Note : Structurally strengthend 747-100B's (official FAA 747 sub-type) were offered from 1978 and not purchased by PAA

747classic wrote:

CF-CPI wrote:

Pan Am's original 747-121s were fitted with the uprated -200 engines, and designated -121Bs.

PAA returned all of its early 747 aircraft to Boeing to take advantage of the higher weight potential and higher thust engines.
From November 1970 onwards the aircaft came to Everett for refurbishing to a new standard that PAA called 747-100A (no official FAA 747 sub-type).
The MTOW was increased to 755.000 lbs.
This translated into 460 Nm of additional range or a 15% higher payload.
The landing gear, flaps, fuel system, doors and IFE were all upgraded during the modification.
Installed engines : JT9D-3AW, -7, 7A or 7W

Note : Structurally strengthend 747-100B's (official FAA 747 sub-type) were offered from 1978 and not purchased by PAA

Correct. PAA had no such type as a -121B; all remained as -121's until some went thru the CRAF mod program and then they were officially designated -121A(SCD)'s in some listings or as -121(SCD)'s in others without the "A" suffix. I flew on Clipper Juan T. Trippe (N747PA) back in 1985 after she was converted to the CRAF config. with the Side Cargo Door but unfortunately I didn't think to ask to see the builders plate and snap a pic of it! So I can't say for certain about the "A" suffix.

Did ANY airline ever order a factory-built -100B?? I've never heard of this until reading your post; I don't believe it's even mentioned in Joe Sutter's book about building the 747. I thought that the next variant after the -100 was the -200, and in short order (followed by the -200F and then the -200B or vice-versa or simultaneously). I've never seen a fleet listing of a -100B for any airline, even as a conversion.

The two factory-built freighters they bought (-221F(SCD)'s) were delivered in July & August 1979 as N904PA & N905PA. All other freighters were second-hand acquisitions as already detailed.

On a quick side note, I think it’s funny that Pan Am, to which the 747 owes its very existence, began its downfall to ceasing operations by ordering the 747.

skipness1E wrote:

CF-CPI wrote:

Pan Am's original 747-121s were fitted with the uprated -200 engines, and designated -121Bs.

How many? I have never seen the -100B designation used this way, the -100B became the B747-SR IIRC?

Maybe that's it. Not sure.

cathay747 wrote:

Did ANY airline ever order a factory-built -100B?? I've never heard of this until reading your post; I don't believe it's even mentioned in Joe Sutter's book about building the 747. I thought that the next variant after the -100 was the -200, and in short order (followed by the -200F and then the -200B or vice-versa or simultaneously). I've never seen a fleet listing of a -100B for any airline, even as a conversion.

Both Saudia and Iran Air operated B747-100Bs...
Saudia had the equipped with Rolls Royce RB211 engines. Iran Air had JT9Ds. Both had 10 windows at the upper deck.

The 747SR is a different version... by the way: is the SR a new variant or is it a subtype of the 747-100? >>> "B747-100SR"
I prefer to believe the SR is a subtype of a B747-100... just like a B747-100SF, for example.

cathay747 wrote:

Did ANY airline ever order a factory-built -100B?? I've never heard of this until reading your post; I don't believe it's even mentioned in Joe Sutter's book about building the 747. I thought that the next variant after the -100 was the -200, and in short order (followed by the -200F and then the -200B or vice-versa or simultaneously). I've never seen a fleet listing of a -100B for any airline, even as a conversion.

Yes, the 747-100B was offered in 1978, after the 747-200B,200C and 200F. The -100B was offered with all 3 engine options.

747-100B produced :
747-146B 22066, 22067, 23150
747-168B 22498-22502, 22747-22749
747-186B 21759

From the 747 Type certificate :

The 747SR is basically a 747-100 series airplane with certain modifications to improve the fatigue life.

The 747-100B is basically a 747SR series airplane with certain modifications to permit increases in maximum permissible operating weights.

Later built 747SR aircraft were build according the same master drawings as the 747-100B.

CF-CPI wrote:

As N717TW pointed out, Pan Am experienced something of 747 overload. While twins were not available for long haul, the DC-10-30/40 came along in 1972, and would have alleviated some of the overcapacity. As it was, PA exercised options on a second batch of 747s in 1971, when the industry was still dealing with the effects of a recession. For whatever reason, they felt the could not wait for the long range -10, or did not want it in the first place. It would have meant one less engine to feed, no small thing after the 1973 oil embargo.

This part of your post is spot-on. One of their earlier HUGE mistakes was exercising those 747 options AT THAT TIME...I think that if MAYBE they had waited a few years AND retired MORE 707's than they did as those new 747's came online, it would have eased their overcapacity problem and done so during an economic UPTURN. Trippe gambled that that upturn would happen sooner, but it didn't, and then the oil crisis hit...so he lost the gamble. It proved in my books anyway that Trippe was not the infallible Sky God he was acclaimed to be.

Somebody mentioned above about PAA's poor relations with the CAB, and this was a huge problem too. The CAB was very put-off by PAA's perceived arrogance (The Chosen Instrument mentality), and then when Trippe played his little game of ordering Concorde instead of the U.S. SST which was under development (allegedly to "encourage" CONTINUED development), President Kennedy was utterly FURIOUS and this carried over to the Johnson admin. and I believe even to Nixon. IIRC from my reading, PAA couldn't even get an increase in mail pay approved!

747classic wrote:

cathay747 wrote:

Did ANY airline ever order a factory-built -100B?? I've never heard of this until reading your post; I don't believe it's even mentioned in Joe Sutter's book about building the 747. I thought that the next variant after the -100 was the -200, and in short order (followed by the -200F and then the -200B or vice-versa or simultaneously). I've never seen a fleet listing of a -100B for any airline, even as a conversion.

Yes, the 747-100B was offered in 1978, after the 747-200B,200C and 200F. The -100B was offered with all 3 engine options.

Customers : Iran air (JT9D-7F), Saudia (RR RB 211), also ANA and JAL 747-SR aircraft were high cycles adapted 747-100B aircraft.

Ah, OK...got it. Thanks! I do see now on Planespotters.net that some of the SR's at JL were designated as 747SR-146B, although many were simply 747SR-46 designations (as well as later 747SR-146B(SUD)'s). NH's were all only designated as 747SR-81's, not SR-181B's, but point taken.

leleko747 wrote:

cathay747 wrote:

Did ANY airline ever order a factory-built -100B?? I've never heard of this until reading your post; I don't believe it's even mentioned in Joe Sutter's book about building the 747. I thought that the next variant after the -100 was the -200, and in short order (followed by the -200F and then the -200B or vice-versa or simultaneously). I've never seen a fleet listing of a -100B for any airline, even as a conversion.

Both Saudia and Iran Air operated B747-100Bs...
Saudia had the equipped with Rolls Royce RB211 engines. Iran Air had JT9Ds. Both had 10 windows at the upper deck.

The 747SR is a different version... by the way: is the SR a new variant or is it a subtype of the 747-100? >>> "B747-100SR"
I prefer to believe the SR is a subtype of a B747-100... just like a B747-100SF, for example.

Thank you to you as well. Didn't know or remember this.

Max Q wrote:

Thanks for that, a number of 747’s were
modified to CRAF specifications

Was there any boost to the max gross weight or other performance improvement s in this process or was the result just an
increase in empty weight?

Nineteen 747's were converted to CRAF aircraft by Boeing Wichita (Military Airplanes) at a cost of up to $20 million per aircraft.
The conversion was simular to the standard -SF package but did not include a powered cargo system..
The aircraft were designated C-19A's.
The strengthening and new side cargo door added 13.000 pounds to the empty weight of the aircraft. No MTOW increase was possible at the -100(A)'s (not sure about the 200B's).
As a result of the weight increase, the USAF paid compensation to PAA during commercial passenger operation.
A clause in the conversion contract prevented the aircraft from being used as commercial freighters up to 12 years after the conversion work, unless payment were made to the USAF

Below are the CRAF converted 747s listed, plus the years they were converted :

1985
N653PA, 747-121, (cn 20348/106)
N655PA, 747-121, (cn 20350/117)

1986
N734PA, 747-121, (cn 19641/7)
N743PA, 747-121, (cn 19650/24)
N902PA, 747-132, (cn 19896/72)
N725PA, 747-132, (cn 19898/94)
N728PA, 747-212B, (cn 20712/218)

1987
N739PA, 747-121, (cn 19646/15), Lockerbie
N729PA, 747-212B, (cn 20713/219)
N730PA, 747-212B, (cn 20888/240)

1988
N747PA, 747-121, (cn 19639/2)
N4703U, 747-122, (cn 19753/52)
N4704U, 747-122, (cn 19754/60)
N4712U, 747-122, (cn 19757/67)

1989
N4710U, 747-122, (cn 19755/61)
N4711U, 747-122, (cn 19756/66)
N9670, 747-123, (cn 20109/90)
N9674, 747-123, (cn 20326/133)

1990
N726PA, 747-212B, (cn 21048/253)
.

skipness1E wrote:

CF-CPI wrote:

Pan Am's original 747-121s were fitted with the uprated -200 engines, and designated -121Bs.

How many? I have never seen the -100B designation used this way, the -100B became the B747-SR IIRC?

I had the designation wrong. Pan Am called them 747-121As.

cathay747 wrote:

Very spot-on. And allow me to clarify my reply above about the incompatible DC-10 fleet. I say that in the context that PA had already ordered the L-1011-500, which itself was not a smart decision.

The L15 was Pan Am's 'solution' for 707 replacement. In fact, Lockheed was generically marketing the -500 as such, hoping that lower plane-mile (not seat-mile) costs over the DC-10-30 would give it a niche in the market. As history shows, it was not a great concept. As for Pan Am, their configuration gave it 100 or more seats than the 707s, and it's not clear that traffic was increasing a a sufficient pace to justify the higher capacity. Then with the NA merger, PA was facing multiple fleet and engine types (by then, a smorgasbord of RB211s, Pratts and GE CF-6s).

Many of the 707 routes were to Latin America, and the 767-200 would have worked nicely in the 1982-'83 time frame, since long overwater segments were not involved.

CF-CPI wrote:

cathay747 wrote:

Very spot-on. And allow me to clarify my reply above about the incompatible DC-10 fleet. I say that in the context that PA had already ordered the L-1011-500, which itself was not a smart decision.

The L15 was Pan Am's 'solution' for 707 replacement. In fact, Lockheed was generically marketing the -500 as such, hoping that lower plane-mile (not seat-mile) costs over the DC-10-30 would give it a niche in the market. As history shows, it was not a great concept. As for Pan Am, their configuration gave it 100 or more seats than the 707s, and it's not clear that traffic was increasing a a sufficient pace to justify the higher capacity. Then with the NA merger, PA was facing multiple fleet and engine types (by then, a smorgasbord of RB211s, Pratts and GE CF-6s).

Many of the 707 routes were to Latin America, and the 767-200 would have worked nicely in the 1982-'83 time frame, since long overwater segments were not involved.

The theme here seems to be that PA was always jumping the gun here trying to be the first but as tome went on management made less and less wise decisions. If they had waited out the NA merger a year or so they could have created their own domestic network and the same with the purchase of the L-1011-500 things might have been a lot different.

Pottok wrote:

No, all Pan Am Boeing 747-200 are second hand. All came from Singapore Airlines (212)

Surprised to hear Pan Am didn't order the 747-200 - having been the launch customer for the 747.

LH was first in-line for the 747-200...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#747-200

bmacleod wrote:

.

LH was first in-line for the 747-200...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#747-200

Don't trust Wikipedia :

The first produced 747-200B was L/N 88, 747-251B, N611US, NWA, F/F 10-11-1970, Del. 03-26-1971
The first in service 747-200B was L/N 96, 747-206B, PH-BUA, KLM, F/F 12-13-1970, Del 01-16-1971

Does anyone know what engine type PA had on N904PA and N905PA? They look like they could be -7Q.