Crownvic From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1593 posts, RR: 6 Posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6869 times:
Aside from cargo operators, I recall the only customer for this a/c was QF for the pax version, but I may be wrong. On the House color livery of N747ER, there are 4 logos on the fuselage side that I have not been able to make out in any photos. Can someone tell me aside from QF, who these are? Are some freight operators or leasing companies?
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2656 posts, RR: 59 Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6719 times:
Quoting Crownvic (Thread starter): there are 4 logos on the fuselage side that I have not been able to make out in any photos. Can someone tell me aside from QF, who these are? Are some freight operators or leasing companies?
IIRC (and it's been awhile), it should be:
Qantas
ILFC
Air France
Korean Air Lines
And yes, it does indeed include the cargo operators at the time. Once again, IIRC, there was no 'House' scheme on the first 747-400ERF, as this was immdiately painted with Air France's livery.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9598 posts, RR: 10 Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 6418 times:
The first 744F was delivered to Cargolux, the first 744 ERF to AF as F-GIUA.
Interesting though that the first 744F had been ordered by AF as F-GIUF and actually wore that registration on the Boeing house colours livery before AF decided not to take it. Noteworthy is also that interest in the 744F was initially quite weak, only 1 in 10 744s built were freighers in the mid-90s.
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 51 Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6314 times:
I believe CV never ordered the -400ERF. In fact, for thrir recent deliveries of -400Fs, they switched to RB211 powerplants, which are not available for the -400ERF anyway, even though their first frames were delivered with CF6-80s.
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 10 Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6284 times:
Wunula Dreaming is of course QFs special livery and is on one of its 744ERs the rest are in standard scheme and the only noticable differance is the 747-400ER painted on the side.
Albird87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6220 times:
Why did the 400ER not seem to do very well?? Was it always marketed as a friegher really??
Is the ER have that much greater range than the 400??
I am suprised that there are not anymore 400ER passengers around especially with the likes of SQ and the big 744 operators out there.....
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9598 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6075 times:
Still no one could answer the original quetion. The only one I can clearly make out is the QF kangeroo, which is nearest to the front door. Second could be Korean, third AF, fourth ILFC.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21448 posts, RR: 24 Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2967 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 7): Still no one could answer the original question. The only one I can clearly make out is the QF kangaroo, which is nearest to the front door. Second could be Korean, third AF, fourth ILFC.
Boeing shows the following -400ER/ERF status as of the end of November, with 6 -400ER and 40 -400ERF ordered. All delivered except for 12 freighters.
Brenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1446 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2886 times:
Quoting Albird87 (Reply 6): Why did the 400ER not seem to do very well
I think the reason it didn't seem to do too well is that it's simply too much aircraft for the majority of operators. The extra fuel tanks of the ER take up valuable cargo capability. It's really only viable for airlines that *NEED* the range (I believe that QF's standard 744s are weight-restricted on the SYD - LAX route -- but I might be mistaken).
Major operators like BA, SQ and others really don't need the range, while the added cargo capabilities of the 744 are beneficial to them.
IIRC, the -ER only differs from the standard 744 in having extra fuel tanks; I don't believe it has an increased MTOW.
I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
FlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1965 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2702 times:
The passenger ER also has Boeing's signature interior.
Crownvic From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1593 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2111 times:
Like NA has said, there is no confirmed answer so far. If anyone has a close-up photo, this would solve the puzzle.
Bluewhale18210 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 230 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1688 times:
MTOW:
747-400: 872,000lbs with option to 875,000lbs
747-400ER: 913,000lbs
Extra 40,000lbs of fuel can fly about 2 hours more.
JPS on A300-600RF A319/320 B737-400/800 B757-200F B767-300F CRJ-200/900. Looking to add more.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 80 Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1678 times:
Quoting Albird87 (Reply 6): Why did the 400ER not seem to do very well??
Because only 1 airline truly needed it.
Quoting Brenintw (Reply 9): (I believe that QF's standard 744s are weight-restricted on the SYD - LAX route -- but I might be mistaken)
Not all the time. The biggest reason for the 744ER was LAX-MEL.
Quoting Brenintw (Reply 9): I don't believe it has an increased MTOW.
Incorrect.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Mendaero From Australia, joined Jul 2006, 62 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1550 times:
Quoting Brenintw (Reply 9): IIRC, the -ER only differs from the standard 744 in having extra fuel tanks; I don't believe it has an increased MTOW.
The two tanks are only, IIRC offered on the pax version. QF only opted for 1 extra tank.
I do remember seeing an option list, with what options QF had chosen, with both RR and GE listed and obviously QF choosing GE.
There are many minor changes to the ER variant, some perhaps added to non ER variants later. Such as LCD cockpit displays, and an integrated standby instument display.
777 Interior
777 type wheels and brakes 50" instead of 49" and radial tyres.
emergency oxygen system again 777 based (elec deploy?)
potable water tank changed to a titanium tank with elec pump instead of compressor and relocated to the aft of the A/C (they had alot of problems with this prior to delivery)
QF's toilets on the ER are a different type to the rest of the 744 fleet and the incorporation of a GWAD (basically a waste disposal unit in the aft galley attached to the toilet waste system)
There were many minor structural changes also to assist the MTOW increase, such as one piece machined frames in the belly to accomodate the weight of the fuel tanks
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, RR: 60 Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1301 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 13): Not all the time. The biggest reason for the 744ER was LAX-MEL.
That's how I understand it.
The ER is needed for LAX-MEL, and is also used on LAX-SYD because it can carry heavier loads than the 744 on the route.
As for QF being the only airline who needed it, UA could use it for the same routes, as they are at a disadvantage to QF on some days. And it would also allow for denser/heavier loads into HKG. But they weren't in any position to order it when it would have made sense.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1593 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 7434 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9598 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4739 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21448 posts, 
From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1446 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jul 2006, 62 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
