Crownvic From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1981 posts, RR: 5 Posted (7 years 1 month 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7845 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, 2759 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7695 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:
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, 10883 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7394 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, 13882 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7290 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.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26235 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 23 hours ago) and read 3943 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.
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!
Mendaero From Australia, joined Jul 2006, 62 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 12 hours ago) and read 2526 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 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, 21628 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2277 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.