Cba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4096 times:
Boeing's website only mentions 3 744's: 744, 744ER, 744QLR. IGW means increased gross weight. The 744ER is just a 744 with an increased gross weight, allowing it to carry more fuel to fly further. Thus, the 744IGW is just another name for the 744ER. Just like the 777-200IGW is the 777-200ER.
Tsentsan From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4053 times:
VH-OJU/S/T have the slightly uprated engines, or rather the slightly improved versions of the RB211-524G/H-T that allows a slightly higher MTOW then the standard RB211-524G that is in the rest of the QF fleet.
BA also has an uprated RB211, in the version of the RB211-524H2 and H3, while the original is an RB211-524H.
I dont think they would be considered an IGW though literally they are. They are basically the same aircraft inside out, all identical, except with higher powered engines thats all.
I'm sorry I dont have the exact power figures for them.
Godbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2752 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3878 times:
When will Boeing get their act together and move away from heating the 744 up in the microwave to see if anything changes and then offer it as a new 747. If they want to keep the 747 the queen of the skies they need to redesign the -400 and not only add a feature here and there. They havn't learned from the 743 and 764 at all... Either do a complete job or don't do it at all..
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3710 times:
The 747X / 747X Stretch failed because they couldn't compete with the 388. Apparently Boeing would need to update the 747 more comprehensively, or design an all-new plane. Of course accroding to their market forecasts, there is no market to justify an all-new plane so they're unlikely to do that.
CaptainAD From United States of America, joined May 2001, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 years 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3577 times:
Thank you for your post Manni... without you we may have never been able to figure out that SIA made the decision because "the aircraft did not fit in their fleet or that they had a much better alternative." Very insightful
Navion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (12 years 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3508 times:
Joni, Well put. Boeing does feel the market is somewhat limited. If Boeing offers something to compete with the A388, both will lose money. The A388's sold so far have been at fire sale rates (a fact discussed openly in FI and AW&ST) so Airbus really has to sell about 500-600 more of these beasts at retail prices to justify the $12-$16 billion investment. There is no room for Boeing to try to make a VLA to compete with Airbus.