What Is The Tipping Point For 77W's Supremacy?

CX773W · Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:22 pm

Hi! I'm curious what is the tipping point marking the 77W's ascendancy in long-hual nonstop flights and the corresponding decline of 744's from similar roles. Can anyone here kindly pointing out? (It can be an order or entry into service in substantial quantities by a major airline; or a decision to convert a flagship route to 77W's or other external factors not related to either aircraft) Thanks!

DL747400 · Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:32 pm

Perhaps you could rephrase your question? After reading and rereading your post, I'm still not clear on the exact question being asked.

Are you asking at what point will it become clear that the 77W has become the next 744 in terms of dominating the widebody long haul market segment?

CX773W · Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:43 pm

That exactly what I'm asking

Quoting DL747400 (Reply 1):
Are you asking at what point will it become clear that the 77W has become the next 744 in terms of dominating the widebody long haul market segment?

That's exactly what I'm asking, only that your question is not a "will", but already a "has". Thanks!

tortugamon · Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:45 pm

I would point to SQ's purchase in December 2004 when it was becoming known that the 77W was exceeding expectations and SQ, a very important 747 operator, bought 18 of them. That was followed a year later by another heavy 747 operator buying a dozen more, CX.

tortugamon

tortugamon · Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:51 pm

Quoting CX773W (Reply 2):
Quoting DL747400 (Reply 1):
Are you asking at what point will it become clear that the 77W has become the next 744 in terms of dominating the widebody long haul market segment?

That's exactly what I'm asking, only that your question is not a "will", but already a "has". Thanks!

Well, I took the question differently. When Boeing discovered they had more capability built into the 77W then they originally thought and increased the range by hundreds of nautical miles very late in the process that all of a sudden indicated that it could do 747 routes.

tortugamon

Stitch · Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:14 pm

Once flight test was completed, Boeing knew the 777-300ER had better range, better payload lift and much better fuel burn than the 747-400. At that point, it was just a matter of time.

That being said, the writing was already on the wall for the 747-400 for even before the 777-300ER came in better than projected, those projections showed it was going to be a better platform than the 747-400 on most missions and the A340-600 was also a serious competitor on payload lift and range. The last large 747-400 order was from United Airlines (12) on 22-Aug-1996 and British Airways (13) on 02-Sep-1996. After that, order sizes were in the low single digits.

As for the tipping point in orders, I'd say it was from the start. GECAS and ILFC ordered 10 and 18, respectively, which IMO was a sign they knew the plane would be a winner. Air France also took 10. Then. once it's performance was proven, we saw the large order by Singapore Airlines in 2004 followed by 12 for Cathay Pacific in 2005. Also important was non-747-400 operators like Jet Airways and Emirates ordering large numbers (10 and 29, respectively) instead of the 747-400 as well as Air India adding 15.

ultrapig · Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:10 pm

Gentlemen: Are you saying that a 77w has better payload lift s
o that while the 747-4 has more floor space the 777 can carry more payload?

CGMAI · Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:29 pm

Quoting ultrapig (Reply 6):
Gentlemen: Are you saying that a 77w has better payload lift s
o that while the 747-4 has more floor space the 777 can carry more payload?

Don't quote me but from what I know and what I guess, the B77W has a better cargo to passenger ratio (makes sense considering all of the passengers are sitting on one flour versus two on the B744), that is has better range and that its fuel burn is much much less.

Stitch · Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:32 pm

Quoting ultrapig (Reply 6):
Are you saying that a 77w has better payload lift so that while the 747-4 has more floor space the 777 can carry more payload?

Actual customer weights will vary, of course, but per the Boeing ACAP, Maximum Structural Payload for the 777-300ER is 70 tons compared to 67 tons for the 747-400. The 777-300ER also has significantly more cargo volume.

OldAeroGuy · Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:54 pm

Quoting ultrapig (Reply 6):

Gentlemen: Are you saying that a 77w has better payload lift s
o that while the 747-4 has more floor space the 777 can carry more payload?

Yes, the 773ER has better payload-range than the 744.

Stitch is correct, this capability was the 773ER design requirement. Flight test and early service showed the airplane/engine had better fuel mileage, takeoff performance and approach than the preflight estimates.

In addition, the final structural analysis showed that MTOW could be increased from 340.2t to 351.5t with very minor structural changes and virtually no OEW impact.

As a result, design range went from 7500nm to over 7900nm.

DfwRevolution · Sat Feb 08, 2014 11:02 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 3):
I would point to SQ's purchase in December 2004 when it was becoming known that the 77W was exceeding expectations and SQ, a very important 747 operator, bought 18 of them. That was followed a year later by another heavy 747 operator buying a dozen more, CX.

I agree completely, that was a huge moment. The A346 would have actually been more common to SQ's fleet given they were operating A345 at the time while the 773ER would have required a new engine in the fleet. I recall the SQ order being the last seriously contested A346 vs 773ER campaign. After that, the defections started with A346 customers buying 773ER (AC, CX, etc).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
As for the tipping point in orders, I'd say it was from the start. GECAS and ILFC ordered 10 and 18, respectively, which IMO was a sign they knew the plane would be a winner. Air France also took 10. Then. once it's performance was proven, we saw the large order by Singapore Airlines in 2004 followed by 12 for Cathay Pacific in 2005.

I can't agree with you there. I recall being concerned about the entire 777 LR program from 2000-2003. Boeing only had around 80 77W orders going into EIS and the A340-500/600 was already first to market. In between launch and EIS, we had a recession, 9/11, and the SARS outbreak. The prospects for the airline industry weren't great and orders weren't booming. The 772LR spent many of those years with just EVA and PIA as customers. I recall Boeing forecasting something like 500 777LRs over the life of the program and I thought "no way in hell."

Once Boeing started turning the tide against existing A340-500/600 customers, and then after the watershed 2005 year, that's when I (personally) was convinced Boeing had one of their best products ever.

Burkhard · Sat Feb 08, 2014 11:12 pm

747 and A380s are flagships.

77Ws 10 abreast are slave ships.

Slave ships make more money than flagships. Every passenger who pays to fly on the roaring sausages is guilty for the decline of aviation.

CGMAI · Sat Feb 08, 2014 11:24 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 11):
747 and A380s are flagships.

77Ws 10 abreast are slave ships.

Slave ships make more money than flagships. Every passenger who pays to fly on the roaring sausages is guilty for the decline of aviation.

A bit extreme don't you think?

Burkhard · Sat Feb 08, 2014 11:35 pm

Extreme yes, but the most extreme of all possibilities is the truth. I'm willing to pay 200€ more for a 747 flight than for a 777 10 abreast flight, unfortunately not many think like me, so for most destinations only twins are left.

Stitch · Sat Feb 08, 2014 11:48 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 13):
I'm willing to pay 200€ more for a 747 flight than for a 777 10 abreast flight..

I'd pay more to fly the 777, but then I dislike flying on the 747 (outside of First on an LH 747-8).

CGMAI · Sat Feb 08, 2014 11:52 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 13):
Extreme yes, but the most extreme of all possibilities is the truth. I'm willing to pay 200€ more for a 747 flight than for a 777 10 abreast flight, unfortunately not many think like me, so for most destinations only twins are left.

You are one of the rare ones...so you do not want to fly a B77W in 10 abreast (XXX-XXX-XXX) but you do not mind flying a B744 in 11 abreast (XXX-XXXX-XXX)? If so you truly do not make any sense.

Stitch · Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:07 am

Quoting CGMAI (Reply 15):
You are one of the rare ones...so you do not want to fly a B77W in 10 abreast (XXX-XXX-XXX) but you do not mind flying a B744 in 11 abreast (XXX-XXXX-XXX)? If so you truly do not make any sense.

You can't put 11 abreast in a 747 - the aisles would be too narrow.

Gemuser · Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:11 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
I'd pay more to fly the 777, but then I dislike flying on the 747 (outside of First on an LH 747-8).

Just goes to show the subjectivity of individual preferences.
I go a long way (in both kilometers & $A) to avoid the B777, I just don't like the way they feel/sound in the cabin, even the 9 abreast ones, the 10 abreast ones are IMHO the pits. I much preferred UAs B744 over DL B77L on my last two trips to USA. I much prefer the A330/A340s 2-4-2 cabin layout over both.

Quoting CGMAI (Reply 15):

You are one of the rare ones...so you do not want to fly a B77W in 10 abreast (XXX-XXX-XXX) but you do not mind flying a B744 in 11 abreast (XXX-XXXX-XXX)? If so you truly do not make any sense.

Err, what are you talking about? The B744 is 10 abreast, the B777 was 9 abreast, many are now 10 abreast in exactly the same configuration as the B744.

Gemuser

EPA001 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:32 am

Quoting CGMAI (Reply 15):
You are one of the rare ones...so you do not want to fly a B77W in 10 abreast (XXX-XXX-XXX) but you do not mind flying a B744 in 11 abreast (XXX-XXXX-XXX)? If so you truly do not make any sense.

In both cases you are missing an X. It should be XXX-XXXX-XXX for the 10 abreast and XXX-XXXXX-XXX for 11 abreast. But 11 abreast on a B747-400? That is some squeezed-in seating.

.

As for the question at hand, the A346 and especially the B77W really have eaten in strongly in the B747 territory. Combined with the A380 which was positioned above it the fate of the B744 was basically sealed. I still enjoy to see any B747 flying, since 4-holers are so extra beautiful to me. But on performance the old lady can not keep up anymore with the young gals on the block.

CGMAI · Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:51 am

I feel stupid...which seating config I was thinking of that had 5 seats in the middle on B744?

DocLightning · Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:59 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
I'd pay more to fly the 777, but then I dislike flying on the 747 (outside of First on an LH 747-8).

I don't mind a 744 with an updated interior. But honestly, a Y-class seat is a Y-class seat. An extra inch of width helps, but for more than 3-4 hours, it's just unpleasant. Some people take drugs (I have no problem with people using artificial means to endure a very unnatural process). All the planes fly at roughly the same speed. With the exception of the very newest model, the interior conditions (pressure, humidity) are roughly equivalent.

Similarly, a premium interior on an A340 is no more or less comfortable than that aboard a 777. The dimensions are different, but it's the seats and layout that matter. There's a reason why most passengers don't know what kind of plane they're on, the experience is essentially the same across the entire civil fleet with the minor exception of the 787 and its novel cabin altitude, window shade, and lighting system.

Stitch · Sun Feb 09, 2014 1:08 am

Quoting CGMAI (Reply 19):
I feel stupid...which seating config I was thinking of that had 5 seats in the middle on B744?

You can do 9-abreast in a 747 (or 777) at 2+5+2.

EPA001 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 1:21 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
You can do 9-abreast in a 747 (or 777) at 2+5+2.

I have always liked the 2-5-2 seating in a B777. UA had them configured like that. it gives you 9 abreast with only one line of "double excuse me seats". In 3-3-3 you always have 2 lines of "double excuse me seats".

I have never seen 9 abreast on a B747. All the ones I have flown on were 10 abreast configured.

CGMAI · Sun Feb 09, 2014 1:21 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
You can do 9-abreast in a 747 (or 777) at 2+5+2.

Ah that must be it, thanks Stitch*.

*: Did you name your self after the Lilo & Stitch character?

Stitch · Sun Feb 09, 2014 1:24 am

Quoting CGMAI (Reply 23):
*: Did you name your self after the Lilo & Stitch character?

Indeed I did.

Viscount724 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 1:35 am

Quoting CGMAI (Reply 19):
I feel stupid...which seating config I was thinking of that had 5 seats in the middle on B744?

No 747s have ever had 5 seats in the middle. In the early days they were 9-abreast (3-4-2) and by the mid- to late-1970s most had already been converted to 10-abreast (3-4-3). But the 747 is wider than the 777 so 10-abreast is less cramped than on the 777.

CGMAI · Sun Feb 09, 2014 1:47 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 24):
Indeed I did.

Loved Experiment 626! But I preferred Reuben (Experiment 625) and of course Angel (Experiment 624), sadly less and less people remember these great Disney characters.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25):
No 747s have ever had 5 seats in the middle. In the early days they were 9-abreast (3-4-2) and by the mid- to late-1970s most had already been converted to 10-abreast (3-4-3). But the 747 is wider than the 777 so 10-abreast is less cramped than on the 777.

Must have confused 3-4-3 with 3-5-3, my mistake

tortugamon · Sun Feb 09, 2014 2:29 am

I just did an analysis and 89% of all routes that are over 6knm are operated by a 777 or a 747. The 777 truly dominates long haul and the other long haul frames are largely irrelevant.

tortugamon

NAV20 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 2:53 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 27):
89% of all routes that are over 6knm are operated by a 777 or a 747

That's an astonishing figure on the face of it!

But what proportion of total routes are over 6,000nms.? And is that proportion rising? I would expect that it is?

DocLightning · Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:08 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 27):
I just did an analysis and 89% of all routes that are over 6knm are operated by a 777 or a 747. The 777 truly dominates long haul and the other long haul frames are largely irrelevant.

Well, the other long-haul frames are the A340, which just never did well, the MD-11, which never did well, the 777, of which only relatively few examples exist, and the A380, of which few examples exist as yet. Airbus has finally gotten around to designing two competitive long-haul (13+h) frames in the last decade and I think that a rising percentage of this figure will turn to the A350, 787, and 77X models.

Also, very few passengers have ever flown on a 6,000+nm flight. Such flights are, for most people, a "few times in a lifetime" event.

SEPilot · Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:27 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 29):
Also, very few passengers have ever flown on a 6,000+nm flight. Such flights are, for most people, a "few times in a lifetime" event.

The leader of the mission to the Philippines with which I have been involved for several years has made 22 flights in 11 years, and all of those flights have been well over 6,000 nm. One of the doctors involved has probably made at least 7, and he shows no sign of stopping (he goes once a year.) And seeing has I am soon to be married to a Filippina, I will be joining the group. The other two mentioned have made most of their flights on 77W's (their airline of choice being CX) while I am leaning towards DL, which will mean the 747. Looking at the available flights, the only other aircraft available seems to be the A380, and that would involved flying via Korea, which adds a fair amount to the flight time. I doubt that the 787 or A350 are going to significantly encroach on these routes, and I do not see more A380 flights coming either. I do see 747's disappearing eventually, but the most likely replacements are going to be 777's. With the coming of the 777X I can see flights of over 6,000 nm being heavily dominated by it, although the A3510 will have an increasing presence. My guess would be that these two types will dominate the over-6,000 nm field in the future, perhaps with a 60-40 to 70-30 split in favor of the 777X

FSXJunkie · Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:40 am

Quoting CX773W (Thread starter):
Hi! I'm curious what is the tipping point marking the 77W's ascendancy in long-hual nonstop flights and the corresponding decline of 744's from similar roles

It's got two engines

747, A340, and A380 are all four engine aircraft, with rising fuel prices airlines are more concerned about fuel economy and a twin engine aircraft is far more economical than a four engine.

Same range, same payload, more savings.

SEPilot · Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:57 am

One curious point: In researching fares, I found that the price for flights did not depend on the aircraft type at all. When I flew last summer, the fare was distorted by the fact that I booked the flight only a week in advance, and paid quite a bit more than if I had been able to book farther in advance, and the lowest fare I could find was on the DL 747. I have searched several times since, and have found DL;s fares to be always competitive. And since with DL I can fly out of BDL instead of having to go to JFK, that is likely to remain my preference. But what I find strange is that DL can match or beat the fares flying the 747 of the other airlines, most of which are flying 77W's. Either DL is accepting the fact that it will make less profit, or that is the advantage from having the planes paid for. I suspect it is the latter; I gather DL is doing fairly well financially right now, and it seems that they are doing it largely by being very frugal about buying new planes. But they will have to ditch the 747's in the not too distant future (since they have the oldest 744's out there) and I am curious what they will replace them with. My guess is the 779.

KD5MDK · Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:16 am

Price pretty much doesn't depend on the cost to deliver the service. Price is set by what the market is willing to bear. All airlines are going to charge as much as they can possibly manage, regardless of their own costs. From time to time they look back and decide a route is impossible to fly profitably and either change the equipment or stop, but they generally cannot charge more for a 747 over a 777 or vice versa.

seahawk · Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:34 am

And the market wants to pay as little as possible.

solnabo · Sun Feb 09, 2014 10:14 am

Why did Boeing go for the 748i when their latest 747 model, 744ER only sold 6 frames to Qantas?
More range and how much further than 744? I would call the 77W supreme in the Seatlle factory.

Mike

SEPilot · Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:17 pm

Quoting kd5mdk (Reply 33):
Price pretty much doesn't depend on the cost to deliver the service. Price is set by what the market is willing to bear.

This is true, but if they are selling seats for less than the service costs they will be losing money. That is why I made the point that DL seems to be doing pretty well financially, at least compared to past performance and the other US airlines.

triple7man · Sun Feb 09, 2014 1:04 pm

The 747SP was the aircraft that made flights like JFK-NRT, LAX-SYD, LAX-HKG a reality. Prior to it, no aircraft had the range to fly these distances. Except the demand wasn't there and only a small number of SP's were built. But they paved the way for the 747-400 which made these flights an every day reality.
No airplane lasts forever. The 747-100 which Pan Am first put into service saw it's day. So did every other airplane.
The cabin dimensions not withstanding, the 777-300ER can do the same job as the 747-400 only more economically. Most of the airlines that used 747-400's have replaced them with 777-300ER's. I miss seeing the 747-400's at LAX. I never got tired of watching a fully loaded one take off. I was also fortunate to experience this flying LAX-HKG-LAX in the cockpit of a CX 747-400. I also got to fly some heavy takeoffs out of FRA and HKG in a LH 747-400 simulator. The 747-400's definitely left their mark.

tortugamon · Sun Feb 09, 2014 2:58 pm

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 28):
But what proportion of total routes are over 6,000nms.?

Not a large proportion.

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 28):
And is that proportion rising?

Yes.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 29):
Well, the other long-haul frames are the A340, which just never did well, the MD-11, which never did well, the 777, of which only relatively few examples exist, and the A380, of which few examples exist as yet.

You actually missed one: believe it or not a 767 slipped into the data set. Before AM introduced the 787 they were using a 767 from NRT-MEX. But I think you are largely on target.

Quoting solnabo (Reply 35):
Why did Boeing go for the 748i when their latest 747 model, 744ER only sold 6 frames to Qantas?

The 744ER was not a model like the the 77W is a model. It was a 744 with one or two additional 3,240 gallon fuel tanks and an adjusted MTOW but it was a minimal change variant used for QF to get more performance to North America.

tortugamon

jfk777 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 4:35 pm

The 744's day of being past king were in sight by the time the 777-200ER came into service, hey it could fly 15 hours. It could almost do all the 744 did with less cost. IT was only a matter of time when Boeing came with a bigger & longer range 777 in the 777-300ER and LR. Part of the tipping point came when the ME3 came along and established themselves as the force they are, they never flew 744's they went for the 777 like a dog to a bone. IF the ME3 didn't exist would the 777 have been such a successful progarm ?

lightsaber · Sun Feb 09, 2014 5:58 pm

We should be at the point of more active 777s than 747s at this point... I'm being too lazy to go through airfleets.net, but looking at older 747s, it looks like we've passed the tipping point.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 17):
Just goes to show the subjectivity of individual preferences.

But are enough willing to pay and re-reoute?

Quoting gemuser (Reply 17):
I go a long way (in both kilometers & $A) to avoid the B777,

Why? I notice a buzz-saw with Trents on takeoff, but other than that, I like the type. Now, somehow all my TATL flights have been on a 747, but I think that is just when I booked.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
You can do 9-abreast in a 747 (or 777) at 2 5 2.

Dare I admit I'm old enough to remember flying on such a configuration?

THen the next year it was 10 across (same airline, same flight).

But part of the difference is my parents couldn't but a row in Y that trapped the kids inside with a parent on each isle...

Lightsaber

rwessel · Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:26 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 40):
We should be at the point of more active 777s than 747s at this point... I'm being too lazy to go through airfleets.net, but looking at older 747s, it looks like we've passed the tipping point.

Just look at the production summaries, the "Actives" are neatly broken out.

Anyway:

747: 1479 built, 679 active (46%)
777: 1172 built, 1158 active (99%)

SEPilot · Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:36 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 39):
IF the ME3 didn't exist would the 777 have been such a successful progarm ?

I think so, because it was the ability of the plane that made it such a success. And if the ME3 were not there other airlines would be flying more planes, and it is likely that those planes would be largely 777's. In fact, were the ME3 not there chances are that the 777 would be even more successful because there would not be anywhere nearly as many A380's out there, and there would be even more 777's instead.

[Edited 2014-02-09 11:36:38]

Gemuser · Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:36 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 40):
Quoting gemuser (Reply 17):
I go a long way (in both kilometers & $A) to avoid the B777,

Why? I notice a buzz-saw with Trents on takeoff, but other than that, I like the type. Now, somehow all my TATL flights have been on a 747, but I think that is just when I booked.

Don't know really, for 9 abreast B777s, it's VERY subjective, I just don't like flying them. The 10 abreast B777 I hate because of the layout, I just do not fit in the seat EK use in that config, so I spend $As to avoid them, so far it has not been large amounts of $A.
With UA introducing the B772 onto the South Pacific I assume that the bargain Y fares will disappear/become much rarer which means QF or HA will become more attractive which means A380, B744ER or A330!

Gemuser

trex8 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:11 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
You can do 9-abreast in a 747 (or 777) at 2+5+2.

2-5-2 on 777s were popular early on but did any 747 operators ever use 2-5-2. I've flown lots of 747s in the 70-80s, only saw 3-4-2.Then everyone went to 3-4-3.

seabosdca · Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:11 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 13):
I'm willing to pay 200€ more for a 747 flight than for a 777 10 abreast flight

€200 for 5 mm of space for 10 hours. I'd hate to think what you'd be willing to pay in rent.

On topic, I think the 77W's worth as a 744 replacement was known from the beginning. Its "supremacy" was established when the extra 400 nm of range appeared. That made clear that the 77W was as capable as the 346, despite its lower operating cost.

[Edited 2014-02-09 15:11:45]

CGMAI · Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:22 pm

Quoting trex8 (Reply 44):
2-5-2 on 777s were popular early on but did any 747 operators ever use 2-5-2. I've flown lots of 747s in the 70-80s, only saw 3-4-2.Then everyone went to 3-4-3.

It seems you missed

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 40):
Dare I admit I'm old enough to remember flying on such a configuration? THen the next year it was 10 across (same airline, same flight). But part of the difference is my parents couldn't but a row in Y that trapped the kids inside with a parent on each isle...

trex8 · Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:29 am

Quoting CGMAI (Reply 46):
Quoting trex8 (Reply 44):
2-5-2 on 777s were popular early on but did any 747 operators ever use 2-5-2. I've flown lots of 747s in the 70-80s, only saw 3-4-2.Then everyone went to 3-4-3.

It seems you missed

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 40):
Dare I admit I'm old enough to remember flying on such a configuration? THen the next year it was 10 across (same airline, same flight). But part of the difference is my parents couldn't but a row in Y that trapped the kids inside with a parent on each isle...

I am questioning whether 2-5-2 ever existed on a 747

CGMAI · Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:21 am

Quoting trex8 (Reply 47):

I am questioning whether 2-5-2 ever existed on a 747

-.- lightsaber clearly says that when he was younger he flew a 2-5-2 747...

Viscount724 · Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:27 am

Quoting CGMAI (Reply 48):
Quoting trex8 (Reply 47):

I am questioning whether 2-5-2 ever existed on a 747

-.- lightsaber clearly says that when he was younger he flew a 2-5-2 747...

9-abreast was always 3-4-2 on the early 747s to the best of my recollection. That was so long ago it's easy to confuse a 747 with a DC-10 or L-1011 which were 2-5-2 after they changed from 8-abreast (2-4-2) to 9-abreast.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net