"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
news
"Leadfoot" wrote:


For 747-100, -200, -300 yes. For the -400 it was an option many
airlines
chose. Remember the 747-400 was designed for long-range flight with the
winglets, the FMS and the wet tail



Speaking of which...anyone any idea of how much this feature
actually saves? (wet tail system I mean).

The wet tail carried almost the same amount of fuel as a 737. It is simply
additional fuel to be sused and generally it is the first tank to empty





-Gord.

"You are completely focused on RPM as the
single factor producing rotational velocity"
-Guess who?