"Leadfoot" wrote:


"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



Oh...you don't use it to increase economy by replacing flying
tail trim with fuel weight?
--

-Gord.