Re: UAL 747?

From:         Pete Hughes <pete@pjhughes.demon.co.uk>
Date:         15 Jun 96 13:43:29 
References:   1 2 3
Followups:    1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1996.911@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Larry Stone
<lstone@interserve.com> writes
>In article <airliners.1996.886@ohare.Chicago.COM>, kls@ohare.Chicago.COM
>(Karl Swartz) wrote:
>
>>Sure.  The damage was not all the severe, so why not?  Many planes
>>with far more serious damage have been repaired and returned to
>>service.  United did take the rather unusual sstep of re-registering
>>it, from N4713U to N4724U.  I've seen it at SFO and if I hadn't known
>>the registration, it wouldn't have been any different from any other
>>UAL 747-122.
>
>I've flown on it twice in the last 5 years. Once over the Atlantic in the
>damage area. I figured it was probably the safest part of that plane. It
>is scheduled for retirement by UA this September but as far as I can tell,
>that it will be one of the earliest of the the 747-1xx retirements is just
>because of when its overhaul (D-Check) is due, not its history.


This a/c is cn 19875 and the 89th B747 from the line.  Quite a number of
the 1xx series aircraft have already been withdrawn and stored or broken
up - at least 40 I can identify; to state that this is "one of the
earliest retirements" is misleading.  Quite a number of 200 series are
already retired and broken up as well.

That is not to say that 100 series B747s are not still in use but then
the 601st a/c off the line was a 100 series, although by then many 200
series had been built.

--
Pete Hughes