I'm aware that this is an old post, but thought I'd mention it anyway. The aircraft/engine in question was the flying testbed for the GE-90 (and indeed the PW4048 as well, though Boeing leased their aircraft from the Seattle Museum of Flight for the PW4048). I have it on good authority from either a rep at GE or from Boeing (I can't remember which, exactly) that the GE90 was fully capable of sustaining the testbed aircraft all by itself; that the other three engines were actually not needed on the 747.Sorry for digging this one back up, but I thought that was an interesting tidbit heretofore not mentioned.Matt

I guess that makes sense, since one GE90 is ~1.5 CF6 engine

>I guess that makes sense, since one GE90 is ~1.5 CF6 engineThey actually did test a CF34 engine in the same area the GE90-115B was used. That CFM 737 engine looked tiny on the 747!The image is big so here's a link to it:http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/...t%20flight1.jpgThere's an report from an personal who was on board the GE90-115B 747 for testing, it's here:http://www.le-webmag.com/article.php?ref=0...4331f27e69cf9ac

LOL3 engines and 2 APU'sPaul

I work for UAL and we did have 5th pods on our old 747's. But since we have had the 747-400, we do not use it anymore. They do have provisions for installing the pylon.:-) Douglas earl

>I believe the only 744 capable of doing this is RR equipped.john that is correct the only flight planning manuals showing this option is RR engines ... dont know why but seems intersting to fly wiht this drag and limitations ..!!!see you