Mr. RS Randazzo, Sir I have been a PMDG fan for years now, and I can't remember, but I believe in one of either your many post and/or videos, that you indicated from your Professional Aviation history, that you were a United Airlines Pilot.  If I am wrong then forgive me.  As I grew up in the military I was lucky enough to have flown on Pan Am, TWA, and United back in the day of the huge logo on tail.  I was both very sad and disappointed, when the company choose to depart from its lineage of the Tulip and instead stick with the Continental logo.  While watching TV the other night I saw a show that had, what at the time I thought to possibly be a new paint scheme.  After many google searches I was able to find a picture but no new to indicate a new livery was in the development.  I was wondering if either PMDG or anybody who knew how to develop repaints, would possibly consider the following as a fictional livery.  If the real United were to adopt this paint scheme, I think it would go a long way for those of us who love and miss the livery of the old United, esp the 1980s era.  That is when the skies truly used to be friendly.  In case the image is having issues displaying, it can be found at the following link: http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/photos/big/00012191.jpg.

 

V/R 

SSG Kristopher Plummer

 

I like that paint job better than the current one,not sure why they used the logo of a less known airline when they merged.

Thats very nice. I like that alot more than the current and past. Probably wont happen like the orange/blue one of a KLM T7 that I thought looked really good

The only thing you would need to change is: "In Partnership with Continental Airlines." Continental Airlines no longer exists.

Don't like the current livery much, but this is ugly too (in my opinion at least).

Yes you are right about continental not existing anymore and while it inst the greatest livery in the history of the airline, it is sure a hell of a lot better than what they are currently using right now.

Always wanted to fly for UA, and so when I sim I only fly UA. The UAL scheme co-opted from CO was classier than the meatball, but I prefer the pic above. I'd love a fictional livery of this paint job.

To be quite frank, I think it looks terrible! Sorry.

 

Kashif Eizdi

I think this is just an enthusiast's design honestly.

 

Anyone who does real work for the airlines here would know that we use N prefixes and not UA for tailnumbers (UA doesn't even exist). Additionally, the designing party is usually more subtle about their branding on actual announcements. See American's, as an example:

 

 

Note the lack of designer branding. If you look at the "Becoming a new American" page and scroll down until you see the 777, you can make out the tail number beginning with an N.

Yes, UA is not a national code unlike EI-XXX, G-XXX D-XXX 9Y-XXX etc etc,

Not only is this alleged new paint job ugly and busy-looking, it would probably be a costly outlay to repaint, and then maintain this multicolored livery on every United plane...  But I do like just the new logo on the tail...

Also, it was found at cardatabase, which is infamous for fake airplane Photoshops and drawings.

 

Kashif EIzdi

Correct me if I am wrong, one of the reasons I go slightly off topic is because I'm trying to learn about this, but tail numbers and registrations aren't the same thing are they? A lot of airlines don't bother with tail numbers at all (American Airlines and United included, the tails are blank), but all aircraft have registrations; this is the reason why PFPX has a separate reg and tail number field for each aircraft.

 

I can't think of many airlines that actually use tail numbers, but my understanding was that it is a quick and easy way to identify aircraft using 2 or 3 characters rather than the full reg. British Airways definitely use tail numbers for their fleet, so if you look at G-STBB (a PMDG paint for this is available in the Operations Centre) you'll notice the reg on the back (G-STBB) and also at the top of the tail, it's tail number 'BB'. I think Air Canada and Delta do it too; in the case of Delta and BA they often resemble the reg or are an abbreviation of it. But I have seen some that simply don't resemble the reg at all (although I can't think of a specific example, typical huh) but consist of what appear to be random numbers to the observer such as '706' or something when a reg is all alphabet characters. I imagine for the airline they have some significance but bear no resemblance to the registration.

 

If my understanding is wrong I'd appreciate being corrected, I mention this because I am pain stakingly entering all the PMDG liveries with accurate data where possible, including tail numbering where it's available. Next trying to find accurate ETOPS numbers per aircraft and equipment lists, ETOPS seems almost impossible to find actually, often just the 'general' max available is published and never specific ETOPS ratings for specific registrations (as I know they vary even for the same type for the same airline depending on the required maintenance programmes). Anyway I digress.

 

PLEASE, correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree and have made a silly error. Being wrong and shown the right path is just as important, I have no ego to bruise.

 

 

Correct me if I am wrong, one of the reasons I go slightly off topic is because I'm trying to learn about this, but tail numbers and registrations aren't the same thing are they? A lot of airlines don't bother with tail numbers at all (American Airlines and United included, the tails are blank), but all aircraft have registrations; this is the reason why PFPX has a separate reg and tail number field for each aircraft.

 

Here in the States, they're synonymous. You may see some aircraft with numbering schemes in different spots (UALs is on the nose gear door), but most of the airlines I've seen use some portion of the tail/reg to create this value. UAL's N78001 has the nose number 0001 (the leading 0 indicates it's an ex-COA bird, with the 001 as the trailing three from the tail number). It is registered in the FAA registry as having a registration of N77019. The FAA requires this registration to be placed on any FAA-registered aircraft in a conspicuous location, using all kinds of requirements - size, spacing, proportion, thickness, etc - and this usually ends up near the tail, which is where it comes from. The tail number you're referring to is more of a 'fin' number, which is usually akin to the nose number in concept. DLH, as an example has reg/tail D-AIKE with KE on both the fin and nose.

 

I like that paint job better than the current one,not sure why they used the logo of a less known airline when they merged.

 

Because it was a lot better looking than the United one.