Need decision help: 777 vs 747

[DracoLlasa 0]

Title really sums it up, i have a few bucks burning a hold in my paypal account and i was initially considering the A2A Connie, but after recently getting the dash8 Q400 i think i will be ok passing on the connie for a little bit longer.

Now, im sure eventually i will end up with both the 777 and 747, but can only get one now.. i already have the 737 and obviously love it. early on i was interested in the 777 because i wanted to do some real long haul flights.

I know a lot of it comes down to 'what do i want out of it" and such things, and i think if i knew all those answers i wouldn't need input. I tend to prefer the more advanced technology so initially the 777 might be it, but from what i have read, the new 747 is no slouch, the QOSII at least has the options for fully modern airframe with HGS, i know its not the newest -800 but still, it put me back to not being sure. I have also been very tempted by the FSL A320X but i just dont know much about it overall so figured i would be better staying with Boeing/PMDG and i dont think it would give my much more simulated range than the 737 anyways.

Anyway, my background with the more study level airframes are the Q400 and the 737NGX as my only airliners, then i have the Carenado Phenom 300 and A2A Commanche on the GA side, and a few other less than study level, but i really only like study level craft, and also have a long history with DCS and its level of fidelity in airframes.

I do love the 737 and i have most of the FSX/P3D add-on's needed to do a "Fully Loaded" flight, to use a Froogle/Pete term, and i would intend on getting it for P3D as i recently made the move from FSX:SE.

So with all that, I would love to get any feedback from the community, i know in the end its my choice, but im looking for things i may not be considering, or should be aware, with the aircraft, its capabilities, features  or anything even around the setup. I spent 3 days just getting the darn controls and everything straight in the Q400, so any feedback on quirks in the setup, configuration, strangeness in the additional tools, or any bonus tools (like the FSL A320X includes remote CDU's?) i think would all help me a lot when choosing my next study level airliner.

TIA

-D

[Captain Kevin 586]

I have the 747-400. I personally did not get the 777 as they haven't done the 777-200ER yet, and I don't really have much of an interest in flying the 777-200LR around.

[Budbud 227]

Hi,

Welcome to the forum.

Maybe you could have a look at the two other threads on the matter:

And have also a look ath the forum rules, PMDG requires to sign all the posts with the full names.

[DracoLlasa 0]

25 minutes ago, Captain Kevin said:

I have the 747-400. I personally did not get the 777 as they haven't done the 777-200ER yet, and I don't really have much of an interest in flying the 777-200LR around.

Thanks for the feedback.. whats the difference between the -200ER and LR, or more specifically why do you want the one and have no desire in the other.

 

14 minutes ago, Budbud said:

Hi,

Welcome to the forum.

Maybe you could have a look at the two other threads on the matter:

 

Thanks, i did a quick search but missed them, i will read through these

[Chock 17,769]

Personally, I think the 747 would be a better choice, and the reason I say that, is that you have so many variants of the 747 in the PMDG package, that it gives you endless options for flights, from the shorter-ranged high density 747-400D, to longer-ranged cargo and passenger variants. Thus if you wanted to do more 737-esque flights but with a bigger aircraft, and you like realism, then you are in no way compromising any nods to reality, since the 400D variant genuinely does do some very short hops indeed. To be fair, it's not unknown for Cripple Sevens to do some short flights (Bahrain to Doha for example is less than 100 miles and BA use a Cripple Seven for that, and have in the past done it with a 747 too actually), but it's certainly not as common for a Cripple Seven to do short hops as it would be with the intentionally shorter ranged 747 variants.

[Captain Kevin 586]

26 minutes ago, DracoLlasa said:

Thanks for the feedback.. whats the difference between the -200ER and LR, or more specifically why do you want the one and have no desire in the other.

For one, the -200ER comes with three engine variants, whereas the -200LR only had the option for the GE90s. The -200LR was also able to fly very long distances, and in 2005, Boeing did a flight from Hong Kong to London....going eastbound, to prove that it could fly to virtually any two points around the world. You couldn't do this with the -200ER, so you'd have to do some careful planning for long range flights, whereas with the -200LR, you could basically fly anywhere. Basically, the -200ER could fly farther than the standard -200, and the -200LR could fly farther than the -200ER.

[DracoLlasa 0]

@Captain Kevin, i recall that about the third engine, but wasn't it really only for transporting said 3rd engine?

And if the ER is long range, just not quite as long as the LR, why the preference there with the range, is it that its just 'to easy' to go anywhere, and you dont have to work out optimal flight paths and performance to push the boundaries? or something else... sorry, im just intrigued by the preference of the ER over the LR.. :-)

 

@Chock Thanks, that is a good perspective, i did read that PMDG had a very large number of optional livery and engine configurations, so that may allow me the most variation in use, good points.

[Budbud 227]

3 minutes ago, DracoLlasa said:

i recall that about the third engine, but wasn't it really only for transporting said 3rd engine?

Hi,

Not three engines, but three engine manufacturers. With the -200ER the airlines can choose between Pratt&Whitney (PW4090), General Electric (GE90-85B, GE90-90B or GE90-94B) and Rolls Royce (Trent 884, 892 or 895).

The -200LR comes with online one engine variant GE90-110B1.

[DracoLlasa 0]

4 minutes ago, Budbud said:

Hi,

Not three engines, but three engine manufacturers.

AHH ok that makes more sense in this case... i do recall there was an airliner that could carry a third engine thought for transport.. but anyways, thanks for clarifying

[Mike777 163]

I like the -200LR but I think the 200 and 200ER are more challenging due to less powerful engines and shorter ranges.  They are also more common than the 200LR

 

What's with the "Cripple 7"?

Mike

 

[G550flyer 1,007]

Depends on your type of flying based on the legs you intend to fly. I would get both, but if you have to choose one, the 747 has the latest updated code.

[Hoang 108]

Hi,

If between these 2 I'll say 747. More adventurous to fly, not as automated as T7 so there are plenty things for you to set up the aircraft.

In the end you will buy both of them, just a matter of which one is first.

Cheers.
Hoang Le

[Captain Kevin 586]

1 hour ago, DracoLlasa said:

And if the ER is long range, just not quite as long as the LR, why the preference there with the range, is it that its just 'to easy' to go anywhere, and you dont have to work out optimal flight paths and performance to push the boundaries? or something else... sorry, im just intrigued by the preference of the ER over the LR.. :-)

ER actually stands for extended range, and LR is long range. The reality is that there weren't too many carriers that ordered the -200LR, and the -200ER was more common. That said, a lot of the liveries that are available for the -200LR are fictional, as airlines like United and American never operated the -200LR. There are only 59 -200LRs, with the airlines operating them including Delta, Emirates, Air Canada, Air India, Qatar, Ethipian, PIA, and Turkmenistan. Although I suppose in theory, the number of -300ERs is nearly double that of the -200ER, given that some airlines used the -300ER to replace the Boeing 747-400.

1 hour ago, DracoLlasa said:

AHH ok that makes more sense in this case... i do recall there was an airliner that could carry a third engine thought for transport.. but anyways, thanks for clarifying

You're actually thinking of the 747, which could carry a 5th engine for transport (yes, PMDG does simulate this for the Rolls-Royce variant, as no carrier with General Electric or Pratt & Whitney engines had this option).