- This topic has 22 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I am so surprised no one has talked here about the AA 777-300 Flagship paint job?
what? Is not polished?
no way!!
I like it! I am building another AA 777-300 as soon as the decal is out!
and I like the current paint job too!
Walter
Regards,
WalterI’m glad that you like the markings Walter 🙂 Some friends and I discussed it off list. I believe the markings are legit and from a DC-2.
Ken
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Photos credit: Roland Kékesi
It should’ve been bare metal. Light gray is a no-go for me.
Thanks,
ahmed
KSFO
When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace becomes a circus.Good Day, Everyone,
I first saw a photo of the American Airlines 777 on Airliners.net on November 17. Comments there also expressed shock that this wasn’t a bare metal scheme. I did some research regarding the “Flagship” titles above the window line (had never seen that before) and found this photo while doing a Wikipedia search for American’s previous CEOs:
This American DC-3 (appears to be NC21749) was being filmed for a movie “Black Marketing” by the Office of War Information, released August 19, 1943.
It’s difficult to tell what the finish is in the photo above, but according to Airliner.net photos I came across of NC21798, a DC-3-277B on display at the C.R. Smith Museum in Dallas, TX, the metal was highly polished. You can see the “Flagship” title in both photos, plus the segmented lightning bolt clearly below:
I wish American Airlines had painted the 777-300 with as much care to history as they did the 757-200 below (1959 Flagship scheme) back in 1998. But American was under different management back then…
I
Cheers!
Tom
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
My failing memory. The flagship names started with the DC-3 and not the DC-2. There were/are the flagship titles on the fuselage and actual city names on the nose.
I get why the 777 will be called Flagship DFW but I also chuckle since DFW isn’t “that historic” opening in 1974. If they are naming cities, then maybe Flagship Fort Worth would be a better pick 🙂 Flagship Euliss could be another choice though it looks like AA headquarters is actually across the street from the city boundary. DFW IS like a city so maybe that’s OK too 🙂Ken
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
The 757 retrojet wore the original 707 Jet Flagship colors, which carried over beautifully. The 737 wears the 707 Astrojet scheme, which again carries over very nicely.
Taking the DC-3 Flagship scheme and stretching it over the 777-300 just looks odd. I imagine this would have looked much better on the A320.
Just my opinion.
Gene
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
While I am in the camp “Bare Metal always looks better/awesome”, and that AA must have too many bottles of grey on the shelf (so do I), I’m looking at you AirCal RenoAir and TWA retros! But also, I read that the 777-300’s AA have, cannot be polished. Don’t know if that is true or not, but maybe an excuse they can give. Then again, they found a way to polish the A300 after getting them in grey!
I don’t think I like the way it looks, and not sure if polished aluminum would improve it. To state the obvious, that paint scheme was not imagined to fit something as long as an average DC-3 flight!
They already have too many retro schemes on the narrowbodies, and only a couple or three look good, so another narrow body retro to celebrate 100 wouldn’t work IMO. I’m sure they want the world to know they are 100, so a 777 is a good choice, but I would think a 787 would be a better plane for that. Plus, this paint job I think would look better on a 787.
Nobody at AA bothered asking me, but they should have!
I don’t always say “Proceed as requested”
But when I do, it is because I have no clue what you just said.I pretty much agree with what everyone else has said. American could have saved much design money if they they had just asked and listened to our group. We could have changed the course of history. It could have been known as the Airlinercafe paint scheme 🙂
Ken
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
My heart doesn’t exactly melt looking at this – propliner liveries transposed on modern jetliners, especially zaftig jetliners, seldom work, with the weird propliner livery briefly applied to the Spirit of Delta being Exhibit A in my mind. The gray paint doesn’t help, either. That said, the designers of this livery probably had to do the best they could within a “box” imposed by corporate, and not knowing what those limitations were, it’s not my place to pick it apart. Instead, I do have to commend American for doing any kind of commemorative livery. This isn’t what I’d have done, but it isn’t my company or my aircraft.
Jodie Peeler
"In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake." - Sayre's Law
Jodie,
You speak wise words. Making the most out of something. My knee jerk reaction is a four letter word. I will take the high road and say it doesn’t quite rock my socks off.
Ken
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Posts: 123Location: Salt Lake CityOccupation: Retired. Twice: Civilian HR manager and US Army officerThe Usual Suspects among decal manufacturers can produce whatever they want, but my hard earned won’t buy this sheer. 😀
Robert V. Leonard
But also, I read that the 777-300’s AA have, cannot be polished.
Why? It’s not a composite structure.
Misha
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Misha,
I don’t remember why. It was in thread on airliner.net. Whoever posted it gave a reason that sounded reasonable.
I’m sticking with they have too many cans of grey, and they need to use them.
I don’t always say “Proceed as requested”
But when I do, it is because I have no clue what you just said.Misha,
I don’t remember why. It was in thread on airliner.net. Whoever posted it gave a reason that sounded reasonable.
I’m sticking with they have too many cans of grey, and they need to use them.
From the Thread:
Newer A/C can’t be polished….even the 77Ws. Boeing changed the anodization process within the past decade, making it very difficult.
Marco
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
How about Alcad or Bare Metal Foil? American could have covered the plane in BMF. Wonder how many packets it would take for a full size 777?
Ken
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Posts: 442Location: Someplace north...Call it PAAQ to start.Occupation: Work wood, 38 years keeping phones working and flying all over with my best friend in the ordo aurorae septentrionalis, Order of the Northern Dawn.Oy. Late to the game again, tho…Here I am. So:
The latest 7×7 birds are IIRC not made with AlClad (trademark of ALCOA, FWIW) and are not unlike the A300 which is probably what you’re remembering as being the first gre(a)y airliner.
Then again, AM has a bazillion gallons of BAC707 in both KFTW & KTUL, and while bare metal looks awesome–Taking me back to a 1989 Friday in Oklahoma when I saw a DC-10 toss the sun back at me–Honestly it’s the times, the economics, the minds in charge now who paint these machines.
I’m squarely with Jodie on this one, but alas…As she wisely said, at least someone tried.
That’s all I’ve got.
Rob in AK
That which moves my soul will forever move my self.
I was just thinking…just because they didn’t use the scheme on bare metal doesn’t mean I can’t!
I may actually try this as a “what if” and make it shine! Despite the inaccuracy I’ve considered making an AA or Aeromexico 787 with shiny metal.
But back to grey, does anyone know what color grey that is? It looks a bit off from boeing grey and I know AA has changed their new overall grey to be less metallic…
I agree with all bare metal would be the best and it’s somewhat awkward on the 777 but as you all said at least they tried. It could look nice next to my retro AA 737 and 757.
Got to hand it to AA, even if their overuse of grey misses the mark they must be the leaders in retro schemes:
777, 2x AA 737, Reno, Air Cal, TWA
A320 USAir, PSA, Cactus, Piedmont
What am I forgetting? Is there an Allegheny? I’m counting at least 11, doubt any other airlines match that
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
I was just thinking…just because they didn’t use the scheme on bare metal doesn’t mean I can’t!
I may actually try this as a “what if” and make it shine! Despite the inaccuracy I’ve considered making an AA or Aeromexico 787 with shiny metal.
But back to grey, does anyone know what color grey that is? It looks a bit off from boeing grey and I know AA has changed their new overall grey to be less metallic…
I agree with all bare metal would be the best and it’s somewhat awkward on the 777 but as you all said at least they tried. It could look nice next to my retro AA 737 and 757.
Got to hand it to AA, even if their overuse of grey misses the mark they must be the leaders in retro schemes:
777, 2x AA 737, Reno, Air Cal, TWA
A320 USAir, PSA, Cactus, Piedmont
What am I forgetting? Is there an Allegheny? I’m counting at least 11, doubt any other airlines match that
I know for sure they have Allegheny, I think there is one more missing from the list.
I don’t always say “Proceed as requested”
But when I do, it is because I have no clue what you just said.Got to hand it to AA, even if their overuse of grey misses the mark they must be the leaders in retro schemes: 777; 737 – 2x AA, Reno, Air Cal, TWA; A320 – USAir, PSA, America West, Piedmont
US Airways, after it merged with America West (America West was actually the stronger partner but continued the US Airways name), started the “heritage fleet” craze with some of their aircraft painted in the schemes of their “conquests” — PSA, Piedmont, and America West — and a “retro” Allegheny scheme (management must have forgotten about the Allegheny mergers from ‘way back with Mohawk and Lake Central). I remember seeing them parked at the gates at Washington Reagan National Airport and wondering which paint job would show up next. Later, when US Airways merged with American (with some of America West’s management team still in charge, and again maintaining the name of the airline with stronger brand awareness), the practice continued and expanded with American’s previous conquests — Air Cal, Reno, and TWA. To me, though, there is a difference between a heritage fleet (the paint schemes of the airlines your airline “consumed”) and a retro scheme (reusing a previous scheme your airline used on aircraft of an earlier era).
If you’re counting retro schemes, don’t forget American also had the 757-200 painted up in the early Jet Flagship scheme and Delta’s “Spirit of Delta” 767 hearkening back to the prop era (as mentioned a few entries above), and Continental painted one of their 737-900s in their scheme dating back to early 707s.
If you want to combine retro with “flight of fancy”, how about Minicraft’s 777 kit that was marketed with Pan American Airways System “China Clipper” scheme of the 1930s and early 1940s (the paint instructions call for an aluminum finish, but the box art looks more like pewter, similar to the S-42 or M-130 flying boats of the time)?
Cheers!
Tom
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
As mentioned earlier American Airlines certainly has/had many heritage/retro paint schemes and planes. I think it’s a manner of statistics in that the more schemes the airline has, that some will end up looking good and some “not so good”. A slightly different twist on things is DC-3 Flagship Detroit. A vintage DC-3 in Flagship colors that American “has nothing to do with” other than giving the foundation permission to use the American Airlines markings.
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
The new owners cant even get the Retro Aircraft they have right. The second Astrojet 737 has a backwards facing Eagle on the RH side of the tail! The Eagle always faces forward! CR Smith must be rolling in his grave!
The 777-300 was arriving just before the 787. With its carbon fiber fuselage and other parts, there was no way to make it natural metal. The decision was made to break from the NMF with the 777-300. I remember the new management was all excited about the rebranding and I remember seeing AAs first 777-300 on Airliners.net doing touch and goes when it was still with Boeing. The tail and titles werent applied yet but we all noticed the dull, gray paint on the body. Sad day.
Chris
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
I agree, that it just doesn’t look right. I’d rather see it in natural Metal finish, even if there are large areas of gray for the composite panels.
On a side note, does anyone know if USAF ever considered the 777-200ER as a freighter or tanker? I know there were Presidential What if schemes.
Kind regards,
Dutch
Kind regards,
Dutch
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.