I’ve flown 737s, 767s and 747s. The 767 was a fun sports car but I have to to say the 747 was my favourite, especially the 400 which was just a gentleman’s aircraft, I really didn’t mind the large fuel tanks as they made it possible to fly to interesting destinations!
I have also flown the F27 and never associated it with the early 747s, perhaps I was too happy flying the big jet to notice.

Ah yes, the 'Queen' a lovely aeroplane but I also found the cockpit very cramped with a relatively poor view, although you could see your wing-tip which helped on the ground. A very easy aeroplane to land. I only ever had one 'thumper' in 15 years of flying it. Landing on 04R at JFK I said to my young Co-Pilot, "Don't play with it Mr Ong Wing Loh this runway is shortish, just put it down". Will never say that again. Feeling that it was a heavy landing I was about to write it up when the Ground Engineer pulled the data via the ACARS and it was only 1.5G and 'within limits'. Surprising seeing there was no flare.
When comparing previous types, for some strange reason I go way back to my GA days and the 747 feels like a giant Aztec. The 727, my favourite, flies like an Aerostar with the wings sawn-off.

Airclues, yes, you're correct - it was fin height for the upper disc. My 'handling' was all 'sim' time and took a little longer to settle with than the REAL 'Queen', the Tristar:p. Once adapted, though, it 'felt right' but nothing beats the observer's seat in the Tri!!:ok:

Jump seat 1 in the A350 is pretty good too. Up there with the TriStar.

Fond memories of the Jumbo, apart from the cramped and noisy flight deck. An absolute pussycat to land. The aircraft truly 'shrank the world', and it stands as an invention apart from the aeroplane in my opinion.

TriStar was my first big jet and the learning curve was vertical. I'd have found the Classic more intuitive.