One for the plane geeks
Aug 31st 2005, 8:08 pm
#31
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 582
Re: One for the plane geeks
Originally Posted by renth
I knew it was a fake when I noticed the plane has no flaps deployed at all.
In general would agree with you about Boing building sturdier planes except for the 757, walking along the top of the aircraft it's like walking on tin foil compared with say a Jumbly or 73, and try sitting down the back of one one a bumpy approach to landing, watch the cockpit door in comparison with the mid toilets, quite scary how much it twists and bends :scared:
And some useless facts:
A 747-400 has six million parts, half of which are fasteners
A 747-400 has 171 miles (274 km) of wiring and 5 miles (8 km) of tubing
The 747-400 wing weighs 95,000 pounds (43,090 kg), more than 30 times the weight of the first Boeing airplane, the 1916 B&W
The 747 fleet has logged more than 35 billion statute miles (56 billion km) - enough to make 74,000 trips to the moon and back.
The 747 fleet has flown 3.5 billion people - the equivalent of more than half of the world's population
For a typical international flight, a 747 operator uses about 5.5 tons (5,000 kg) of food supplies and more than 50,000 in-flight service items
The Wright Brothers' first flight at Kitty Hawk, N.C., could have been performed within the 150-foot (45-m) economy section of a 747-400
Aug 31st 2005, 8:44 pm
#32
Life is good
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 1,019
Re: One for the plane geeks
We flue with Emirates, 747 to Dubai and airbus to Perth. I much prefere the airbus, didn't barely notice taking off, the whole flight was much more bearable and I hate flying - bright idea of mine to live on the otherside of the world!!
Aug 31st 2005, 8:52 pm
#33
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,606
Re: One for the plane geeks
Originally Posted by longreach
Ever heard of ETOPS??http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
Personally I prefer the 777...I prefer Boeing to Airbus, that's all.
Sep 1st 2005, 12:25 am
#34
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,397
Re: One for the plane geeks
Originally Posted by PeteY
Thats not actually a bad landing. You watch and hes tracking accross the axis of the runway, suggesting a horrific crosswind. Not nice conditions.
Order of preference.... 777, A340, 747-400.
The 747 is faster on paper, but cruises slower than the 777, so whoever said the 777 is quicker is correct. The 777 is pretty much state of the art. For those who are concerned about 2 engines instead of 4....the 777 is more stable with only one running, than the 747 is with 3. The chances of more than one engine failure on a flight are so slim i would be more concerned about the pilot cocking up the landing.
Order of preference.... 777, A340, 747-400.
The 747 is faster on paper, but cruises slower than the 777, so whoever said the 777 is quicker is correct. The 777 is pretty much state of the art. For those who are concerned about 2 engines instead of 4....the 777 is more stable with only one running, than the 747 is with 3. The chances of more than one engine failure on a flight are so slim i would be more concerned about the pilot cocking up the landing.
I beg to differ on your opinion of the "landing" - a good landing is the result of a good approach and this one should have been thrown away during the turn. That's where the problems have historically been with *certain* Asian airlines - a cultural inability to accept the perceived loss of face when it becomes only too obvious that it's all going pearshaped.
Sep 1st 2005, 1:36 am
#35
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 582
Re: One for the plane geeks
Not sure how much of an urban rumour it is but 'allegedly' a Korean 747 400 got close enough to a tower block on approach to Kai Tak some years ago to get someones dangling washing line, which was blowing in the breeze, hooked on the wingtip, love to see the log entry for that one!!!
And just to prove the Koreans are just as dangerous on the ground:
And just to prove the Koreans are just as dangerous on the ground:
Nov. 11th/98. The wing of an Asiana 747-400 cuts into the tail of a parked Aeroflot IL62 at Anchorage International Airport while trying to make a
U-turn in a parking bay. No serious injuries reported.
The details of the incident were forwarded by a Captain witnessing the event
from a safe distance:
Just into Anchorage and looking at all the Korean debris on the airfield. What a beautiful job the Asiana boy did in his 747-400. (Asiana is Korean Airlines' "opposition" company, also run by the military)
Pranged in Anchorage trying to do a "U" turn in a parking bay... in a 747-400???? Poor Aeroflot was in the way though, minding his business, parked at the gate.
Asiana thumped his # 1 engine against Aeroflot's wing and tore open the engine cowling and fuel lines on the 747, pissing fuel all over the apron.
With standard Korean procedure, that calls for more power so you can get
out of the way and hope nobody saw! This he did, but it was icy as hell
on the ramp. The skid started and took out 2 Evergreen staff vehicles
sending the occupants fleeing for cover. THE CIRCUS HAD BEGUN!
Still more power and he put his left wing (last 15-20 feet) into the vertical stab of the IL62 and cut into the tail about 15 feet. When he
reached the main spar of the vertical stab... the 747 stopped... you
guessed it..... MORE POWER!!!
I think he thought there was still time to run for it but he didn't seem to
be going anywhere.......SO..........MORE POWER!!!!!!!!!!!! In trying to
escape the grips of the Russian aircraft, he managed to reach take-off
thrust, and in so doing, put a bunch of containers behind the aircraft
through the terminal building. Heard NCA got it in the clamps, the Japanese must be pleased about that! Still no shutdown or evacuation (fuel still pissing everywhere over the apron from the 747 #1 engine)
The Yank ground mechanics finally managed to run over and told them to shut the aircraft down but the crew were busy writing a report for management to apportion the blame.
After the entertainment ended, spoke to our crew driver and she said the
two (ground) vehicles he hit during his exhibition were badly trashed. The
Asiana aircraft is looking quite sad. Took all day yesterday to separate the two aircraft and in desperation, the mechanics finally had to cut about 20 feet of the Asiana left wing off to get the aircraft apart. Talk about "dog lock"! The engine is off and the cowlings are all torn open. The opposition (Aeroflot) was taking cover in the hangar...Good idea!
Well, not to be outdone, KAL landed a 747 freighter the very next day on
the runway lights on 6R!!! Lights, tyres, stuff everywhere.... you know
the rest. Ah yes, another boring day in aviation!
U-turn in a parking bay. No serious injuries reported.
The details of the incident were forwarded by a Captain witnessing the event
from a safe distance:
Just into Anchorage and looking at all the Korean debris on the airfield. What a beautiful job the Asiana boy did in his 747-400. (Asiana is Korean Airlines' "opposition" company, also run by the military)
Pranged in Anchorage trying to do a "U" turn in a parking bay... in a 747-400???? Poor Aeroflot was in the way though, minding his business, parked at the gate.
Asiana thumped his # 1 engine against Aeroflot's wing and tore open the engine cowling and fuel lines on the 747, pissing fuel all over the apron.
With standard Korean procedure, that calls for more power so you can get
out of the way and hope nobody saw! This he did, but it was icy as hell
on the ramp. The skid started and took out 2 Evergreen staff vehicles
sending the occupants fleeing for cover. THE CIRCUS HAD BEGUN!
Still more power and he put his left wing (last 15-20 feet) into the vertical stab of the IL62 and cut into the tail about 15 feet. When he
reached the main spar of the vertical stab... the 747 stopped... you
guessed it..... MORE POWER!!!
I think he thought there was still time to run for it but he didn't seem to
be going anywhere.......SO..........MORE POWER!!!!!!!!!!!! In trying to
escape the grips of the Russian aircraft, he managed to reach take-off
thrust, and in so doing, put a bunch of containers behind the aircraft
through the terminal building. Heard NCA got it in the clamps, the Japanese must be pleased about that! Still no shutdown or evacuation (fuel still pissing everywhere over the apron from the 747 #1 engine)
The Yank ground mechanics finally managed to run over and told them to shut the aircraft down but the crew were busy writing a report for management to apportion the blame.
After the entertainment ended, spoke to our crew driver and she said the
two (ground) vehicles he hit during his exhibition were badly trashed. The
Asiana aircraft is looking quite sad. Took all day yesterday to separate the two aircraft and in desperation, the mechanics finally had to cut about 20 feet of the Asiana left wing off to get the aircraft apart. Talk about "dog lock"! The engine is off and the cowlings are all torn open. The opposition (Aeroflot) was taking cover in the hangar...Good idea!
Well, not to be outdone, KAL landed a 747 freighter the very next day on
the runway lights on 6R!!! Lights, tyres, stuff everywhere.... you know
the rest. Ah yes, another boring day in aviation!
Sep 1st 2005, 2:07 am
#36
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 582
Re: One for the plane geeks
And have you ever wondered what a pitbull loose in the fwd cargo bay will get up to..........
American Airlines 757 from San Diego to New York, flt 282, 22/07/2002, the damage caused them to lose TCAS, ATC transponders and one VHF.
Aren't you glad you didn't have to open the door first
:scared:
American Airlines 757 from San Diego to New York, flt 282, 22/07/2002, the damage caused them to lose TCAS, ATC transponders and one VHF.
Aren't you glad you didn't have to open the door first
:scared:
Sep 1st 2005, 3:05 am
#37
A Male Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Townsville
Posts: 2,106
Re: One for the plane geeks
Originally Posted by Rog Williams
I beg to differ on your opinion of the "landing" - a good landing is the result of a good approach and this one should have been thrown away during the turn. That's where the problems have historically been with *certain* Asian airlines - a cultural inability to accept the perceived loss of face when it becomes only too obvious that it's all going pearshaped.
The problem with pilots not wanting to go-around isn't just an Asian one. I found the American pilots among the worse, and would somtimes call windshear, then a go-around, then change thier minds (cos they had a handle on it again). On several occasions i would have to call it for them. The pilots are also under immense pressure from the airline companies, who do not like delays, of ANY kind.
FYI, i was a tower controller at a major London airport for nearly 3 years.
Sep 1st 2005, 11:20 am
#38
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,397
Re: One for the plane geeks
Amazing where the thread has gone!
As an aside - I'm cock-a-hoop 'cos I've just managed to land my Flight Sim -400 roughly on the runway for the first time......... So I'll go for the Boeing!
As an aside - I'm cock-a-hoop 'cos I've just managed to land my Flight Sim -400 roughly on the runway for the first time......... So I'll go for the Boeing!
Sep 1st 2005, 11:32 pm
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: One for the plane geeks
Originally Posted by PeteY
I had'nt said the landing was actually good......its obviously not. All i meant was that taking the prevailing conditions into account it could have been alot worse. We also do not know the story behind the video. For all we know the pilot was on divert and had already called 4 missed approaches.
The problem with pilots not wanting to go-around isn't just an Asian one. I found the American pilots among the worse, and would somtimes call windshear, then a go-around, then change thier minds (cos they had a handle on it again). On several occasions i would have to call it for them. The pilots are also under immense pressure from the airline companies, who do not like delays, of ANY kind.
FYI, i was a tower controller at a major London airport for nearly 3 years.
The problem with pilots not wanting to go-around isn't just an Asian one. I found the American pilots among the worse, and would somtimes call windshear, then a go-around, then change thier minds (cos they had a handle on it again). On several occasions i would have to call it for them. The pilots are also under immense pressure from the airline companies, who do not like delays, of ANY kind.
FYI, i was a tower controller at a major London airport for nearly 3 years.
Badge
Sep 2nd 2005, 12:17 am
#40
Senior Stella Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Posts: 394
Re: One for the plane geeks
Love this thread - anyone checked out airliners.net - seriously good pics.
Can anyone tell me what the seat config (economy) SIA have on their 747s and 777s - just want to know where to sit my gang when we go in Oct.
ta.
Can anyone tell me what the seat config (economy) SIA have on their 747s and 777s - just want to know where to sit my gang when we go in Oct.
ta.
Sep 2nd 2005, 3:14 am
#41
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 493
Re: One for the plane geeks
Originally Posted by Plug
Love this thread - anyone checked out airliners.net - seriously good pics.
Can anyone tell me what the seat config (economy) SIA have on their 747s and 777s - just want to know where to sit my gang when we go in Oct.
ta.
Can anyone tell me what the seat config (economy) SIA have on their 747s and 777s - just want to know where to sit my gang when we go in Oct.
ta.
Try www.singaporeair.com or something like seatguru.com.
Sep 2nd 2005, 3:21 am
#42
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 493
Re: One for the plane geeks
Originally Posted by PeteY
Thats not actually a bad landing. You watch and hes tracking accross the axis of the runway, suggesting a horrific crosswind. Not nice conditions.
Order of preference.... 777, A340, 747-400.
The 747 is faster on paper, but cruises slower than the 777, so whoever said the 777 is quicker is correct. The 777 is pretty much state of the art. For those who are concerned about 2 engines instead of 4....the 777 is more stable with only one running, than the 747 is with 3. The chances of more than one engine failure on a flight are so slim i would be more concerned about the pilot cocking up the landing.
Order of preference.... 777, A340, 747-400.
The 747 is faster on paper, but cruises slower than the 777, so whoever said the 777 is quicker is correct. The 777 is pretty much state of the art. For those who are concerned about 2 engines instead of 4....the 777 is more stable with only one running, than the 747 is with 3. The chances of more than one engine failure on a flight are so slim i would be more concerned about the pilot cocking up the landing.
Typical cruising speeds:
747 400 mach 0.855
777 mach 0.84
Stable in what respect? Cruising? Takeoff? Landing? Under what Conditions? Also what do you mean by "stable". Less likely to roll?
Sep 2nd 2005, 5:41 am
#43
G'day Mate
Joined: May 2004
Location: London for now, Australia soon.
Posts: 419
Re: One for the plane geeks
And here it is Boomerang... Anyone wants a lift to Australia??? 
