Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)

flightradar24.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 103 posts

Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)

#11

Post by bragr »

StillBored wrote: post #7

Ok, given its flying just the core, and not the fan, why doesn't it fit in the cargo hold? I mean they wouldn't have to worry about the extra drag/etc in the hold. It also seems odd that they would do this on a plane carrying commercial passengers since it seems more of an "experimental" modification even if the manufacture has approved it.

It's a design feature dating back to when there were no easy ways to transport the engines. It's a perfectly cromulent way to transport a 747 engine, just uncommon these days because there are many large air freighters now (like the 747 itself). The idea was that in the early days of the 747, airlines could be self sufficient in transporting engines and their new expensive planes wouldn't get stranded.

Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)

#12

Post by dotancohen »

leeoniya wrote: post #8
Animats wrote: post #2

No big deal. External payloads seem strange, but 747s have carried much larger ones, such as the Space Shuttle. Worse things have been carried under wings.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_n...

> Worse things have been carried under wings.[1] this one [1] was way scarier, imo D: [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash

Though interesting, this is completely OT to this discussion.

Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)

#13

Post by sreevisakh »

StillBored wrote: post #7

Ok, given its flying just the core, and not the fan, why doesn't it fit in the cargo hold? I mean they wouldn't have to worry about the extra drag/etc in the hold. It also seems odd that they would do this on a plane carrying commercial passengers since it seems more of an "experimental" modification even if the manufacture has approved it.

It isn't experimental or unique even if it's rare. It has been done before. I'm not sure why this instance alone got such attention.

Regarding the cargo hold problem, the aircraft wasn't carrying just the engine core. The 'pod' is most likely the engine nacelle itself. I wonder if the entire thing would fit through the cargo door (mere speculation). While it's true that the 747 was originally meant as a cargo carrier, most of it was meant to be loaded through the nose of the aircraft. The nose could be opened for this purpose and the cockpit was above the cargo area to accommodate this.

Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)

#14

Post by sreevisakh »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #10
sreevisakh wrote: post #6

The ill-fated Boeing 747 flight AI182 (Kanishka) was carrying an extra engine just like this, when it was destroyed over Atlantic ocean by a terrorist bomb attack in June 1985. The presence of the extra engine was investigated as a possible cause of the disaster before conclusive evidence of a bomb explosion was found. (That and another explosion on the ground at Narita, Japan in a container destined for another Air…

Wow, "Canadian Sikh terrorists" was not something I was expecting to read about today.

It was the biggest incident of aviation terrorism prior to 9-11. World was very different back then - not a surprise it sounds improbable today.

Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)

#15

Post by bragr »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #10
sreevisakh wrote: post #6

The ill-fated Boeing 747 flight AI182 (Kanishka) was carrying an extra engine just like this, when it was destroyed over Atlantic ocean by a terrorist bomb attack in June 1985. The presence of the extra engine was investigated as a possible cause of the disaster before conclusive evidence of a bomb explosion was found. (That and another explosion on the ground at Narita, Japan in a container destined for another Air…

Wow, "Canadian Sikh terrorists" was not something I was expecting to read about today.

I had a similar reaction when I first read about it. kind of crazy how no one was ever really held responsible and then 9-11 just kind of pushed it out of most of the public's collective memory, or at least that's how it seems to me.

Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)

#16

Post by dotancohen »

bragr wrote: post #11
StillBored wrote: post #7

Ok, given its flying just the core, and not the fan, why doesn't it fit in the cargo hold? I mean they wouldn't have to worry about the extra drag/etc in the hold. It also seems odd that they would do this on a plane carrying commercial passengers since it seems more of an "experimental" modification even if the manufacture has approved it.

It's a design feature dating back to when there were no easy ways to transport the engines. It's a perfectly cromulent way to transport a 747 engine, just uncommon these days because there are many large air freighters now (like the 747 itself). The idea was that in the early days of the 747, airlines could be self sufficient in transporting engines and their new expensive planes wouldn't get stranded.

It should be noted in context that original the 747 could, like the 737 before it, service airfields too small to have service centers. Therefore, it was important that another 747 could ferry in all parts needed to service a potentially damaged 747 at these locations, including an entire engine.

Most aircraft with such capability are identified by the inclusion of built-in stairs for passenger ingress/egress, which the 747-100 had.

Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)

#17

Post by cm2187 »

bragr wrote: post #15
EdwardDiego wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, "Canadian Sikh terrorists" was not something I was expecting to read about today.

I had a similar reaction when I first read about it. kind of crazy how no one was ever really held responsible and then 9-11 just kind of pushed it out of most of the public's collective memory, or at least that's how it seems to me.

There has been a lot of terrorist activity continuously in europe since the 60s. In the 60s/70s it was mostly far left terrorism (red brigade, baader-meinhof gang, etc) and some independence movements (FLN or the opposite like OAS). In the 70s/80s independence movements (palestinians, IRA, ETA, etc), and state sponsored terrorism (Iran, Libya). In the 90s it became islamists. The far right committed continuously rare but large attacks (like Oklahoma city, Breivik). If you go further back in history the anarchists were doing a lot of bombings at the end of the XIX early XX.

The point is that islamist terrorism isn’t a large uptick in terror activity, both in term of number of incidents and number of victims. They do more spectacular attacks though. But the reaction it created is kind of curious (security in airports, army in the street, state surveillance), particularly in countries with an otherwise large tolerance to crime like the US (tough laws but very high level of crime) and Europe (lax law enforcement) where terrorism is a drop in the ocean of regular crime.

Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)

#18

Post by Stratoscope »

dotancohen wrote: post #12
leeoniya wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Worse things have been carried under wings.[1] this one [1] was way scarier, imo D: [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash

Though interesting, this is completely OT to this discussion.

I suppose you could say the same thing about cm2187's comment from a few minutes ago about the history of terrorism.

Personally, one thing I enjoy about HN is the tangents that discussions sometimes take. If there is something I can learn from a comment, I'm not too worried about whether it is strictly on topic.

Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)

#20

Post by Sakos »

sreevisakh wrote: post #13
StillBored wrote: post #7

Ok, given its flying just the core, and not the fan, why doesn't it fit in the cargo hold? I mean they wouldn't have to worry about the extra drag/etc in the hold. It also seems odd that they would do this on a plane carrying commercial passengers since it seems more of an "experimental" modification even if the manufacture has approved it.

It isn't experimental or unique even if it's rare. It has been done before. I'm not sure why this instance alone got such attention. Regarding the cargo hold problem, the aircraft wasn't carrying just the engine core. The 'pod' is most likely the engine nacelle itself. I wonder if the entire thing would fit through the cargo door (mere speculation). While it's true that the 747 was originally meant as a cargo carrier…

It got so much attention because it's rare. We like to read about things that seem novel and interesting. I wasn't aware the 747 had this capability until reading this article today.
Post reply on HN