Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Boeing failing to make their own supersonic airliner which helped the US Congress banning supersonic flights over the US being one of them You sure about that order? I thought supersonic domestic flights got banned in the US and then the Boeing supersonic airliner was doomed. I’m not positive, hence asking.
Nope, government funding of Boeing's SST was cut in 1971, while the SST ban over the US was enacted in 1973. It's fairly certain that had Boeing made an SST there wouldn't have been any ban.
Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
61–70 of 103 posts
Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#62Ok, 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.
Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Normaly the nose loading is done oy when absolutely necessary. It's a pain, takes ages and is complicated. When possible stuff is squeezed through the fuselage cargo doors. Back the day we did it with a ten foot sea container, never thought it would fit...
> Back the day we did it with a ten foot sea container, never thought it would fit How’d you end up doing it? Roll it on its side? Usually the height of a sea going container is ~2.6m and per the specs I’m seeing online the allowed height through the nose is only ~2.49m. Because they are just taller than they are wide, spec wise it would fit laying on its side, but still curious when doing it for real if that was nec…
Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#64Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> While it's true that the 747 was originally meant as a cargo carrier I was surprised by this so I consulted Wikipedia. Apparently when the 747 was designed they were convinced enough that passengers in the future would not want to travel subsonically, so they designed the 747 to convert to a freighter, to not have to throw the design away when it's hard to attract passengers due to the "low" 0.8 mach speeds!
In general there was a time when supersonic flight was considered the future evolution that will displace the existing tech, like jets displaced propeller aircraft. The Concorde was supposed to be the first one, and it was designed as a general use plane, it wasn't until much later British Airways and Air France thought about marketing it for business/first class "luxury" experience. For a myriad of reasons ( Boeing…
Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#66No 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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Tybee_Island_mid-air_coll...
Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#67No 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...
Yes but the Shuttle Transporter has several modifications and reinforcements, so it's not really a "stock" 747 Flying it is also more complicated
This was something that always made me think about the difficulties of flying something with multiple sources of lift.
Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Back the day we did it with a ten foot sea container, never thought it would fit How’d you end up doing it? Roll it on its side? Usually the height of a sea going container is ~2.6m and per the specs I’m seeing online the allowed height through the nose is only ~2.49m. Because they are just taller than they are wide, spec wise it would fit laying on its side, but still curious when doing it for real if that was nec…
Presumably they're talking about a 8x8x10 container. The 747 is specced for 8x8 w/h containers.
Going via the main deck side doors on a cargo style 747 would be much easier imho for a container that size. Not only can you go a full 10ft high, you’ve got around 11’ straight in width clearance.
Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neat - kind of like mid flaps for planes. Also thank you for teaching me a new word, "cromulent".
I am dating myself but I'm old enough to have watched the Simpsons episode where this word was invented in its first airing. Maybe it is a word now, I mean it's no more or less ridiculous than other words, which somebody just made up at some point too. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/what-does-crom...
Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#70The 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…