I wonder what design constraints led to not mounting such an engine facing backwards to reduce drag.
Why do you think mounting it backwards would reduce drag?
Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
71–80 of 103 posts
Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a lot of depth and history here. * the US had the anti-communist McCarthy hearings. Canada had secret shunning commitees. See a book/video called "The UnCanadians". (Millions of Canadian households had files on them, at a time when Canada had * Due to this, and the RCMP going bananas in other ways (eg, burning down barns on private property because bikers were legally meeting there....), parliament disbanded…
> * Due to this, and the RCMP going bananas in other ways (eg, burning down barns on private property because bikers were legally meeting there....), parliament disbanded the RCMP's domestic and international "spy" departments. So one of the five eyes activities I found which involved the RCMP (I'm based in the UK), was putting a tiny picture of a full stop (period/dot/whatever you want to call it), at the end of sen…
Tracking pixels may violate your privacy, but they are not a government plot.
Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#73No 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...
Normally not with passengers on board...
Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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!
Indeed, the 747 is quite popular amongst cargo carriers.
In comparison, part of the A380’s short life is that it’s useless as a freighter since a minimal amount of freight would bring it to “too heavy to fly” territory.
Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Isn't the main reason the amount of fuel required to fly supersonic?
The designs did burn a lot of fuel, but sonic booms were also extremely unpopular.
The FAA picked Oklahoma City (without asking them first) for an experiment to subject a city to regular sonic booms. It, uh, didn’t go well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tes...
Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#76Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the main reason the amount of fuel required to fly supersonic?
The designs did burn a lot of fuel, but sonic booms were also extremely unpopular. The FAA picked Oklahoma City (without asking them first) for an experiment to subject a city to regular sonic booms. It, uh, didn’t go well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tes...
Right, but what I meant was that it'd be difficult to have a sustainable supersonic flight business given the fuel consumption required at those sppeds. My understanding is that even though Air France and British Airways were charging twice the price of normal first class for Concord, they were losing money on them.
I'm surprised there aren't supersonic business jet though.
Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#78The 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…
Every time I read the term "security theater", I remember how frequent plane hijackings and bombings were pre-9/11.
Schneier's argument (in 2007, quoting https://www.schneier.com/news/archives/2007/08/everything_we...) was that:
> “There have been exactly two things since 9/11 that have made air travel safer,” Schneier said recently over spring rolls at a favorite Vietnamese restaurant on Nicollet Avenue. “Reinforcing the cockpit door and telling people to fight back in the event of an attack.” After a brief pause, half-devoured roll in hand, he reconsidered. “Well, maybe three,” he said. “I’m on the fence about sky marshals.”
Those two or three are not security theater, a term he uses for 'new measures that conveyed safety but accomplished little.'
He gives an example of security theater - requiring people to throw out their cigarette lighters. When they could buy cigarette lighters once they pass through security.
If those two or three things alone indeed caused the decrease in plane hijackings and bombings that you commented about, then the rest - dumping out water, taking shoes off, etc. - is very likely security theater.
Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#79I have never heard or read the word "cowling" before, but just finished watching a video saying that Apple's repair guide refers to the tiny metal covers within the phone this way. Cowling cowling cowling.
One of the early accomplishments of "NASA", long before it became NASA, was the development of an improved cowling for airplanes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACA_cowling
Re: Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
The designs did burn a lot of fuel, but sonic booms were also extremely unpopular. The FAA picked Oklahoma City (without asking them first) for an experiment to subject a city to regular sonic booms. It, uh, didn’t go well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tes...
Right, but what I meant was that it'd be difficult to have a sustainable supersonic flight business given the fuel consumption required at those sppeds. My understanding is that even though Air France and British Airways were charging twice the price of normal first class for Concord, they were losing money on them. I'm surprised there aren't supersonic business jet though.
> My understanding is that even though Air France and British Airways were charging twice the price of normal first class for Concord, they were losing money on them.
They weren't, the Concordes were quite profitable until 9/11 and the following slump in international travel ( due to fear, increased controls and inconveniences) and increase in oil prices.
> I'm surprised there aren't supersonic business jet though
There are companies trying to build supersonic business jets, like Boom.