[HN Gopher] Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
___________________________________________________________________
Qantas ferried an engine on the wing of a 747 (2016)
Author : Stratoscope
Score : 164 points
Date : 2022-05-29 05:41 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.flightradar24.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.flightradar24.com)
| noipv4 wrote:
| Air India Flight 182, which was bombed on 06/1985 also carried a
| spare for repairs. Investigators initially speculated that the
| extra weight on one side might be the reason for the fatal
| destruction of the plane.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182
| [deleted]
| olliej wrote:
| Isn't that an intended standard design use of a 747?
| roelschroeven wrote:
| Yes, absolutely. I don't see why this is noteworthy, the 747
| was specifically designed to be able to do this.
| spockz wrote:
| Well not all of us are familiar with the design. Meanwhile
| loads of new people join the internet every day. So it is
| going to be novel to someone.
| usrusr wrote:
| I'm just surprised they didn't go all the way and solve the
| apparent drag issue that forces them to remove the fan by
| making that fifth pylon sufficiently operational to fly the
| extra engine powered, running at some very low throttle
| level.
|
| I know the answer, which is that the fan and the turbine are
| very much separate entities and that removal of the fan
| blades is a long shot from taking apart the complete engine,
| but a more gut level part of my brain still likes to consider
| the entire pod "the jet engine", and from that point of view
| it feels as if they'd strip out 90% of "the engine" when in
| reality the entire turbine remains untouched.
| null0pointer wrote:
| What I find interesting is that the plane wings are modular
| enough to actually do stuff like this. Pretty cool!
| bragr wrote:
| >the plane wings are modular enough to actually do stuff like
| this
|
| Not really. The 5th pylon is an original design item and is
| only on the the left wing. When the 747 first started
| operating, IIRC there were no cargo aircraft big enough to
| transport fully assembled 747 engines so there was a real
| logistical concern about transporting spare and faulty engines
| to and from far flung destinations. It's kind of a relic of a
| certain age between the dawn of large turbofan engines but
| before the growth of the modern aviation industry.
|
| The presence of that 5th pylon does mean some 747 get used for
| some interesting things. Virgin Orbit launches their rocket
| from a heavily upgraded 5th pylon.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Girl_(aircraft)
| usr1106 wrote:
| A regular plane option that will go away. Not very quickly,
| but planes don't live forever either. The last 747 is planned
| to be built this year.
|
| No idea whether any twin engine jet has a 3rd pylon. My guess
| would be the asymmetry would be much more difficult to handle
| for offering regular passenger flights.
| belter wrote:
| This capability was into the original design of 747, but
| historically it's not the only model capable of transporting the
| spare engine.
|
| Here is an Air Lanka L-1011-500 TriStar doing the same:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar#/media...
|
| And an even older DC8:
| https://nitter.net/PilotJamesB/status/1262751026408378369
|
| Other models like the 707-300 or the VC-10 and Super VC-10 also
| did it: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=775179
|
| Aparently doing this makes the fuel consumption increase a lot.
|
| "What are the consequences of attaching an unused extra engine
| under Boeing 747 wing?':
| https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/53755/what-are-...
| sreevisakh wrote:
| 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 India flight).
|
| [1] https://aviation-
| safety.net/database/record.php?id=19850623-...
| echelon wrote:
| Every time I read the term "security theater", I remember how
| frequent plane hijackings and bombings were pre-9/11.
| eesmith wrote:
| Schneier's argument (in 2007, quoting https://www.schneier.co
| m/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.
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| Wow, "Canadian Sikh terrorists" was not something I was
| expecting to read about today.
| newsclues wrote:
| It's funny because the Canadian leader of the federal NDP was
| pretty reluctant to blame the terrorists who did this...
|
| https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/article-the-
| stra...
| disillusioned wrote:
| The whole thing is fascinating. I only just read about it
| because of the long slog that was Neal Stephenson's
| Termination Shock, which spends basically half the book
| talking about the China/India Line of Actual Control, and
| dips into Sikhism a bit.
|
| I had no idea that Indira Ghandi was assassinated by her two
| Sikh bodyguards, after she insisted they be reinstated to her
| protective detail, Intelligence Bureau having removed them
| after Operation Bluestar. The same operation is what lead to
| the Air India 182 plane bombing. Quite the blowback, only to
| then be met with the killing of over 8,000 Sikhs in the 1984
| anti-Sikh riots.
| rajeshp1986 wrote:
| Whats more interesting is that the terror group which
| carried out the plane hijacking is still active in Canada.
| In fact the group was not prosecuted for the hijack and
| other attacks.
|
| https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/us-
| decla...
| sreevisakh wrote:
| 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.
| bragr wrote:
| 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.
| cm2187 wrote:
| 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.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| I'd posit that's because a growing Islamic movement
| allows power to rapidly shift outside the established
| political structure. Just like with papistry in Europe in
| the past, if you're using people's faith to manipulate
| them then someone coming in and 'stealing' those people's
| adherence means your power is depleted.
|
| Islam was arguably designed by Mohammed to cede power
| from the establishment of his time. Joseph Smith's
| (Mormonism) very obvious deceptions lead to a new global
| power structure; Ron Hubbard's (Scientology) even more
| obvious deceptions are used to target individuals in
| powerful positions and gain leverage over them.
|
| Those who truly believe will always have a negative
| reaction to religious ideas that challenge their truth;
| those who use religion to bolster power will be even more
| against new religious ideas.
| gattilorenz wrote:
| > But the reaction it created is kind of curious
| (security in airports, army in the street, state
| surveillance)
|
| Not sure about the other examples, but the "Red Brigades"
| (Brigate Rosse) and other terrorist acts in Italy lead to
| special laws that extended considerably the powers of
| police (you can be searched without a warrant if there's
| the suspicion you have a weapon, you would potentially be
| arrested for wearing a helmet or other face cover without
| legitimate need, e.g. in a demonstration) and the use of
| force, the creation of new "swat-like" police forces. And
| of course, there was considerably more police on the
| street in those years...
|
| Fun fact, all I know about Germany is that they proposed
| (and too slowly deployed) a new font for car plates after
| the Baader-Meinhof gang successfully altered with black
| tape a plate.
| Archelaos wrote:
| For Germany, the Munich massacre at the 1972 Summer
| Olympics was a turning point. A few days later, the
| federal anti-terror squadron GSG 9 was formed. Since 1974
| the German states established their own special commands
| (SEK).
|
| The most famous operation of GSG 9 was the storming of
| the hijacked Lufthansa aircraft "Landshut" at Mogadishu
| airport (Somalia) in 1977, freeing all 86 passengers.
| (The crew's captain had been executed by the terrorists
| before.)[1]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_181
| Archelaos wrote:
| Right-wing terrorism must not be forgotten. There are
| indications that people involved in NATO's "stay behind"
| forces, designed for guerilla warfare behind Russian
| lines, turned terrorist and were responsible for terror
| attacks in Italy and Germany in the 1980s. The crimes
| were never fully solved, though. There was also a neo-
| Nazi terrorist group (NSU) active in Germany in the
| 2000s.
| CTDOCodebases wrote:
| I think the response is a bit different because
| previously the attacks relied on the attacker not staying
| at the scene of the attack plus the attacker wanted to
| survive the attack.
|
| With Islamic terrorism came more sophisticated attacks
| that required more logistical planning. These were only
| possible because the people carrying out the attacks were
| simultaneously committing suicide in the process.
|
| Previous attacks did affect procedures it's just that
| they weren't as noticeable and the type of surveillance
| we have now was not possible at the time due to the
| technology being used. For instance bags were unloaded if
| the passenger didn't board[0] or flight observation decks
| were enclosed to stop RPG's being fired at airplanes[1].
|
| [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103?wpr
| ov=sfti1
|
| [1] -
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Orly_Airport_attacks
| bbarnett wrote:
| 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 < 16M people.)
|
| * 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.
|
| CSIS, CSEC and other agencies were formed.
|
| * During the transition from the RCMP handling terrorism
| reports, to CSIS, there was bad blood, _and_ a desire to
| make a clean break, eg, bad RCMP culture was to be replaced
| with a new agency new culture.
|
| * the Air India disaster had _multiple_ people call in, all
| reporting, with details, to the RCMP that it was going to
| happen
|
| * due to all of the above, these reports never made it to
| CSIS, and the RCMP was at that point forbidden to
| investigate on their own.
|
| * in 2006? 8? A report was published detailing this
| disconnect, and more.
|
| I believe that some US agencies are exdeeding their power,
| and one day, may need to be disbanded and replaced.
|
| To all those, in any country considering the same? _Do it
| right._
|
| Do not let the transition, mess up ongoing dilligence.
|
| The Air India disaster is a poster child for what can
| happen.
| Terry_Roll wrote:
| > * 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 sentences in various web forums.
| If your broadband was slow, like in the dialup days,
| before the image had downloaded, web browsers would put a
| placeholder square or rectangle where the image would
| eventually appear. I saw this on some forums, so
| naturally I traced the image back to Canadian webservers.
| It was their way of tracking who was reading what threads
| on a forum, but not the only way!
|
| You will find the security services sacrifice many
| innocent members of the public even kids, in the 5eyes
| countries, its how the security services effect change
| when they cant manipulate or blackmail the politicians.
| There is also a lot of collusion between the Police and
| the security services, its totally criminal!
| bragr wrote:
| Tracking pixels may violate your privacy, but they are
| not a government plot.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_beacon
| StillBored wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| jsjohnst wrote:
| The issue is the dimensions of the cargo doors. A 747 engine is
| approximately 2.25m in diameter and 5.5m long. Of the 4-5
| different sized doors on a 747, there's only two that it would
| fit through:
|
| - Front nose cone door
|
| - Main deck cargo door
|
| I believe neither would be used on a passenger airline
| configured 747 (could be wrong though!) and hence why the wing
| based fifth pod configuration was likely used.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| Wikipedia puts the CF6 from a 747-400 at 4.27m long, 2.69m
| diameter. An RB-211 looks to be a little narrower and longer.
| Cargolux puts the biggest rectangle that can fit through the
| main cargo door at 3.05m x 3.10m. So yeah you could probably
| fit an engine in a nacelle and fixture through the main deck
| door on a freighter.
|
| However your big limitation will be height at either 2.44m or
| 3.00m depending on where on the main deck you're checking.
| The lower deck (which is all you'd have available on a
| passenger 747) has a much lower height limit (an LD-1 has a
| height limit of 1.62 m).
|
| An engine's just not going to fit inside unless you're
| talking about something designed for oversize cargo like the
| Dreamlifter (747) or Beluga (A300) or Beluga XL (A330).
| Oversized cargo is also the main use case for the An-124/225.
|
| https://www.cargolux.com/fleet-
| equipment/aircraft/747-400f-s...
| bragr wrote:
| 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.
| dotancohen wrote:
| 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.
| bragr wrote:
| The 737-200 had an optional gravel kit for unpaved runways!
| A few -200s still in use because of that feature
| rkagerer wrote:
| Neat - kind of like mid flaps for planes. Also thank you
| for teaching me a new word, "cromulent".
| delsarto wrote:
| 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...
| dotancohen wrote:
| You're embiggening my perception of you.
| sreevisakh wrote:
| 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.
| Sakos wrote:
| 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.
| hef19898 wrote:
| 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...
| jsjohnst wrote:
| > 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 necessary.
| avar wrote:
| Presumably they're talking about a 8x8x10 container. The
| 747 is specced for 8x8 w/h containers.
| jsjohnst wrote:
| Yeah, 8' just barely fits in via the nose. You got maybe
| an inch or two to spare on height.
|
| 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.
| hef19898 wrote:
| They maneuvered it through the side door, with four
| people, inch by inch, millimeter by millimeter. Working
| for the airport at the time I didn't touch a thing,
| better to have crew damage a perfectly fine aircraft.
| Still impressive feat of loading, almost on par with the
| Russians, they use the cargo door to squeeze the cargo
| properly in, like avergae Joe slaming his trunk.
| jsjohnst wrote:
| Ah, side door. That should've been easy then, no?
| sreevisakh wrote:
| I agree about the nose loading part. Meanwhile, how does an
| engine with its nacelle compare to a marine container in
| terms of dimensions? Would it be easier or harder to load
| through the fuselage doors? I also assume that they will
| need a fixture or container for the engine if it was to be
| loaded into the cargo hold.
| jsjohnst wrote:
| Engine is roughly 2.25m in diameter and 5.5m in length.
| So it would fit through the nose cone door, even with a
| modest fixture/container, with room to spare.
| kqr wrote:
| > 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!
| sofixa wrote:
| 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 failing to make their own
| supersonic airliner which helped the US Congress banning
| supersonic flights over the US being one of them), we never
| got there though, and it seems we never will since the
| currently planned crop of supersonic airliners ( Boom and
| co) are specifically targeting the business niche.
| jsjohnst wrote:
| > 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.
| sofixa wrote:
| 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.
| jsjohnst wrote:
| Thanks! I only knew the oft parroted version of the story
| from family members who worked at Boeing. I guess the
| detail I didn't immediately recall was "plane over
| budget" (which likely lead to the government funding you
| mentioned being pulled). I still believe that the biggest
| reason for the ban was NIMBYs though, if you've ever been
| around sonic booms you know how intrusive they are. I
| lived just far enough away from a military base as a kid
| that we happened to be near where pilots would
| occasionally go super sonic as part of their training.
| After living in California years later and experiencing
| multiple earthquakes, I'd say the sonic boom was about
| like a magnitude 6, but only lasting for a couple
| seconds.
| dorfsmay wrote:
| Isn't the main reason the amount of fuel required to fly
| supersonic?
| bobthepanda wrote:
| 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...
| dorfsmay wrote:
| 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.
| sofixa wrote:
| > 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.
| Deritiod wrote:
| It was a novelty. The market was small the expectation
| that it costly but still profitable is easy.
|
| But I wouldn't care for sonic travel besides the novelty.
|
| Price wins
| bobthepanda wrote:
| 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.
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| It's rare to see a car pulling a trailer, but it's not
| experimental.
|
| The "fifth pod" thing was designed in from the start.
| hollerith wrote:
| Well it is carrying the core and the nacelle. The nacelle is
| the bulkiest part.
| dang wrote:
| Discussed at the time (of the article):
|
| _How Qantas Ferried an Engine on the Wing of a 747_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10870123 - Jan 2016 (25
| comments)
| avar wrote:
| I wonder what design constraints led to not mounting such an
| engine facing backwards to reduce drag.
| usefulcat wrote:
| Why do you think mounting it backwards would reduce drag?
| rzzzt wrote:
| I 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.
| embedded_hiker wrote:
| 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
| rzzzt wrote:
| Thanks! I was just excited about experiencing the frequency
| illusion in real life -- fifteen-ish years of English without
| cowling, then two cowlings in a day from two different
| sources.
| waqf wrote:
| Ducks have ducklings, so naturally, cows have cowlings.
| Fuhrer01 wrote:
| Thanks!
| billfruit wrote:
| It is a fairly common term in automotive domain.
| Animats wrote:
| 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...
| raverbashing wrote:
| Yes but the Shuttle Transporter has several modifications and
| reinforcements, so it's not really a "stock" 747
|
| Flying it is also more complicated
| dylan604 wrote:
| >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.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Upmost importance was to attach the orbiter black side down:
|
| https://i.stack.imgur.com/vaPH0.jpg
| leeoniya wrote:
| > 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
| dotancohen wrote:
| Though interesting, this is completely OT to this discussion.
| Stratoscope wrote:
| 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.
| dotancohen wrote:
| A tangent to the topic, sure, I love it. But hijacking
| the discussion to draw attention to something that has
| absolutely nothing to do with either the topic or
| relevant to a specific comment it almost the definition
| of a troll. Despite a glancing similarity to a detail not
| relevant to the topic, GP was not relevant to the comment
| he replied to.
| sokoloff wrote:
| If that's your threshold, I suspect you find a lot of
| real-life trolls in everyday small talk.
|
| "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity"
| applies strongly to leeoniya's comment IMO.
| nixass wrote:
| js2 wrote:
| There's still a bomb deep in the muck somewhere off of
| Georgia (US) too.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Tybee_Island_mid-
| air_coll...
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| The 747 had to be adapted/modified to carry the shuttle, but
| the fifth pod to carry a spare engine was built in on some 747
| models.
| can16358p wrote:
| > W80-1 variable yield nuclear warhead, were mistakenly loaded
| onto a...
|
| Imagine mistakenly loading a nuclear warhead on the wrong
| plane.
| dlsa wrote:
| Imagine the _other_ team unloading what they were expecting
| to be a warhead.
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| Normally not with passengers on board...
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Does this "5th pod" exist solely for transporting spare engines,
| or does it have other uses?
| sreevisakh wrote:
| It's known to be used for testing new engines and launching
| rockets [1]. But I don't understand what they mean by 'pod'.
| Can't figure out if they are referring to the hard point, pylon
| or the engine nacelle.
|
| [1] https://simpleflying.com/boeing-747-5-engines/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-29 23:02 UTC)