[HN Gopher] Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight
___________________________________________________________________
Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight
Author : eatmyshardz
Score : 605 points
Date : 2023-02-01 19:48 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.flightradar24.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.flightradar24.com)
| bcatanzaro wrote:
| Queen of the skies. :hugging_face:
| DarmokJalad1701 wrote:
| The actual GPS points filed in the flight plan can be seen here:
|
| https://flightaware.com/live/flight/GTI747/history/20230201/...
|
| There's probably a similar function for flightradar24 as well but
| I don't know how to find it there.
| anonymous_sorry wrote:
| I'm sure it's insignificant in the scheme of things, but I don't
| think it justifies the unnecessary carbon emissions
| tomcam wrote:
| I am grateful I don't live in the world you live in
| anonymous_sorry wrote:
| But you do, I fear.
| malkia wrote:
| I see two planes now flying very close to each other...
| https://imgur.com/a/QcZohkC
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| Now that you know, see if you can find an airport with bad
| weather and check out the holding patterns they do. You'll se a
| half dozen planes in the same circle separated by 1,000ft
| vertically.
| pilsetnieks wrote:
| Very unlikely the same height. They could be kilometers apart.
| It's a 3D space.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Without knowing how far you're zoomed in on the map or the
| altitude of the two planes, I can assure you that they're
| nowhere near each other.
| malkia wrote:
| yup - just layman (me) being scared not understanding what's
| going on :) - then I saw earlier what the plane did (took me
| a while to figure out what was this about)
| mulmen wrote:
| The planes are not drawn to scale. Looks like your screenshot
| is over South Dakota. Looking at the scale on the map those
| planes are around 6km apart, not considering altitude
| differences.
| dividuum wrote:
| That seems neither close nor something special. There are
| different flight levels, so planes can cross each other safely.
| malkia wrote:
| yup - it just shows how little I know about the subject...
| agh! - It was bit spooky looking at these, and I thought I
| zoomed in but by the time I took the screenshot it was way
| oof
| dingosity wrote:
| Hmm. I thought all new Boeings flew out over the pacific so at
| the moment the customer signs the paperwork receiving the
| airplane, it was someplace where there would be no state or local
| sales tax.
|
| I'm not in the aero business myself, just repeating what I heard
| other, more knowledgable-sounding people said. Maybe that's not
| true or there's an exception for this one.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > I thought all new Boeings flew out over the pacific so at the
| moment the customer signs the paperwork receiving the airplane,
| it was someplace where there would be no state or local sales
| tax.
|
| I'm pretty sure that's an urban legend; I've seen the same
| story, but never evidence for it.
| fsagx wrote:
| Scroll back to central WA to see the interesting part.
| M3L0NM4N wrote:
| Right when I clicked this the plane started taking off again.
| petecooper wrote:
| Posterity screenshot (work safe):
|
| https://i.imgur.com/jPIlUJQ.png
| davidw wrote:
| As someone who does not like flying (I don't like heights), I
| will miss those planes. The large size makes me more comfortable
| in one.
| dheera wrote:
| Interesting. I often feel safer in smaller (but not too small
| planes), where I don't see the wings visibly flapping.
| Something like a A320 or a 737.
|
| With 747s the wings flap up and down quite visibly in
| turbulence, and you can even see the fuselage twisting if the
| curtains aren't closed between the sections.
|
| There's also just the wall thickness to mass ratio. You ever
| notice that you can crash toy RC cars all you want and they
| never break, but if you crash a real car even mildly it's
| rather easily totaled?
| capableweb wrote:
| > There's also just the wall thickness to mass ratio. You
| ever notice that you can crash toy RC cars all you want and
| they never break, but if you crash a real car even mildly
| it's rather easily totaled?
|
| That might not be the best to share to someone who says they
| are being uncomfortable in a airplane, you're making things
| worse for them! :D
| potatochup wrote:
| Full size cars are designed to crumple because its less
| dangerous for the occupants
| dividuum wrote:
| Maybe this video helps a bit to put all that twisting into
| perspective? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B74_w3Ar9nI
| rootusrootus wrote:
| There's another one from way back where they bend a 747
| wing until it breaks. Definitely puts into perspective how
| strong a wing is.
| projektfu wrote:
| Now you have me imagining an articulated-bus version of the
| 747....
| kortilla wrote:
| Any plane at 500mph is tissue paper if it hits something.
|
| If you haven't seen the wing flex in a 737 or A320 you aren't
| paying close enough attention. It's very obvious during the
| takeoff roll as load is applied or during any moderate+
| turbulence.
| dheera wrote:
| > Any plane at 500mph is tissue paper if it hits something.
|
| Sure, but a commercially-sold 1:500 plastic model of the
| same plane crashing into a wall at 1mph won't be tissue
| paper.
|
| Similarly, ants can lift 100 times their own weight and
| survive having 5000 times their own weight placed on top of
| them, but it's quite impossible to for a human-sized mammal
| to do the same.
| ece wrote:
| After the 777 gained enough market share, it just seemed like
| less and less flights (especially the long range ones) were on
| the 747. End of an era. I flew on the top deck of a 747 once, I
| was sweating the whole time, but the views were worth it.
| blantonl wrote:
| This was almost certainly drawn out by hand, waypoints (lat/lon)
| and turns were plotted and then inputed into the flight
| management computer, and there is a good chance the plane just
| flew itself as told.
|
| Although given it was flown at such a lower altitude below 15k
| feed near Moses Lake (which is where Boeing does a ton of testing
| at that airport) it's possible the pilots hand flew this by
| following a pre-plotted magenta line already plotted on a map for
| them.
| [deleted]
| px43 wrote:
| They could also just spoof the ADS-B data right?
| lxgr wrote:
| Given that the area is covered by radar (as well as MLAT SDR
| coverage), it would be tricky to pull off - and the FAA would
| probably not find it funny at all.
| schoen wrote:
| I doubt their normal on-board systems have a feature to do
| that, or that the pilots would feel confident in doing so in
| terms of the FAA's possible reaction.
| blantonl wrote:
| that didn't happen. They flew this.
| jaywalk wrote:
| From a technical perspective, probably. In reality,
| absolutely not.
| nickdothutton wrote:
| One of the all time greatest products ever produced.
| Sunspark wrote:
| On a trip home a few years ago, I went ahead and booked a 747,
| partially intentionally. It was very nostalgic knowing that it
| was probably the last time I would ever fly in a 747 again. That
| was a good plane.
| aeturnum wrote:
| Makes me think of the famous "707 Barrel Roll" story from its
| initial testing: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-
| news/60-years-ago-the-f...
|
| "You know that. Now we know that. But just don't do it anymore."
|
| Edit: forgot the barrel roll was on a 707 - not a 747
| [deleted]
| blamazon wrote:
| That very plane is on display at the Udvar-Hazy center of the
| Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, at Dulles airport.
| Plane nerds MUST go there!! Incredible place.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_F._Udvar-Hazy_Center
| fsckboy wrote:
| there's film of Tex Johnston's Dash-80 barrel roll
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk
|
| many years later, _Boeing Chief Test Pilot John Cashman stated
| that just before he piloted the maiden flight of the Boeing 777
| on Jun. 12, 1994, his last instructions from then Boeing
| President Phil Condit were "No rolls"._ -- anecdote from
| https://theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-tex-johnston-barre...
|
| I wonder why "the suits" at Boeing are so against the barrel
| rolls? The pilots all agree it's not that big a deal, not
| dangerous, and anybody watching is going to love it.
|
| this article https://www.straightdope.com/21341407/is-it-
| possible-to-loop... says that the bigger the plane, the more
| dangerous because it will roll more slowly, and during parts of
| the roll particularly 90 degrees off "flat" there is no lift
| and you're going to be falling.
|
| I'm reminded of the tragic crash of a B-52 illustrating a
| similar circumstance, and this was the pilot's last flight
| before retiring https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6io8Tjv7xk
| themadturk wrote:
| The Dash-80 roll was a 1-G maneuver that didn't strain the
| airframe at all. Local legend says that single barrel roll
| was enough to convince an airline industry skeptical of jet
| aircraft to open their checkbooks. Boeing -- in the person of
| Tex Johnston -- changed the world that day.
| rconti wrote:
| The only thing I can think is that it _looks_ dangerous to
| casual observers, and that 's the furthest thing Boeing and
| the airlines that purchase from them want potential
| passengers thinking.
| aeturnum wrote:
| Thank you - I had never seen it. This is great.
| isaacdl wrote:
| Should note that's a 707 that Tex Johnston rolled, not a 747.
| I'm not aware of any barrel rolls performed in a 747.
| kloch wrote:
| It wasn't even a 707, it was a prototype model 367-80.
|
| There were some unusually significant structural differences
| between the prototype dash 80 and production 707's, for
| example:
|
| > The 132 in (3,400 mm) wide fuselage of the Dash 80 was
| large enough for four-abreast (two-plus-two) seating like the
| Stratocruiser. Answering customers' demands and under Douglas
| competition, Boeing soon realized this would not provide a
| viable payload, so it widened the fuselage to 144 in (3,660
| mm) to allow five-abreast seating and use of the KC-135's
| tooling.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_367-80
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707
| jefftk wrote:
| Those two pages disagree. Your quote is from
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707, but
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_367-80 has "The Dash
| 80 fuselage was wide enough at 132 inches (335 cm) for
| five-abreast seating; two on one side of the aisle and
| three on the other. The fuselage diameter for the
| production KC-135 was widened to 144 inches (366 cm) and
| Boeing originally hoped to build the 707 fuselage with that
| width. By the time the Boeing company committed to
| production, the decision had been made to design the
| production model 707 as a six-abreast design"
| throwawayx134ax wrote:
| It's in the wikipedia article, but just want to call
| something out: That particular airframe 367-80 is in the
| Air and Space Udvar-Hazy museum at Dulles. It is gorgeous.
|
| The 747s first airframe is at the Museum of Flight in
| Seattle, and you can _go inside it_.
| https://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/boeing-747-121
| turnsout wrote:
| FTA: "In his Boeing office, he [Tex] hung a sign that
| proclaimed, 'One test is worth a thousand opinions.'"
|
| I need that sign. ha
| aeturnum wrote:
| Oh good note lol! I misremembered
| [deleted]
| virgulino wrote:
| And that makes me think of the pilot of the hijacked Brazilian
| 737, who performed a tonneau immediately followed by a spin
| dive, with his dead co-pilot by his side.
|
| This happened in Brazil in the 80's, and the hijacker wanted to
| crash the plane into the presidential palace. I think someone
| is making a movie about this.
|
| https://www.airportspotting.com/the-hijacking-of-vasp-flight...
| petilon wrote:
| The question in my mind is, what replaces the 747, and is it
| safe? Looks like 777X is going to replace 747. Does the 777X have
| the same design flaws as the 737 MAX, namely larger engine,
| positioned forward in way that destabilizes the airframe?
| themadturk wrote:
| I can't answer your question directly, but the modern 737 is a
| 2010s aircraft forced into a 1965 design. Many, many
| problematic design decisions have been visited upon the low-
| rise airframe, and many critics of the plane think the 737s
| should have been retired long ago in favor of a new narrow-body
| aircraft. I don't think those kinds of design problems are
| present in the 777, which was a new design from the ground up.
| RobRivera wrote:
| little more creative than marine aviators thats for sure
| katamarimambo wrote:
| the carbon cost of this crap
| ceejayoz wrote:
| My dad drew my kids' names (and a Minecraft pickaxe) over Indiana
| a few years back. They were delighted.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The world's largest vector plotter. Good thing they didn't have
| to do PU/PD.
| tpmx wrote:
| Was just thinking of HPGL when I saw this.
|
| Would be neat to have an AutoCAD driver for the 747 navigation
| system.
| daveslash wrote:
| Vector Display you say? Now... the next logical step is to make
| it play Doom (or Quake)..... with an extremely low framerate.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMli33ornEU
| goldfingeroo7 wrote:
| I wonder if the pilots were giggling the whole time they were
| flying this pattern.
| [deleted]
| vyrotek wrote:
| See the design here.
| https://flightaware.com/live/flight/map/GTI747/history/20230...
| Baxxter wrote:
| Is the dashed blue line their intended route, or what they
| would submit to ATC? Differs quite a bit from the actual
| flight.
| titanomachy wrote:
| Looks like it could be the same as the actual route but
| sampled at a lower resolution.
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| In the layers (button top right) it's called the "planned
| route".
| juliand wrote:
| It took them 2 hours and 40 minutes to complete the easter egg
| alexose wrote:
| More cynically: Roughly 2.4 tons of fuel, equating to 16.8
| tons of CO2 emissions.
| stanmancan wrote:
| I have no clue what I'm talking about but this piqued my
| interest. If I ask WolframAlpha: Q:how
| many carbon molecules in 2.4 tons A: 1.092x10^29
| molecules
|
| X molecules of pure carbon carbon would theoretically
| require 2X molecules of oxygen to turn into CO2
| Q: how much does (10^29)*2 molecules of oxygen weight in us
| tons A: 5.827 tons
|
| So 2.4 tons of Carbon + 5.827 tons of Oxygen = 8.227 tons
| of CO2? Maybe? What am I missing to have 2.4 tons of fuel
| turn into 16.8 tons of CO2 emissions? I'm not doubting it,
| and I'm sure it's WAY more complicated than above, but just
| genuinely curious!*
| usrusr wrote:
| Yeah, this can't be some prank by a renegade flight crew,
| it can only be a farewell celebration act with a much-off
| meeting, a budget and a dozen people who signed off. But
| I'm not criticising, by that measure we'd have to question
| any resource expenditure that exceeds the bare minimum for
| sustaining life.
| sllabres wrote:
| Or here
| https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n863gt#2f0b1162
| Took 2 1/2 hours to plot this :)
| classified wrote:
| Darned cool. 747 rules!
| thedrake wrote:
| Here is the story behind the flight and drawing in the sky via
| flight path https://aviationsourcenews.com/breaking/atlas-air-to-
| fly-spe...
| ribs wrote:
| My friend notes that the logo covers Grand County Int'l Airport,
| containing the 2nd-longest runway in the US, where JAL and FedEx
| both have 747 pilot training facilities.
| jbandela1 wrote:
| The 747 IMO is the most beautiful aircraft ever, certainly the
| most beautiful civilian aircraft.
|
| A couple of years ago, I made it a point on an international trip
| with my kids to book seats for us on the upper deck. It was
| really awesome, and I am sure they will look back on it as a
| great memory.
|
| If you are able to, before it is too late, I would encourage
| doing it.
|
| The most iconic seats on the most iconic civilian airplane!
| dylan604 wrote:
| When you have been away from them for a while and you're used
| to just spending time in terminals with nothing but 737s
| everywhere, when you come back to a terminal with a 747 at the
| gate, it is a bit awe inspiring to see just how big these are.
| Similar to the first time walking up to a 777, A380, etc. They
| are just huge (or the 737 is tiny).
| themadturk wrote:
| Both.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| I got excited just seeing one on flightradar and then looking
| up :-). They are quite rare compared to 737 and various
| Airbuses
| supernova87a wrote:
| I find it just really endearing that at companies, regardless of
| how many other issues they have or the dysfunctions and bland
| corporate culture, there are people who keep the pride of purpose
| and "olden days / traditions" in their memory and do things like
| this. Or are able to call on institutional memory of something
| bygone, that reappears once in a while. (whether it's a big
| gesture like this or small cultural day-to-day manifestations).
|
| You wonder how pockets of this survive when top management comes
| and goes, who sometimes only know the company as just some logo
| or another corporation to be managed, and when workforces go
| through rounds and rounds of potential layoffs where such
| knowledge and initiative is generally lost.
|
| Maybe it also helps to be a company that has at least something
| to do with hardware that leaves a physical history :)
| crazygringo wrote:
| Why do you think top management isn't part of this? Many times
| it's top management itself that makes sure these traditions
| continue. Maintaining company culture is something incredibly
| important to a lot of executives, at certain companies at
| least.
|
| And judging from the press, this was a highly coordinated event
| including thousands of spectators and John Travolta. [1]
|
| Top management can love having fun and maintaining traditions
| too. They're people too.
|
| [1] https://thepointsguy.com/news/boeing-747-farewell-
| celebratio...
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| > You wonder how pockets of this survive when top management
| comes and goes, who sometimes only know the company as just
| some logo or another corporation to be managed
|
| This makes me so sad, all of our traditions which make
| companies unique will actually be eroded away by market forces.
| No wonder no one stays at a workplace anymore.
| dleslie wrote:
| The market force putting a stop to this is legal liability
| that can arise from undocumented or unauthorized behaviour.
| That's more an issue of an overly-litigious society.
| cj wrote:
| I'm sure culture/traditions play a role in employee
| retention, but it feels like "the 20-year tenure company
| man/woman" of the 90's was likely driven by less optionality
| in the job market compared to today, and also fewer benefits
| to staying with a company long-term (e.g. no more pensions,
| unlimited vacation for both new and old employees, etc).
| mulmen wrote:
| Boeing still needs pilots. They're a sentimental, capable, and
| stubborn bunch.
| harry8 wrote:
| I basically wear zero visible labels on my clothes because why
| would I wear advertising? I own a t-shirt with 747 on it and a
| picture. It's one of the great pieces of human engineering.
| Many of us, even those who have never had anything to do with
| it beyond seeing one in the sky and occasionally riding on one
| love it like any other great work of creation.
|
| There would be people who think like that who joined boeing in
| the past couple of years...
| protastus wrote:
| Every complex project lives and dies by a relatively small
| group of true believers.
|
| From the outside, we don't know who they are, but sometimes we
| get a glimpse of their passion.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| I think it's more that most people are basically trying their
| best and that includes managers and top brass. Sometimes we
| get a glimpse when that shines through from the whole group.
| mach1ne wrote:
| I don't mean to be negative, but most people certainly
| don't try their best. Many are only working for the
| paycheck and don't attach their sense of success to their
| professional output.
| americanmotto wrote:
| Agree. I've said for ~10 years now, that it seems the
| American Dream has transitioned from "Anything is
| possible as long as you work hard enough." to "Do as
| little as work possible to get the same paycheck."
| Something has definitely changed in the culture.
| waynecochran wrote:
| I find it highly unlikely that any manager would have
| anything to do with easter eggs.
| colpabar wrote:
| Just because you don't like your manager(s) doesn't mean
| we're all bad :)
| RHSeeger wrote:
| My manager sends me videos of particularly challenging
| video game things he's accomplished. And links to fun
| games. Managers are people, too; there's plenty of good
| ones.
| [deleted]
| blantonl wrote:
| What's cool is that aviation can be so stifling at times with
| training, rules, regulations, etc, that it seems that certain
| very cool traditions are either set in stone, or born and
| survive relatively intact.
|
| ADSB reporting, which powers these flight tracking sites that
| are available to the public, is (relatively speaking) a very
| new thing to aviation and the general public. And the fact that
| these maneuvers are absolutely fantastic training and aviation
| problem solving and you've got the perfect storm for a newly
| born tradition that will continue to survive and evolve.
| mulmen wrote:
| Is this tradition even new? Drawing things in the sky seems
| to be a well established aviation tradition.
| tobinfricke wrote:
| > Drawing things in the sky seems to be a well established
| aviation tradition
|
| Not really... This level of high-precision and publicly-
| available flight tracking is pretty new.
| brian-armstrong wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywriting
| asmithmd1 wrote:
| On a much smaller scale, it has been around for a long
| time:
|
| http://wbcnthefilm.weebly.com/film-blog/who-ever-heard-
| of-a-...
| fragmede wrote:
| This particular level and visibility of sky writing is
| new, but "drawing things in the sky" dates back to the
| 1920s or so. That sort of skywriting uses oil to cause
| the airplane to leave a trail of white smoke, visible
| against the blue background of the sky.
|
| The precision we see in this route is fairly new, but,
| especially on proving flights for new aircraft, which
| needed hours and hours of flight time and would take off
| and land at the same airport, and even before the public
| could see it on a website, filing flight plans that
| contained (much cruder) drawings of "747" or otherwise
| certainly exist.
| usrusr wrote:
| Drawing stuff on a map with a GPS track is a rather
| beaten path in the world of Strava and similar [0]. Not
| being bound to the road network graph just makes it
| easier. I don't want to think about the fuel burned for
| this stunt, but if I were in some position that is
| required to sign off that flight path I'd sure
| congratulate whoever came up with this. Wouldn't even be
| all surprised if tomorrow some Airbus ferry flight would
| respond in the same medium with a respectful salute to
| the old lady.
|
| ([0] but relative to anything that would be considered a
| tradition in aviation, the entire _concept_ of GPS is
| rather newfangled, despite it 's surprising age, I'm not
| disagreeing)
| blantonl wrote:
| Not at this extent, and the ability for the general public
| to be aware of it.
| dingosity wrote:
| I'm sure someone will get fired over this.
| cbfrench wrote:
| We're in the flight path, and I told my wife to go up to her
| office roof to see if she can see it, but she's stuck in a
| meeting, and I'm too far north to catch a glimpse. I guess I'll
| have to settle for spotting it on my ADS-B receiver, which is
| still pretty cool.
| snickerbockers wrote:
| [flagged]
| oliveshell wrote:
| It's okay, we'll always have this:
|
| https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/05/14/the-navy...
| fsagx wrote:
| and this:
|
| https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/15878580720219217...
| blantonl wrote:
| speaking from experience, I would tell you the sky penis is one
| of the easiest things to "draw" by flying an airplane. It's two
| turns around a point and a quick run out to maybe to a training
| maneuver or two, them a 180 and head back to where your turns
| were, and then head home.
| aendruk wrote:
| Screenshot: https://cloudflare-
| ipfs.com/ipfs/QmcjrYXR934QZqBuMHioRdcZEmo...
|
| On small displays this is otherwise obstructed by a cookie popup
| that offers _only_ an "accept all" button. What's even the point
| of the popup then?
| lostlogin wrote:
| Thank you, I couldn't see the interesting part due to
| zoom/number of other planes etc.
| knodi123 wrote:
| > What's even the point of the popup then?
|
| Complying with idiotic bureaucratic regulations. Nobody wants
| to be popping that thing up, but if they don't, they can get
| reamed by the EU.
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| Are jumbo jets being retired because of fuel economy? If so, is
| there a chance demand for them will return if there's a spike in
| passenger numbers? I would've thought a larger fleet of smaller
| planes would be less efficient because it increases operational
| cost and you have more overhead weight to move around.
| kube-system wrote:
| > if there's a spike in passenger numbers?
|
| The number of airline passengers goes up every year except for
| a couple of years where there have been dips due to major world
| events.
| rdhatt wrote:
| Wendover Productions has a great video on this topic:
|
| Big Plane vs Little Plane (The Economics of Long-Haul Flights)
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlIdzF1_b5M
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Four engine airliners are 2x more expensive to maintain. The
| extension of ETOPS to longer distances was their death knell.
| sofixa wrote:
| > I would've thought a larger fleet of smaller planes would be
| less efficient because it increases operational cost and you
| have more overhead weight to move around.
|
| You'd be wrong. Airline bosses (Willie Walsh? Almost sure it
| was him) have said it literally costs less to have two 787 fly
| one after the other than a single A380. The fuel efficiency of
| twin engine planes compared to 3 or 4 older engines compensates
| for the lower capacity.
| mulmen wrote:
| Jumbo jets are not being retired. That term applies to any
| airplane with two aisles between the seats or a "wide body".
| Currently produced examples from Boeing are the 767, 777 and
| 787. The 747 is simply not economical when compared to those
| newer airframes. Mot of the final run of 747s and I believe of
| those still in operation are used for cargo operations, this
| was an expected outcome even in the 1960s, although for
| different reasons. For airlines it is about running the plane
| at capacity and minimizing time on the ground. Airlines choose
| specialized models for the routes they run. The super jumbos
| are simply too big to be practical or economical.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Fuel economy is one piece of the puzzle. Another major piece is
| that passengers prefer the flexibility offered by smaller, more
| frequent flights instead of larger, less frequent flights.
| Macha wrote:
| Fuel efficiency is one part, but the increased consumer
| preference for direct flights is another, while the business
| model for the A380s was basically "ferry all your passengers to
| the nearest hub on A320s then use A380s to bring them from hub
| to hub". But instead larger twinjets like the B787 and A350
| which could do these direct routes more economically won.
| ssgodderidge wrote:
| Any flight buffs know the estimated cost of doing something like
| that?
|
| I'm all for having fun, and I love that they spent the money to
| do it
| peteradio wrote:
| There's cost and opportunity cost and marketing, so who knows?
| But it looks like it doubled the leg length, I'd guess cost and
| opportunity cost into the 100k+.
| lxgr wrote:
| Do it as part of a flight that needs to happen anyway (such as
| this one, which was a delivery)? Probably not much more than
| the fuel and overtime the pilots needed to fly a few extra
| turns.
| topher515 wrote:
| Not a flight buff, but...
|
| - Jet fuel from NYC to LAX seems to cost ~$10k.[1]
|
| - You pay a pilot $50 / hour salary. (+100% more with
| benefits?)[2]
|
| - Double all of that for a bunch of random things I can't think
| of (airport fees?)
|
| My napkin math seems to indicate this couldn't possibly cost
| Boeing more than $10-20k? Pretty small potatoes to such a large
| company.
|
| [1] https://simpleflying.com/commercial-airliner-fuel-cost/ [2]
| https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Commercial-Pilot-Salar...
| sofixa wrote:
| > My napkin math seems to indicate this couldn't possibly
| cost Boeing more than $10-20k? Pretty small potatoes to such
| a large company.
|
| Yeah they were losing billions through criminal negligence
| and delayed deliveries of the 737 Max, so a couple of tens of
| thousands for some well needed good PR is nothing. This is
| probably the first bit of it for multiple years now, with all
| the delays in the 777X, assembly quality issues of 787, etc.
| throwanem wrote:
| It feels to me like a final swan song for the era, both
| corporate and economic, in which a project like the 747 was
| possible.
| samstave wrote:
| Yeah but they are also a major contributor to our breakaway
| UAP program with Lockheed - and also, the Horse fucking
| industry.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumclaw_horse_sex_case
| sofixa wrote:
| That link was... an interesting read. I'd say it merits a
| NSFW tag but it's kind of obvious from the title.
|
| > Pinyan had previously lost the ability to experience
| certain sensations after a motorcycle accident, and he
| had begun to seek out increasingly extreme sexual acts
|
| Almost feel bad for the guy if it weren't for the animal
| cruelty.
| eYrKEC2 wrote:
| They more than $20k's worth of publicity from the stunt.
| Totally worth it.
| unglaublich wrote:
| Then count the fame you get for it... and it actually
| _increases_ value!
| londons_explore wrote:
| Although destroying the environment for a PR win can
| quickly turn into a PR loss when someone on twitter
| calculates how many polar bears this will kill...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That is a textbook case of buzzkill.
| jehb wrote:
| Being a buzzkill doesn't make it less true, though. I'm
| disappointed to see the parent comment being downvoted.
| [deleted]
| samstave wrote:
| A single plane has less of an ability to " _Destro The
| Environment_ " than a Single Politician.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| While that's true that no individual action matters, it's
| also true that our individual actions taken as a whole
| has an impact on the world, and because of that, we must
| treat individual actions as though they had the impact of
| collective actions.
| mlindner wrote:
| Collective individuals have simply no way of affecting
| the environment in any major way simply by collective
| behavior change. The only thing that will change things
| is positive policies that encourage good behavior through
| positive methods.
|
| For example by making electric vehicles attractive Tesla
| did more for the environment than possibly any single
| company ever by causing the shift to EVs in the general
| populace's psyche.
|
| Alternatively by doing things like banning plastic straws
| you instead get malicious compliance and dislike for the
| policies. That will never change things in a positive
| direction in the long term.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| In that case we are basically fucked. Nobody is going to
| be elected on a platform of banning things that are fun.
| mlindner wrote:
| Well polar bears are not affected first off, and secondly
| the amount of CO2 is basically nothing compared to even
| the daily world CO2 production.
| repiret wrote:
| You pay a 747 pilot way more than $50/hour.
|
| https://www.aviationinterviews.com/pilot/payrates/united-
| par...
| [deleted]
| Baxxter wrote:
| Back of envelope ... 1 gallon of fuel per second [0], 2.5 hrs,
| $2.5 per gallon = $22,500
|
| That's uh...pretty rough and I'm not a flight buff, but wanted
| to do the bare minimum for the exercise.
|
| [0]
| https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/qu...
|
| * edited the ppg
| paxys wrote:
| Costs them $0 if they just bill the customer who the delivery
| was for.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Only if the customer wants to pay extra for the stunt
| somat wrote:
| I don't know anything about flight deliveries. But, including a
| set of basic flight maneuvers makes sense to me. In which case
| they would be maneuvering anyway and they decided to go out in
| style. Big salutes to them who set it up.
| jaywalk wrote:
| By the time the plane is delivered, it has already been fully
| flight tested.
| drjasonharrison wrote:
| Yeah, you don't want to find the problems on the delivery
| flight.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Better then than on the first passenger filled flight.
| Don't think of it as the delivery flight. Think of it is
| final test flight
| rootusrootus wrote:
| This is a cargo plane, though, I don't think a passenger
| 747 has been built in a while.
| dylan604 wrote:
| You can tell nobody from Nascar was involved as there are
| both left AND right turns.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Fun fact: not all nascar tracks are left turn only.
| someweirdperson wrote:
| I'm guessing it is in the range of 50..60k. The sibling posts
| come up with lower values, including only fuel, ignoring the
| cost of the required regular (flight hours in this case)
| maintenance.
| jleahy wrote:
| (ignore)
| Tepix wrote:
| Decommissioned? It's brand new.
| [deleted]
| CraigJPerry wrote:
| Wisdom of crowds and all that, i'm guessing around $30k ?
|
| My working was:
|
| +2 hours (a path that should take 0.5 hours took 2.5h according
| to flight radar)
|
| According to a random aviation site, an unspecified 747
| revision at unspecified altitude with unspecified engines burns
| 4 litres per second, so take that with a bag of salt!
|
| Jet A1 fuel at $1/litre-ish
|
| $30k-ish ?
| tyincdyon wrote:
| Former pilot here: $3-4 million easy. FAA regulations alone
| require $500k per sky-number drawn by any aircraft [1]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKOFTEN
| [deleted]
| horsawlarway wrote:
| You might have the wrong link there.
| beckingz wrote:
| Citation needed?
|
| Your link is for an old covert drug research program?
| gwill wrote:
| i think you either linked to the wrong article or i
| misunderstood a joke
| ryanisnan wrote:
| I think the link you are looking for is
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/PEBCAK.
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| So, how does this work? Do you plot this via the Auto Pilot?
| Like, inserting a list of waypoints?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| You can literally just give the flight computer a list of lat-
| lons and have it fly arbitrary routes in the sky in 3D.
| sokoloff wrote:
| If I was going to do it with my avionics, I'd do it with GPS
| user-defined-waypoints driving the auto-pilot.
| blantonl wrote:
| Given that they flew this below 15k feet, not requiring the
| full IFR flight plan which would be required above that
| altitude, I suspect they might have hand flown this out by
| Moses lake by following a magenta line on a map.
|
| They could have also just programmed the FMS with the waypoints
| and the plane flew itself.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| Yeah even one step easier is following the flight director
| that tells you where to point the plane from a first person
| view.
| jdiez17 wrote:
| Some of the turns are way too tight to be done by the
| autopilot. But it looks very regular, so I would suspect some
| custom control system was used. Would also be interested to
| know how they did this!
| jaywalk wrote:
| > Some of the turns are way too tight to be done by the
| autopilot.
|
| Not sure what you're looking at, but this is absolutely
| incorrect.
|
| > I would suspect some custom control system was used.
|
| Not a chance in hell.
| blantonl wrote:
| _custom control system_
|
| This would be the very last explanation in aviation for sure.
| Like, dead last in terms of speculation.
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| What a shitty website. Throws up a modal dialog that says:
| This site uses cookies By clicking "Accept all
| cookies", you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to
| enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our
| marketing efforts.
|
| No option to decline some or all cookies. No option to keep using
| the website without clicking accept. I hope some European sues
| them and wins under GDPR.
| voakbasda wrote:
| Does the GPDR even apply here? If it does, maybe I should start
| blocking all of Europe's netblocks....
| seszett wrote:
| Why would they put such a message if they didn't have the
| GDPR in mind?
|
| I think like many other (mainly US) sites it's partly to make
| a statement, and partly misguided belief that they have to
| put some kind of message.
|
| In reality it would be safer to ignore GDPR if you believe it
| shouldn't apply to you because you're not EU based. If you're
| doing something specifically for EU visitors then it becomes
| clear you're also targeting them as visitors and then you
| have to comply with GDPR (this popup isn't compliant).
| someweirdperson wrote:
| Seems fair. Why should they treat their (voluntary) web-
| visitors any better than the owners/pilots of the aircraft they
| collect data from without any form of consent?
| mrchucklepants wrote:
| The flight data is broadcast from the aircraft. Anyone with a
| receiver can listen. There is no expectation of privacy
| regarding this data.
| Fauntleroy wrote:
| Y'all stop downvoting this, it's a legitimate complaint.
| addandsubtract wrote:
| Not sure what device you're on, but on desktop Firefox, I see a
| "Show Purposes" button and have the option to configure which
| cookies I want and don't.
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| Huh. I'm also on desktop Firefox (Windows), and I didn't see
| that button. But now 8 minutes later, I don't see the cookie
| popup at all.
| adenozine wrote:
| That's badass. A proper send off.
| mulmen wrote:
| Boeing does a lot of this actually. Here's another 747-8F drawing
| a massive "12" over the state of Washington to celebrate the
| Seahawks reaching the Super Bowl.
|
| https://www.travelcodex.com/seattle-seahawks-boeing-747-800/
| walrus01 wrote:
| Also in eastern washington weird things drawn in the sky, google
| "eastern washington sky dicks" for a somewhat more phallic image
| representation.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=eastern+w...
|
| The Whidbey NAS pilots who did it got in trouble, as I recall.
|
| https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the-u-s-navy-released-tr...
| cale- wrote:
| Reminds me of Qantas's final 747 route.
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-53509361
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-01 23:00 UTC)