Pics of the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Pics of the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 7/13/2008 2:14:33 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
<---Yup, my favorite.

Oh man, the Pan Am fleet... I miss them

I used to remember all the "Clipper" names I flew on. Two that stick in my mind was "Clipper Witch Of The Seas" and "Clipper Seven Seas"

I never did get the name of the one that crashed in Lockerbe Scotland though. I remember that was the week I flew from LA to NY on Pan Am.

Clipper Maid of the Seas

It was the 15th 747 ever built, and the second delivered to Pan Am.

Posted: 7/13/2008 2:36:05 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
<---Yup, my favorite.

Oh man, the Pan Am fleet... I miss them

I used to remember all the "Clipper" names I flew on. Two that stick in my mind was "Clipper Witch Of The Seas" and "Clipper Seven Seas"

I never did get the name of the one that crashed in Lockerbe Scotland though. I remember that was the week I flew from LA to NY on Pan Am.

Clipper Maid of the Seas

It was the 15th 747 ever built, and the second delivered to Pan Am.

sounds familiar... dont know if I flew on it or not.. (age lets me forget) My dad worked for Pan Am so I am an airplane nut.

My friend's daughter just came to visit last night, she is a flight attendant for Delta. This is her first month... and she is having a great time.

Posted: 7/13/2008 2:38:01 PM EDT

[#3]

Nice pics

Posted: 7/13/2008 2:56:15 PM EDT

[#4]

Posted: 7/13/2008 3:03:52 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Dont see many of these big jets around anymore though.

You must not get out very much. Try sitting in the terminal at Narita (Tokyo) or Hong Kong. 95% of all the aircraft there are 747-400's. Thick as flies. Granted the US market had changed quite a bit, but you can still catch a 747 long haul out of any major airport (ORD, MEM, LAX, MSP, JFK, SEA, DFW, etc)

I dont see many of these jets anymore..Why the

like a teenage girl?
Ive been to about 20 major airports in the past 2 years flying and have not seen a single one..mostly lax,SLC, and dal..

Your comment shows ignorance, as these aircraft are everywhere, apparenty wherever you aren't.

Dude your lame.Cause i have not seen them. This is what you wrote except different scenario..
"I have not seen my mother", then me calling ignorant becuase she does exist and allover the place, just apperantly wherever your not.
Ok your an idiot & bitch, thanks for proving it to everyone..Loser

Oh and all the airports you "bragged about" being at..LOL

Posted: 7/13/2008 3:04:23 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Clipper Maid of the Seas

It was the 15th 747 ever built, and the second delivered to Pan Am.

The first two agents in my agency killed on duty were on that flight.

O'Connor

Lariviere

Posted: 7/13/2008 3:06:30 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Clipper Maid of the Seas

It was the 15th 747 ever built, and the second delivered to Pan Am.

The first two agents in my agency killed on duty were on that flight.

the horror those people faced. I remember one reporter said, many were aware and alive all the way down

Posted: 7/13/2008 3:16:55 PM EDT

[#8]

The first 747 on display at the Museum of Flight in Seattle:

Posted: 7/13/2008 3:33:33 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This went Mach 1. Boeing engineers told the FAA it would have come apart so the offical NTSB report lists .98 Mach. All the FDR data said 1.01, my fathers friend was flying at the time.

cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/8/2/2/0154228.jpg

How the hell did that thing get to Mach 1?

Raw power.

You have to understand that the maximum power needs for any aircraft are on takeoff, where they have to accelerate quickly and climb at the same time down at low level where the atmosphere is thick and drag is highest.

Practically all commerical airliners cruise at around mach .8 or so, with the 747s cruising at about mach .85, at cruising altitude which is 30,000 feet or greater, where the air
is thin, the engines are at their most efficient, and drag is lowest.

So, what you end up with is an airplane that's cruising along at .85 mach with the throttles drawn back nearly to IDLE. Practically every modern airliner has the power needed
to break mach 1 if you were willing to gamble your life on it.

One limitation on flying a passenger jet is how steeply you can descend, because if
your descent angle is too great, even with the engines at idle it'll break mach 1.

Most passenger jets CAN break mach 1 but aren't supposed to as they obviously
aren't designed for supersonic flight. But they do have the power to do it. Fortunately,
they're always engineered with built-in safety factors and can tolerate overspeed
conditions for a little while. And the general consensus is that Boeing aircraft have
larger safety margins than do Airbuses.

CJ

Wow, I had no idea that was the case. Thanks.

Posted: 7/13/2008 3:58:47 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Dont see many of these big jets around anymore though.

You must not get out very much. Try sitting in the terminal at Narita (Tokyo) or Hong Kong. 95% of all the aircraft there are 747-400's. Thick as flies. Granted the US market had changed quite a bit, but you can still catch a 747 long haul out of any major airport (ORD, MEM, LAX, MSP, JFK, SEA, DFW, etc)

Yes, all of us feel like hanging around terminals in Tokyo or Hong Kong for no reason at all.

Posted: 7/13/2008 4:06:36 PM EDT

[#11]

yep, i use to fly back and forth from the states to hong kong.. in the 90's..

Posted: 7/13/2008 4:45:44 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
The first 747 on display at the Museum of Flight in Seattle:
home.comcast.net/~fishkepr/First747.jpg

You would think they would clean that baby

Posted: 7/13/2008 4:51:10 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
yep, i use to fly back and forth from the states to hong kong.. in the 90's..

flew back about a week ago... 747 for 12 hours.. I wanted to jump out about the time we past Guam.

Posted: 7/13/2008 4:53:28 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
i33.tinypic.com/2rlymxe.jpg

These are bigger..
Raise you one Anotov 225 and a Buran.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Buran_on_An-225_%28Le_Bourget_1989%29_1.JPEG/800px-Buran_on_An-225_%28Le_Bourget_1989%29_1.JPEG

The first two actually work

Posted: 7/13/2008 5:12:51 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Any one know a cheap anesthesiologist?

Tylenol PM worked great for me on a couple of trips from Korea to Atlanta.

I favor Unisom. Some frequent transoceanic travelers use prescription sleep aids, as well.

That will be $300 for the consultation fee, please.

Posted: 7/13/2008 5:20:15 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Any one know a cheap anesthesiologist?

Tylenol PM worked great for me on a couple of trips from Korea to Atlanta.

I favor Unisom. Some frequent transoceanic travelers use prescription sleep aids, as well.

That will be $300 for the consultation fee, please.

I was thinking Ambien. But with my luck I'll turn into an Ambien zombie and end up waking up in Gitmo.

I think I'll try the Unisom. You can send the bill for the consultation to Las Vegas, Nv. 89102. I'm sure I'll get it sooner or later.

Thanks.

Posted: 7/13/2008 6:59:42 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

I think I'll try the Unisom. You can send the bill for the consultation to Las Vegas, Nv. 89102. I'm sure I'll get it sooner or later.

Thanks.

My brother lives near LV and answers to the name of Knuckles. He'll be around to collect.

FWIW, wifey's uncle was a high-level exec who covered pretty much all of eastern Asia. Ambien worked well for him, too.

Posted: 7/13/2008 8:26:48 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I think I'll try the Unisom. You can send the bill for the consultation to Las Vegas, Nv. 89102. I'm sure I'll get it sooner or later.

Thanks.

My brother lives near LV and answers to the name of Knuckles. He'll be around to collect.

FWIW, wifey's uncle was a high-level exec who covered pretty much all of eastern Asia. Ambien worked well for him, too.

I have heard it works well as I know a couple people who have prescriptions. I just don't want to end up sleepwalking around the cabin and having an air marshall going all JBT on my ass.

Posted: 7/13/2008 8:44:30 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Dont see many of these big jets around anymore though.

You must not get out very much. Try sitting in the terminal at Narita (Tokyo) or Hong Kong. 95% of all the aircraft there are 747-400's. Thick as flies. Granted the US market had changed quite a bit, but you can still catch a 747 long haul out of any major airport (ORD, MEM, LAX, MSP, JFK, SEA, DFW, etc)

Yes, all of us feel like hanging around terminals in Tokyo or Hong Kong for no reason at all.

When you are hitting Mainland China 2 - 3 times a year, you fly on 747's and you have 4 hour layovers in Tokyo and Hong Kong, WTF?.

I do realize however that some of you never get past the city limits.

Posted: 7/13/2008 8:49:37 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This went Mach 1. Boeing engineers told the FAA it would have come apart so the offical NTSB report lists .98 Mach. All the FDR data said 1.01, my fathers friend was flying at the time.

cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/8/2/2/0154228.jpg

How the hell did that thing get to Mach 1?

Raw power.

You have to understand that the maximum power needs for any aircraft are on takeoff, where they have to accelerate quickly and climb at the same time down at low level where the atmosphere is thick and drag is highest.

Practically all commerical airliners cruise at around mach .8 or so, with the 747s cruising at about mach .85, at cruising altitude which is 30,000 feet or greater, where the air
is thin, the engines are at their most efficient, and drag is lowest.

So, what you end up with is an airplane that's cruising along at .85 mach with the throttles drawn back nearly to IDLE. Practically every modern airliner has the power needed
to break mach 1 if you were willing to gamble your life on it.

One limitation on flying a passenger jet is how steeply you can descend, because if
your descent angle is too great, even with the engines at idle it'll break mach 1.

Most passenger jets CAN break mach 1 but aren't supposed to as they obviously
aren't designed for supersonic flight. But they do have the power to do it. Fortunately,
they're always engineered with built-in safety factors and can tolerate overspeed
conditions for a little while. And the general consensus is that Boeing aircraft have
larger safety margins than do Airbuses.

CJ

Wow, I had no idea that was the case. Thanks.

"Coffin Corner" says no,commercial A/C are not designed to go over Mach 1,especially in level flt. Only confirmed flt over Mach 1 was set by Canadien Pacific DC-8-40,in 1960.

It's unconfirmed whether Delta CV-880,on it's first flt,went over Mach 1,on it's del. flt,again,in 1960.

Posted: 7/13/2008 9:00:07 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Dont see many of these big jets around anymore though.

You must not get out very much. Try sitting in the terminal at Narita (Tokyo) or Hong Kong. 95% of all the aircraft there are 747-400's. Thick as flies. Granted the US market had changed quite a bit, but you can still catch a 747 long haul out of any major airport (ORD, MEM, LAX, MSP, JFK, SEA, DFW, etc)

QFT. They are still the workhorse for long haul APAC flights. I have crossed the Pacific numerous times in 747s, though the 777, another beautiful Boeing product, is used on the over-the-pole nonstops to NY from HK.

Posted: 7/13/2008 9:10:51 PM EDT

[#22]

I have been on 747s many many times. Saw an A380 the other month at Sydney airport.

Longest flight I have been on was 15hrs. My friend was just on a flight from Sydney to LAX. My dad got home the other day from Stuttgart. It was an 8hr trip from Syd to Singapore, then a LONG trip from Singapore to Stuttgart

Posted: 7/13/2008 9:15:56 PM EDT

[#23]

I'm flying Cathay's long haul next month to HK. I'm looking forward to trying their new lie flat Biz class seat/bed.

I don't care for Chinese domestics though, Air China, China Eastern and China Southern scare the crap out of me, 737 or not!

Last trip to Beijing, was directly over the North Pole, and then over Russia. Kinda freaks me out that in 1980 I was (redacted), and now I'm flying unimpeded over the same country. I guess it's the spoils of (cold) war.

Posted: 7/13/2008 9:19:58 PM EDT

[#24]

surprised no one has posted a picture of the whalejet yet.

Posted: 7/13/2008 9:22:57 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Dont see many of these big jets around anymore though.

You must not get out very much. Try sitting in the terminal at Narita (Tokyo) or Hong Kong. 95% of all the aircraft there are 747-400's. Thick as flies. Granted the US market had changed quite a bit, but you can still catch a 747 long haul out of any major airport (ORD, MEM, LAX, MSP, JFK, SEA, DFW, etc)

I've flown the 747s from:

DTW-NRT
DTW-NGO
DTW-AMS

I think Northwest still has 20 or so in the fleet. Twelve or so are for passengers, the rest for cargo.

And soon to be Delta's,funny,Delta has always been leery regarding the 747,I guess flying around with a half-empty cabin will do that. See that Shuttle hauler? That's an old American 747,and if it's one of the early one's,it would have had a piano bar installed at one time.

Posted: 7/13/2008 9:28:53 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
"Coffin Corner" says no,commercial A/C are not designed to go over Mach 1,especially in level flt. Only confirmed flt over Mach 1 was set by Canadien Pacific DC-8-40,in 1960.

It's unconfirmed whether Delta CV-880,on it's first flt,went over Mach 1,on it's del. flt,again,in 1960.

You are correct that no commercial passenger liner is designed to exceed Mach 1, (excluding the Concorde and TU-144) but they are engineered with adequate safety factors to allow aircraft survival for a "brief" time if they inadvertently hit or slightly exceed Mach.

I've got the records from my father's files from when he was flying KC-135s in the USAF,
pertaining to an event that he was directly involved in.

To make the story a brief one, he had to take the KC-135 up to mach .95 in order to match speeds and tank with an F-104 that had experienced a mechanical failure that
left it with no engine but did leave it with a working afterburner, so that's what the
104 pilot used, in conjunction with full speed brakes to try to stay slow enough that
getting hooked up to the tanker was possible.

They made the hookup and my father took the 104 all the way to final approach at the
nearest available runway. (This was coming in from a transatlantic crossing.)

The 104 pilot received a Distinguished Flying Cross for his performance, and my father
received an Air Force Commendation medal for his role. And the stack of lettters of
congratulation written to my father for his performance in the event is a considerable one,
from quite a few high ranking officers and officials.

My father told me more than once that even the earliest A model KC-135 had more than
enough power to exceed mach at cruising altitude. That's why there IS a Vne (Velocity, never exceed) for the type. Because it CAN go faster than you ever want it to.

To accomplish that refueling hookup in this particular emergency, if he wasn't at Vne,
he was damned near it.

At an indicated mach .95, it's probable that certain parts of the airframe were actually
in supersonic airflow.

CJ

Posted: 7/13/2008 9:33:19 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
i33.tinypic.com/2rlymxe.jpg

These are bigger..
Raise you one Anotov 225 and a Buran.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Buran_on_An-225_%28Le_Bourget_1989%29_1.JPEG/800px-Buran_on_An-225_%28Le_Bourget_1989%29_1.JPEG

Ant-225 is a big bitch and is capable of carrying the Buran on its back and its boosters in the cargo bay...Too bad there is only ONE (1) flying aircraft and ONE (1) spare UNCOMPLETED airframe.

Posted: 7/13/2008 9:39:01 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Giant_planes_comparison.svg/429px-Giant_planes_comparison.svg.png

Spruce Goose
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/H-4_Hercules_2.jpg/300px-H-4_Hercules_2.jpg

The Lun,Spasatel
forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=14871&d=1075971233

farm1.static.flickr.com/175/483490088_0302a53719.jpg

farm1.static.flickr.com/221/483273860_b9f659976e.jpg

farm1.static.flickr.com/174/483318911_94882e879d.jpg

farm1.static.flickr.com/232/483312136_4116a1a2f1.jpg

Atlantis 1
farm1.static.flickr.com/172/483298595_8215e7b34a.jpg

www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/05/ekranoplans-showcase.html

While technically still airplanes, I dont think its fair to compare ground effect vehicles because they have no where near the same ceiling as normal aircraft.

Posted: 7/13/2008 9:40:18 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
I'm flying Cathay's long haul next month to HK. I'm looking forward to trying their new lie flat Biz class seat/bed.

I don't care for Chinese domestics though, Air China, China Eastern and China Southern scare the crap out of me, 737 or not!

Last trip to Beijing, was directly over the North Pole, and then over Russia. Kinda freaks me out that in 1980 I was (redacted), and now I'm flying unimpeded over the same country. I guess it's the spoils of (cold) war.

My policy is to avoid any airline with the word 'China' in its name. If Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines don't fly there, I don't need to go.

Cathay is one of the best airlines in the world. I think you will enjoy your flight

Posted: 7/13/2008 9:53:27 PM EDT

[#30]

Strenthwise? Oh yeah,the airframe will take the stress quite well. What the problem is,is when an airliner goes close to Mach 1,the sonic wave(pics of it are seen on the wing of a P-51)will shift the CG to the rear of the wing,resulting in an uncontrolled decent. This has happened many times to B-47s,and in a few instances,to 707s.

The 747 is designed to actually climb,and bleed off excess airspeed,when this happens. The Boeing folks really did their homework,which is why it's still in production(the 747-8 will be the next model).

F-104,helluva fighter,until something bad happened!

Posted: 7/13/2008 9:54:52 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
i33.tinypic.com/2rlymxe.jpg

Seen that headed to Tinker before

Posted: 7/13/2008 11:52:31 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
<---Yup, my favorite.

Oh man, the Pan Am fleet... I miss them

I used to remember all the "Clipper" names I flew on. Two that stick in my mind was "Clipper Witch Of The Seas" and "Clipper Seven Seas"

I never did get the name of the one that crashed in Lockerbe Scotland though. I remember that was the week I flew from LA to NY on Pan Am.

Clipper Maid of the Seas

It was the 15th 747 ever built, and the second delivered to Pan Am.

I flew on the last Pan-Am clipper into Guam. They borrowed the record billfish from the clipper club and flew it out of there just before the Gov of Guam Police arrived. They apparently considered that since it was mounted on their wall it belonged to the. The Pan Am guys felt it belonged to them. They started to close the doors and then sent a picked strike team in, pulled it off the wall, into the plane and up the stirs. closed the doors and taxied away.

Posted: 7/13/2008 11:59:21 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Dont see many of these big jets around anymore though.

You must not get out very much. Try sitting in the terminal at Narita (Tokyo) or Hong Kong. 95% of all the aircraft there are 747-400's. Thick as flies. Granted the US market had changed quite a bit, but you can still catch a 747 long haul out of any major airport (ORD, MEM, LAX, MSP, JFK, SEA, DFW, etc)

I dont see many of these jets anymore..Why the

like a teenage girl?
Ive been to about 20 major airports in the past 2 years flying and have not seen a single one..mostly lax,SLC, and dal..

Your comment shows ignorance, as these aircraft are everywhere, apparenty wherever you aren't.

Dude your lame.Cause i have not seen them. This is what you wrote except different scenario..
"I have not seen my mother", then me calling ignorant becuase she does exist and allover the place, just apperantly wherever your not.
Ok your an idiot & bitch, thanks for proving it to everyone..Loser

Oh and all the airports you "bragged about" being at..LOL

Well how about just LAX, I see them all the time flying in. I would expect that if one was to look carefully there are close to a dozen on the ground all the time, just at the international terminal, and and several down at the air freight terminals. They are restricted to the north runways so if you never get a look over there you might not see them But they sure as hell are there. SLC probably never sees them but any real international airport is going to see them.

Narita, every time I flew through there it was like a 747 farm, that was just about all you ever saw there.

Posted: 7/14/2008 12:03:37 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
surprised no one has posted a picture of the whalejet yet.

If it aint Boeing,,, I ain't going!

ETA: I am sorry but that is one hideous looking aircraft

Posted: 7/14/2008 12:04:03 AM EDT

[#35]

Only plane with a piano bar I flew in was the Continental DC-10, that we got because Pan Am stopped flying to Guam with our reserve units flight in. They had a guitar player in the crew and relied on passengers for piano playing.

Posted: 7/15/2008 9:01:40 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Dont see many of these big jets around anymore though.

You must not get out very much. Try sitting in the terminal at Narita (Tokyo) or Hong Kong. 95% of all the aircraft there are 747-400's. Thick as flies. Granted the US market had changed quite a bit, but you can still catch a 747 long haul out of any major airport (ORD, MEM, LAX, MSP, JFK, SEA, DFW, etc)

I dont see many of these jets anymore..Why the

like a teenage girl?
Ive been to about 20 major airports in the past 2 years flying and have not seen a single one..mostly lax,SLC, and dal..

Your comment shows ignorance, as these aircraft are everywhere, apparenty wherever you aren't.

Dude your lame.Cause i have not seen them. This is what you wrote except different scenario..
"I have not seen my mother", then me calling ignorant becuase she does exist and allover the place, just apperantly wherever your not.
Ok your an idiot & bitch, thanks for proving it to everyone..Loser

Oh and all the airports you "bragged about" being at..LOL

Sigh.. you can always tell when schools out, every know-it-all with a smart ass has to show it off to every one.

Son.. I got more flight hours in Navy P-3's than you spent on your mommy's tit, That and an international business career that spans 24 years or so has allowed me to travel quite a bit. Good thread topic, so thanks for that, but it doesn't change the impression that you're an asshole. Tell the truth, have you ever been outside the boundaries of the trailer park?

To everyone else.. sorry about the impending lock. I just can't stand incompetent posting and being called an idiot, bitch and a loser - Someone's daddy should have made sure that their children were taught how to behave civilly..

Posted: 7/16/2008 6:17:29 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Dont see many of these big jets around anymore though.

You must not get out very much. Try sitting in the terminal at Narita (Tokyo) or Hong Kong. 95% of all the aircraft there are 747-400's. Thick as flies. Granted the US market had changed quite a bit, but you can still catch a 747 long haul out of any major airport (ORD, MEM, LAX, MSP, JFK, SEA, DFW, etc)

I dont see many of these jets anymore..Why the

like a teenage girl?
Ive been to about 20 major airports in the past 2 years flying and have not seen a single one..mostly lax,SLC, and dal..

Your comment shows ignorance, as these aircraft are everywhere, apparenty wherever you aren't.

Dude your lame.Cause i have not seen them. This is what you wrote except different scenario..
"I have not seen my mother", then me calling ignorant becuase she does exist and allover the place, just apperantly wherever your not.
Ok your an idiot & bitch, thanks for proving it to everyone..Loser

Oh and all the airports you "bragged about" being at..LOL

Sigh.. you can always tell when schools out, every know-it-all with a smart ass has to show it off to every one.

Son.. I got more flight hours in Navy P-3's than you spent on your mommy's tit, That and an international business career that spans 24 years or so has allowed me to travel quite a bit. Good thread topic, so thanks for that, but it doesn't change the impression that you're an asshole. Tell the truth, have you ever been outside the boundaries of the trailer park?

To everyone else.. sorry about the impending lock. I just can't stand incompetent posting and being called an idiot, bitch and a loser - Someone's daddy should have made sure that their children were taught how to behave civilly..

Hmmm being civil I was not the one posting

first, then get ignorrant,that was you..Who is the smart ass again?

Now your going ot whine to amod cause you cant take you handed out. Read this thread to see you rude comments you made first..Makes people wonder.

So if I lived in a trailer park that makes me inferior to someone who does not or any other person who does sit around in toyoko and Hong kong airports "planespotting" such as you, or anyone ese who does see them? How about my children, are they brnaded trash for living in a trailer (if they did)? Lots of value per squarefoot im told in a mobile home.

Thanks for your service in the millitary though..

Posted: 7/16/2008 6:32:50 AM EDT

[#38]

height=8

Quoted:
The Boeing folks really did their homework,which is why it's still in production(the 747-8 will be the next model).

Working on upholding the legacy with the 747-8 Intercontinental as we speak.

Posted: 7/16/2008 6:55:04 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
surprised no one has posted a picture of the whalejet yet.

www.abc.net.au/reslib/200710/r194207_736065.jpg

If it aint Boeing,,, I ain't going!

ETA: I am sorry but that is one hideous looking aircraft

I agree. It may be a good aircraft in every imaginable way, but it's not a good LOOKING aircraft. Th4e entire nose section is simply ugly. The rest of it is OK.

I have sometimes wondered what the performance and drag penalty is when the aircraft is designed with the landing gear in a fairing outside of the fuselage cylinder, as compared to storing the gear in the main fuselage, having no fairing, but of course losing some
internal storage capacity as a result.

CJ

Posted: 7/16/2008 7:30:32 AM EDT

[#40]

height=8

Quoted:
This went Mach 1. Boeing engineers told the FAA it would have come apart so the offical NTSB report lists .98 Mach. All the FDR data said 1.01, my fathers friend was flying at the time. hock.gif

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/8/2/2/0154228.jpg

Bear in mind that Evergreen is essentially Air America, and staffed with a bunch of cowboys. If anybody was gonna take a 747 supersonic, it would be that crew.

Seen them every day for the last 18 years.

Posted: 7/16/2008 7:32:08 AM EDT

[#41]

/boots up Flight Simulator FX.

Posted: 7/16/2008 7:45:36 AM EDT

[#42]

I see these on a daily basis. I live and work near MSP. Still, what an amazing aircraft to watch take off or land.

I'm excited for the 787's. I think for a passenger aircraft, they are really nice looking.

Posted: 7/16/2008 8:15:20 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
<BLAH, BLAH, BLAH>

<BLAH, BLAH, BLAH>

<BLAH, BLAH, BLAH>

<BLAH, BLAH, BLAH>..

OMG guys... chill the hell out. It is a thread... On the internet. that's all.

NOW! Back to the GREATEST aircraft EVER BUILT!

Posted: 7/16/2008 8:29:32 AM EDT

[#44]

I have never flown on a 747.

Jumbos for me were always DC10s and L-1011 once as a kid.

Posted: 7/16/2008 8:33:55 AM EDT

[#45]

that evergeeen 747 did 1.084

I think a member here knows the crew that did it

Posted: 7/16/2008 8:40:33 AM EDT

[#46]

Beautiful, Amazing plane and incredibly versatile airframe.

Joe Sutter is an absolute genius

Posted: 7/16/2008 8:40:55 AM EDT

[#47]

If you want to see some good pics of all sorts of aircraft try www.airliners.net.

Posted: 7/16/2008 9:11:56 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
I'm excited for the 787's. I think for a passenger aircraft, they are really nice looking.

My wife's uncle is the chief engineer for the 787 program.

Posted: 7/16/2008 11:42:02 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm excited for the 787's. I think for a passenger aircraft, they are really nice looking.

My wife's uncle is the chief engineer for the 787 program.

Well, tell him good job, and we can't wait for Northwest(err, soon to be Delta) to get theirs in MSP.

Posted: 7/16/2008 12:24:27 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm excited for the 787's. I think for a passenger aircraft, they are really nice looking.

My wife's uncle is the chief engineer for the 787 program.

Well, tell him good job, and we can't wait for Northwest(err, soon to be Delta) to get theirs in MSP.

I'd be surprised if we kept the 787 orders. We're going to be so busy trimming down the fleet from over 950 aircraft, we won't want anymore aircraft coming in.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Pics of the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet (Page 2 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us