Why you should never drive behind a 747...

[guionM]

A demonstration:

[FAPTurbo]

[XM DUDE]

A demonstration:

191378[/snapback]

That's just too funny,and they chose a ford, nice.

[sciguy_0504]

Great video. There is some good stuff on YouTube.

[trinacriabob]

The first one is funny....hysterically funny. I remember that, just in idle mode, the engines were blowing the grass next to the runway flat while we were taxing in Munich for the 12 hour trip to San Francisco aboard Lufthansa.

The ones of the Alitalia 747 at Los Angeles and the United 747 at San Francisco are...well....orgasms!

I could sit at the airport all day watching '47s take off...and, on a few occasions, I have.

[capriceman]

how old is the 747 arent they from the 70's? and do they make new ones. since those ones still flying are pretty old.

[loki]

how old is the 747 arent they from the 70's? and do they make new ones. since those ones still flying are pretty old.

191567[/snapback]

the newest are 777s, and i don't know if they're out in any big numbers...

[sciguy_0504]

how old is the 747 arent they from the 70's? and do they make new ones. since those ones still flying are pretty old.

191567[/snapback]

The 747-400 is the most recent one (starting being manufactured in the 80's) and you can tell them apart from the older models due to their lengthened top deck. The 747-8 will be coming out in a few years, I believe, to battle the A380 from Airbus.

[capriceman]

Why do we need planes like the A380? there just a waste of materials in my eyes.

[Flybrian]

The A380 is an albatross and many already realize it.

The next revolution in air travel are long distance point-to-point flights - i.e. from Chicago to Cairo - that break free from the failed hub-and-spoke system. Boeing's 787 Dreamliner is tailored for that sort of environment while the A380 builds on the outmoded principle that bigger is better.

The world's major airports are scaled off the 747 and most authorities firmly stated decades ago that they would not refit to accomodate larger aircraft. The cost of resizing an airport - runways, taxiways, aprons, jetways, terminals, etc - is enormous and with urbanization encroaching on (and naiively bitching) airport easements, many of the world's premier airports simply can't/won't do it.

There's a reason why the MD-XX and the double-decker 747 never got off the drawing board in the past and those are part of it.

I find the Dreamliner to be a much more intelligent aircraft anyway. Built with bleeding edge technology, designed around the needs of airlines, renewed focus on passenger comfort vs. the cattle car cram-'em-in-and-let-God-sort-'em-out mentality driving the A380.

And if you detect a latent dislike for the A380, you're right. I don't like the plane, I don't like the concept behind it, I don't like the company that makes it, and I don't like how Airbus and EADS as a whole operates as a quasi-governmental consortium that loves to publically sock it to Boeing about their US Air Force contracts.

[capriceman]

Boeing did make some major mistakes in the past though. To me the worls best planes where made by Lockhead and Grumman (sp) F4U and Hellcat.

[trinacriabob]

how old is the 747 arent they from the 70's? and do they make new ones. since those ones still flying are pretty old.

191567[/snapback]

OK....and Flybry can correct me as necessary....

the 100 series (small hump, 3 windows) took the skies for the first time in 1969 and went into commercial service with Pan Am being the lauch customer.

the 200 series (small hump, continuous windows upstairs) came out a few years later, with the bulk of the orders coming in between 1976 and 1982, I think. They sold 2 to 3 times as many of these than they did the 100-series.

the 300 series (extended upper deck, no winglets) came out a few years later. Not as long lived because the 400 series eclipsed it

the 400 series (extended upper deck, winglets) took to the skies on its test flight in February 1989 with Northwest Airlines being the launch customer. This has been the most prevalent and the best of the lot. Fuel economy is up, as is power...200 series engines put out 41,000 lbs. of thrust whereas the 400 series engines put out 56,000 to 58,000 lbs. of thrust. The number of controls has been drastically reduced from the 100 and 200 series. It's also the best looking of the 747 family.

They are planning slightly bigger -500 and -600 models in response to the A380, thus using their investment in the development of this plane rather than a from-scratch effort like the A380.

God, I love this plane. And, I agree, I think the A380 is interesting but it is TOO big, TOO heavy and TOO ugly.

[The O.C.]

The A380 is an albatross and many already realize it.

And if you detect a latent dislike for the A380, you're right. I don't like the plane, I don't like the concept behind it, I don't like the company that makes it, and I don't like how Airbus and EADS as a whole operates as a quasi-governmental consortium that loves to publically sock it to Boeing about their US Air Force contracts.

191844[/snapback]

Your dislike is somewhat misguided.

The A380 is PERFECT for the asian market......where priorities demand a very-high-capacity aircraft in the 500+ seat range.

As a result, and due to the different markets, don't expect to see many A380s here unless they are parked in Los Angeles inbetween pan-pacific flights.....

The asian and middle-east markets will take up the VAST majority of A380 orders.

Not a single north american airline has signed up for one......

[Drew Dowdell]

Your dislike is somewhat misguided.

The A380 is PERFECT for the asian market......where priorities demand a very-high-capacity aircraft in the 500+ seat range.

As a result, and due to the different markets, don't expect to see many A380s here unless they are parked in Los Angeles inbetween pan-pacific flights.....

The asian and middle-east markets will take up the VAST majority of A380 orders.

Not a single north american airline has signed up for one......

192546[/snapback]

Aren't the only airports in the US that can even handle the 380 without major upgrades, LAX, JFK, DFW, and ORD?

The only US carriers to buy A380s are UPS and FedEx at 10 each.

[trinacriabob]

Aren't the only airports in the US that can even handle the 380 without major upgrades, LAX, JFK, DFW, and ORD?

The only US carriers to buy A380s are UPS and FedEx at 10 each.

192562[/snapback]

Correct about Asian carriers....I am sure San Francisco - Hong Kong or LA - Tokyo can benefit from it. Maybe a NY-London route, as well.

Actually, I have heard that ORD and ATL don't want the plane. They don't expect as many A380 flights as the others and don't want to gear up for it.

Cool. No Americans are buying the A380. In fact, even Air Canada has ordered Boeing wide-bodies for their fleet upgrades. Still, that makes me wonder how 747 upgrades would fare if domestic purchasers were the limited audience.

[Drew Dowdell]

Still, that makes me wonder how 747 upgrades would fare if domestic purchasers were the limited audience.

192577[/snapback]

Probably fairly well. From what I understand, the A380 has rear turbulance issues that end up effecting fuel economy. As far as jumbo jets go, the '47 is fairly efficient on a fuel per person per mile measurement. The 380, not so much.

So the Americans are probably thinking: "With the A380, I'll have 500 people on the plane, but I'll spend more per person on fuel, and have to upgrade my terminal facilities, maintanence trucks and only operate them out of limited airports. With the '47, I just swap it out for one of my old models with less capacity.... and I save on fuel.... and I don't have to make any terminal upgrades"

Of course if you're Richard Bransonm you simply say to Airbus, "Is there anything you can do about my incredibly small penis?"

[Mr.Krinkle]

you see this one?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=76...+genre%3Asports

not to get too off, you might appreciate this one. great footage.

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm sure fly could have pulled it off.

on a semi-related note, aren't B-52s supposed to be able to land at up to a 45 degree angle?

[trinacriabob]

Of course if you're Richard Bransonm you simply say to Airbus, "Is there anything you can do about my incredibly small penis?"

192589[/snapback]

Is that it? This guy uses large planes in his fleet as phallic extensions?

[Mr.Krinkle]

Is that plane flying diagonally?

192630[/snapback]

thats torque, baby. just like riding down an icy road, losing control and then just saying f@#k it. hit the gas. and thats what i like about the shot. its just at that point when you here those engines spool up and the thing just f@#king straightens out. and the next thing you know its away. off like a giant steel bird.. or aluminum.