SOUND ON

Impressive


747 Rejected Take Off @ 975,000 pounds gross & 200 mph
Hey, this is Boeing, builder of the finest commercial aircraft in the world. This is video of one of the certifications.

Watch this clip at the link below and see how a brand new $305 million dollar airplane weighing 435 tons (nearly a million pounds) carrying 64 thousand gallons (242.500 liters) of jet fuel attempts an RTO (rejected takeoff).

Just to make it interesting (and for test results) the brakes fitted are down to the wear marks (rivets) meaning they are worn out.

Full brakes are applied when the aircraft reaches 200 miles an hour and NO engine thrust reversers are used. The builders (Boeing), test engineers and designers then watch to see if, when and where the airplane will stop...and so can you.


http://www.boeing.com/Features...-8_RTO_05_04_11.html

Appears you will have to cut and paste this to light it up??

This is the impressive new 747-8 Freighter and soon to be Passenger version aimed at the Airbus 380 market....this is a test series and a walk through, interestingly in the second video, the host is a client of mine!! Small world.
I see the test aircraft parked at Boeing Field driving up I-5 just south of Seattle- really impressive coming over you, truly an aluminum overcast!!
Enjoy-
Cheers,

Cool! Sent the link to my dad, a retired 747 Captain..

And now for something entirely different.

The Airbus version of the same test. Slide forward to about the 5 min mark to witness this finely tuned team in action.

That would be this one:

http://videosift.com/video/Air...Take-Off-Test-Flight

You hear the word "Shit!" over and over, as befits an Airbus.

Thanks Bill I guess my paste skills are lacking.

WOW!!
What a show....I still don't choose flights with Airbus equipment if at all possible!! That said, South African Airways has abandoned Boeing...go figure!!

I have a buddy who does a lot of traveling, and his motto is "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going."

quote:

Originally posted by 470EDDY:
WOW!!
What a show....I still don't choose flights with Airbus equipment if at all possible!! That said, South African Airways has abandoned Boeing...go figure!!

Because Airbus offer super cheap financing and lease deals. When you are a government owned entity you can do that.

So, sent the link to my dad... he enjoyed it!

Told me of a "heavy" landing he made the last year he was a 747 Captain before he retired...

Fully loaded, taking off from JFK non-stop to Athens on a summer evening. 20 minutes out of JFK a passenger has a heart attack.

He was 800,000 lbs at takeoff, and a "normal" heavy landing weight is 600,000 lbs.

It will take 45 minutes to lose enough weight to come in at 600,000 lbs, but the doc's working on the man say he won't make it that long.

He makes the decision to go into Logan "heavy"... 780,000 lbs. Makes the landing "soft" with 100 feet of runway left. They get the guy off and he makes it.

It took an hour for the brakes to cool off!

They continue on to Athens...

Pucker factor?

++2 for BOEING!!

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
So, sent the link to my dad... he enjoyed it!

Told me of a "heavy" landing he made the last year he was a 747 Captain before he retired...

Fully loaded, taking off from JFK non-stop to Athens on a summer evening. 20 minutes out of JFK a passenger has a heart attack.

He was 800,000 lbs at takeoff, and a "normal" heavy landing weight is 600,000 lbs.

It will take 45 minutes to lose enough weight to come in at 600,000 lbs, but the doc's working on the man say he won't make it that long.

He makes the decision to go into Logan "heavy"... 780,000 lbs. Makes the landing "soft" with 100 feet of runway left. They get the guy off and he makes it.

It took an hour for the brakes to cool off!

They continue on to Athens...

Pucker factor?

Your Dad flew for TWA I'm guessing?

He did, good guess!

That's fairly incredible. 100% used brakes, no reverse thrusters and 975K pounds at 200 mph. Good grief. I drive past Boeing field frequently as well and always enjoy seeing the planes out there.

I wonder what his REAL thoughts are about the TWA-747 that "exploded from fuel tank issues" years ago out of NYC??.....I still think it was a military shoot down...accident or intentional??!!??

quote:

Originally posted by 470EDDY:
I wonder what his REAL thoughts are about the TWA-747 that "exploded from fuel tank issues" years ago out of NYC??.....I still think it was a military shoot down...accident or intentional??!!??

He's got quite a few thought's, none of which square with the FFA's findings.

He told me he checked his records, and had flown that same 747 only once, which sort of surprised him.

There's still pretty good thinking that indicates it may have been a terrorist attack intended for El Al which was lined up right behind TWA 800.

We may never know...

Now, that makes SENSE....had not heard that observation!!
I know they tried to tie the TWA loss to someone onboard but didn't pan out....
You know there was another TWA, I recall, Connie way back that exploded midair in the So Pacific....never came to any conclusions on that one.....but that was before good portable missiles...that said at the altitudes they flew a good 50 Cal could have brought that down??
Cheers,

I never heard of that Connie incident.

There was the midair over the Grand Canyon, but that's the only Connie incident with TWA I recall. But I'm no expert!

My dad flew the Connie as well, being one of only a few guys in the entire world simultaneously checked-out as both co-pilot and flight engineer.

The Connie was a beautiful bird!