[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)