It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Would you have a WTF moment

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
www.9news.com.au...


As pictured above this Qantis plane seems to have miscounted their engines . Apparently while it is not common to transport engines this way it does on occasion happen .



The last time Qantas carried an extra engine on a 747 was back in 2011.


My question is what your thoughts would be if that was your plane taxiing up to the gate . Something along the lines of , oh look they put a spare on the wing in case one breaks down . Or perhaps , nope its not April the first .Anyways Qantis assures us that its safe .



our pilots are trained to use the flight controls to ensure the aircraft flies straight, level and safely."


Your thoughts ATS
edit on 6-1-2016 by hutch622 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

My father actually saw one of theirs hauling an extra engine out of Honolulu. It took him a couple of minutes, and a call to the Hickam control tower to make sure he wasn't seeing things.
edit on 1/6/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I caught a bit of this on the news last night . Iwasnt really paying that much attention but i believe they said only 5 or 6 carriers do this .



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

It's only really used when there's no way to easily get an engine to a remote location or back. It creates a lot of drag, so it really limits passengers and cargo to do it.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

That fifth engine hard point is also where Virgin Galactic is going to launch their LauncherOne rockets from.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Makes you wonder about excess baggage charges as well although the article does say the had to stop for extra fuel .



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

We had a DC-8 lose an engine at Hickam, and they decided to fly it home on three engines. They took off as full as they could, used every bit of runway, and barely made it to California for fuel. Having a non-turning engine really eats your fuel something awful.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I was gonna get on a prop plane once and I was watching the pilot give it a once over. He went under and actually kicked the tire like it was a bike or go kart or somethings. I ended up driving, which happens often.

This is fascinating but I would not board, if this was optimal they'd do it all the time.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman




That fifth engine hard point is also where Virgin Galactic is going to launch their LauncherOne rockets from.


Is this something built into all 747s or retrofitted .



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

All 747s have the mounting. It's covered over when not in use, but it's a pretty simple matter to remove the cover and prepare it for use.
edit on 1/6/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   
They must have a spot on some jets for attaching the engines. It would have to be engineered into the plane when built.

On an off topic note, I found this today. It's kind of neat. phys.org...



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Interesting looking drone . A bit light on for endurance but that will get better , but i have one question . If it is a single seater why does it have 2 doors .



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Moegotti
This is fascinating but I would not board, if this was optimal they'd do it all the time.


It's completely normal and safe. They designed the 747 with this "feature" to ship engines that are too large to be readily transported any other way.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: hutch622

It's only really used when there's no way to easily get an engine to a remote location or back. It creates a lot of drag, so it really limits passengers and cargo to do it.

Don't they make a nose cone that can be attached over the front of the engine?
If not they probably should...



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: rickymouse

Interesting looking drone . A bit light on for endurance but that will get better , but i have one question . If it is a single seater why does it have 2 doors .


Left or right hand drive.....



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

When the VC10 was designed the reliability of the available jet engines was not as good as it is today. Because of this the chance of having an engine failure was more significant and this warranted some creative thinking about the situation. What to do if a VC10 was stranded somewhere with a failed engine? Vickers' solution was to design a pod that could be attached to the wing root on the righthand side and which was capable of holding a spare Rolls-Royce Conway engine. With this setup the spare engine needed could be carried (for a small fuel penalty of course, the EAA Performance manual states that 6% should be added to the trip fuel) by another VC10 on a regular revenue flight to relieve the stranded aircraft. The alternative of flying in an engine by specialized freighter with its associated costs could then be avoided. The VC10 was not the only aircraft to use a solution like this.

When the 747 entered airline service in 1970 it had a mounting under the left inboard wing for an extra spare engine. The 747 was the first wide-body airliner but also the first to use high bypass engines in the shape of the Pratt & Whitney JT9D. This engine was at that point too large to fit into anything but a specialized freighter aircraft, and because of this Boeing used the same trick as Vickers had done on the VC10.

Next to these the Tristar, DC-10, 707 and DC-8 were also airliners to use this method. Eventually the use of a spare engine mounting disappeared as wide-body freighter aircraft (especially Combi-aircraft carrying both passengers and freight) became available. Now it became possible to carry an engine inside the fuselage without the fuel penalty caused by the drag of the fifth engine.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58



Having a non-turning engine really eats your fuel something awful.


Not if its one of them single engine platforms u speak of.....

(sarc-just had to mate...
)



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Moegotti
This is fascinating but I would not board, if this was optimal they'd do it all the time.


Well it's obviously not optimal, but its perfectly safe! Qantas wouldn't be flying passengers around with deadweights on the wings for fun if it was actually risky.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


ever see the Pratt & Whitney test platform? not for transport but definitely made one do a double take....




posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

I've seen the GE. Not quite as bad a double take but when it's got a 115B hanging on the #2 pylon there's definitely a WTF moment.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join