Cute 787 flightpath

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   




posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Excuse me, but.. How is that cute???




posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
This bothers me on some level. That level involving "MAYDAY MAYDAY. We're going down."

Media: What the hell were they doing up there??

Breaking story: Flight path reveals pilots were making art in the sky. Art that put the lives of any number of unsuspecting people at risk.

Abovetopsecret poster: I can't believe those idiots! Look what they did!

Other poster: Your tax dollars at work.

Other poster: Airplanes are still statistically the safest method of transportation so Blah-di-blah blah blah!

Other poster: Selling my shares in Boeing right now.

I guess this bothers me on many levels. Or maybe I'm just sleepy and irritable.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


It certainly looks like 787s will make good "chemtrail" aircraft.


See ya,
Milt



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
If flying a pattern that "writes" 787 and a Boeing symbol over an 18 hour proving flight doesn't seem cute, or disturbs you, then probably an aviation forum is not for you - you definitely ain't air-geeky enough!!



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Well, I think it's pretty damn cool! I especially liked the Boeing logo!


See ya,
Milt



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
If flying a pattern that "writes" 787 and a Boeing symbol over an 18 hour proving flight doesn't seem cute, or disturbs you, then probably an aviation forum is not for you - you definitely ain't air-geeky enough!!
Eh I don’t know how you came to that conclusion.
I am definitely an aviation junky.
But that’s not cute; it’s ‘cool’, ‘interesting’, ‘a good achievement’ etc....



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
If they had an 18 hour ETOPS test they may as well make something cool out of it. And they succeeded.
edit on 14/2/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
That's great.


My uncle works for Boeing up in Everett, he is very much involved with the 787 project last time we talked. Congrats to the Boeing team.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I've been watching the development of the latest B-737 iteration.....the "MAX"......oh, boy.

More "chemtrails" claims are sure to be coming, when those are delivered to customers, and put into service......Oy! Vey!



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by danj3ris
This bothers me on some level. That level involving "MAYDAY MAYDAY. We're going down."

Media: What the hell were they doing up there??

Breaking story: Flight path reveals pilots were making art in the sky. Art that put the lives of any number of unsuspecting people at risk.
.....
.....
I guess this bothers me on many levels. Or maybe I'm just sleepy and irritable.



Originally posted by C0bzz
If they had an 18 hour ETOPS test they may as well make something cool out of it. And they succeeded.
edit on 14/2/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)


It wasn't useless or the slightlest bit dangerous, like the above quote they had to test it, might as well have fun at it
I think its pretty cool, if only the contrail lasted long enough and the ISS was passing over, talk about an epic picture/ nice advertisement, lol



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I've been watching the development of the latest B-737 iteration.....the "MAX"......oh, boy.

More "chemtrails" claims are sure to be coming, when those are delivered to customers, and put into service......Oy! Vey!


Why? What specifically is there about the 737MAX which will incite chemtrail enthusiasts?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


I was speaking in terms of the newer engines it is going to use.

They will likely be even more efficient, and thus be making ever more contrails.....which the "khemtrail krowd" will continue to mis-identify as "chemtrails".....



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


I was speaking in terms of the newer engines it is going to use.

They will likely be even more efficient, and thus be making ever more contrails.....which the "khemtrail krowd" will continue to mis-identify as "chemtrails".....


Ok, but still a bit baffled


Contrails have to do with temperature, pressure and water vapour - the engines used by the 787MAX and A320NEO won't produce any more contrails than current engines. Even the higher bypass ratios won't cause more trails.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Contrails have to do with temperature, pressure and water vapour - the engines used by the 787MAX and A320NEO won't produce any more contrails than current engines. Even the higher bypass ratios won't cause more trails.


high bypass ratio engines produce contrails in conditions when lower BPR's do not - someone has actually taken up a 707 and an A340 to check it - A340 on the left, 707 on the right

- from this paper

the difference is not massive - IIRC they are looking at contrails starting anything up to a few hundred metres sooner for the more efficient engines.

I am not sure of the exact mechanism for this, but if I took a guess it would be along the lines of the exhaust of the more efficient engines cools down a lot faster because it is surrounded by a cooler airflow from the bypass which quickly mixes with it, whereas the lower BPR has a slower mix rate with the surrounding air, so it cools over a longer distance, and so doesn't raise the local humidity as quickly.
edit on 16-2-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


It's been shown that more efficient higher-bypass turbofans will tend to produce contrails, and especially persistent types, in a wider range of temperature/saturation conditions....thus adding to the range of altitudes for contrail formation.

I should have added that as years go on, in the ConUS particularly, there are going to be more airplane retirements (those with lower bypass fans), and replacements of newer and more efficient engines.

American Airlines comes to mind....they have a large fleet of MD-80 series. Of course, their bankruptcy is an issue, but IF they get folded into another company, those may go.

Delta (as I write) still has a total of 151 MD-80/90s active. They will retire them all, eventually.

(AMR Corp [American] still has 201)

Just for example. Other airlines, such as Southwest, will likely continue to grow. With new orders for expansion, or just replacements.

Et Cetera. Hopefully, the myth and hoax of "chemtrails" will eventually dawn on people, with education. Though, I ain't holding my breath (pun!)

edit on Thu 16 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


reply to post by ProudBird
 



I shall reply to both of your posts at the same time, if thats OK with you guys


I stand by my point - yes, it has been shown that a drastically larger bypass ratio does increase contrail formation, in this case we won't be seeing the difference between the Boeing 707 and Airbus A340-300 in the paper linked to.

Here are some of the bypass ratios we are talking about:

JT3D-7 (Boeing 707) Bypass Ratio 1.4:1

CFM56-5C4 (Airbus A340-300) Bypass Ratio 6.8:1

CFM56-7B18D (Boeing 737-600) Bypass Ratio 5.6:1

LEAP-X1B (Boeing 737 MAX) Bypass Ratio 7.8:1

V2527-A5 (MD-80/90) Bypass Ratio 4.8:1

The only really comparable situation is with the very earliest DC-9 aircraft, which sported a whopping 0.96:1 bypass ratio on their JT8D engines (yes, lower than a 1:1) and the subsequent aircraft which were not upgraded to the successor engines - however, these are very few and far between in airline services these days as they have either been retired or upgraded to higher bypass engines.

So I stand by my statement - we won't be seeing any increase in contrail formation with these engine updates.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


We may not see much increase, but to say we will see no increase at all is unsupportable.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by danj3ris
 


Why?

You guys are so negative? Flying is supposed to be FUN! We started flying for fun. Private pilots fly for fun. Airshows are for fun! This was a legal flight path, the fact that it is a 787 is unique, but if I had access to a 787, and I could take it for a joyride, I certainly would take the opportunity!

These pilots were not acting irrationally, this was tower approved, flight plan filed, and adhered to all laws and regulations.

This is pretty AWESOME if you ask me!



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Also, I already responded in thread, so not officially Modding in this friendly warning. But there are plenty of contrail discussions ongoing in other threads. This thread has NOTHING to do with contrails, or that other make believe thing.





top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join