Hang on to your nuts...this will be fun
June 12, 2015 7:07 PM   Subscribe

Here goes the 787-9 --- in a near vertical take-off The Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner is no tiny flower. The plane holds 280 passengers, has a nearly 200-foot (about 60-meter) wingspan and is over 200 feet in length. It's smaller than a 747, but you still might expect it to be a lumbering creature, raising itself into the air in a gentle arc. The 787-9 is turning out to be the acrobat of the Boeing family. Boeing released a promotional video Thursday that shows off the plane's chops. The most stunning stunt is a near-vertical takeoff featuring the jet cruising along the runway and then climbing into the sky at a startling angle. It's the sort of thing that would have passengers clinging to their seat arms.

The Vietnam Airlines-branded plane is in rehearsals for the Paris Air Show, which takes place from June 15-21. The major trade show features a series of flight displays that allow manufacturers to put their latest airplanes through their paces to entice buyers.

The Boeing video goes on to feature some sharp aerial moves with tight turns and sweeping speed, making it seem like the Dreamliner's daddy might have been a fighter jet. The takeoff remains the star of the show. Chances are pilots won't need to pull off such a dramatic maneuver in regular service, but it's fun to know the jet is capable of pushing passengers' guts into their spines if it wants to.
posted by shockingbluamp (80 comments total) 25 users marked this as a favorite
 
Neat. The wings are beautiful.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:11 PM on June 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


That was cool!
posted by Renoroc at 7:12 PM on June 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


I'm not so sure that takeoff was "near vertical". I think the camera angle was deceptive.

It was definitely a hell of a climb, for a civilian jet, but I don't believe it was a tail-stand.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:12 PM on June 12, 2015 [8 favorites]


"The first commercial airline flight took to the air in 1914. Everyone involved screamed the entire way. "
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 7:14 PM on June 12, 2015 [18 favorites]


Didn't Boeing do this a year ago? Looks like they did.

Seems like most jumbo jets can do this if they're completely unloaded from passengers/cargo/seats and carrying a minimal amount of fuel.
posted by JoeZydeco at 7:15 PM on June 12, 2015 [5 favorites]


<suggestive voice>Show me your Area Ruling, Baby</suggestive voice>
posted by Confess, Fletch at 7:23 PM on June 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


What were you doing, Tex? Selling airplanes.
posted by Devonian at 7:24 PM on June 12, 2015 [9 favorites]


The first 707 did a barrel roll over Lake Washington during the 1955 hydroplane race.
posted by sammyo at 7:31 PM on June 12, 2015 [4 favorites]


I see Devonian got there first. Color me unimpressed.
posted by wotsac at 7:31 PM on June 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


That is a beautifully adroit craft.
posted by yesster at 7:31 PM on June 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


Devonian: "What were you doing, Tex? Selling airplanes."

Tex is awesome.
posted by octothorpe at 7:39 PM on June 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


Having just spent a couple weeks researching the Air France 447 flight, which fell from 38,000 feet after stalling out...I just crapped em. Can someone explain how that thing doesn't stall at takeoff?
posted by Zerowensboring at 7:39 PM on June 12, 2015


I would pay extra for a takeoff like that! Woooo!
posted by Sprocket at 7:40 PM on June 12, 2015 [9 favorites]


Wow. Seeing this makes me realize how stodgy and cautious the behavior of commercial planes typically is (not complaining! as a passenger, I approve!) and reminds me that these are, after all, flying machines capable of grace and audacity. It reminds me of this video of working draft horses playing in the snow--these heavy, dutiful, slow-trotting laborers suddenly released and reverting to the playful and agile animals that they are.
posted by Kat Allison at 7:45 PM on June 12, 2015 [22 favorites]


There was an almost identical video doing the rounds at Boeing for the 787-8 when they were wrapping up the flight tests 5-ish years ago. Wish I could find it but Boeing's site is a mess to search; the manoeuvers look pretty standard for a Dreamliner if the pilot wants to show off.
posted by N-stoff at 7:47 PM on June 12, 2015


On another site they link this as a different angle of the takeoff. I don't have the time or inclination to verify.
posted by Hal Mumkin at 8:11 PM on June 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


Makes me wonder if there are maneuvers that can void the warranty.
posted by zittrain at 8:11 PM on June 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


On the other hand, a not insignificant number of these will be cargo carriers. If "difficulties" arise, with oh, perhaps another world power, the USA will have a fleet of 60m cargo jets that can take off and land on a postage stamp.

The plane in the vid? Sssssay... is that wearing Vietnam Airlines livery? The same Vietnam buying ships and anti-A systems from us now that China has declared Vietnam's territorial waters are now China's territorial waters?

Why, I do believe it is...
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:14 PM on June 12, 2015 [4 favorites]


Good afternoon. Welcome to Vietnam Airlines flight 5793. There will be no meal service today.
posted by rdr at 8:14 PM on June 12, 2015 [9 favorites]


Microsoft Flight Simulator 2016 is looking really good!
posted by SpacemanStix at 8:16 PM on June 12, 2015 [4 favorites]


I'd guess that's at least a 60° angle at takeoff. I'd willingly be right there next to Sprocket whoopin' out a rebel yell during that takeoff while simultaneously considering whether I put anything in my luggage fragile enough to not survive the crush of suitcases above it during that maneuver.
posted by Greg_Ace at 8:22 PM on June 12, 2015


The takeoff and landing were very similar when flying Aeroflot from Moscow to Leningrad back in the day. I think the pilot had selected square wave rather than sine wave by mistake.
posted by fallingbadgers at 8:23 PM on June 12, 2015 [6 favorites]


Guys, even the bland CNN article mentions the deceptive angle appearance, so let's not pretend.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:23 PM on June 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


Having just spent a couple weeks researching the Air France 447 flight, which fell from 38,000 feet after stalling out...I just crapped em. Can someone explain how that thing doesn't stall at takeoff?

Stalling is about the angle between the wings and the airflow (the angle of attack), not between the wings and the ground.

With sufficient forward momentum, an airplane can maintain lift at any angle. But it takes energy to climb; just like a car going up a hill, the airplane will slow down as it climbs unless the engines can keep up. And less speed means less lift. Up to a point you can compensate by raising the nose, which increases the angle of attack and gives you extra lift. Raise it too high, and the airflow over the wings is disrupted, causing a stall.

Modern fly-by-wire airliners, like the 787 or the Airbus 330 that was used for that Air France flight, are smart enough that (unless overridden) they won't let you intentionally get into a stall. In the case of AF447, that protection was defeated by malfunctioning airspeed sensors, and the pilots (for whatever reason) didn't realize what was happening and correct it by pushing the nose down.
posted by teraflop at 8:25 PM on June 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


Everyone agrees it's not actually 90 degrees, but what is the actual angle of climb?

It's disturbingly reminiscent of this (Not Safe for the Imaginative) crash of a 747 freighter in Afghanistan. (Caused by large military vehicles breaking their tie down straps on take off and sliding backwards).
posted by Rumple at 8:34 PM on June 12, 2015 [5 favorites]


The wings are beautiful.

They really are. There's something almost poetic about their sweep, and that little flick at the outer edge. Absolutely gorgeous. They look almost out of place bolted to your standard airplane cylinder, like they belong to something a hundred years from now.

I would totally pay extra money for that takeoff. It's my favourite part of any flight, the sudden push back into the seats and that moment when you realize the wheels have left the ground. It's exhilarating.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:55 PM on June 12, 2015 [17 favorites]


It's disturbingly reminiscent of this (Not Safe for the Imaginative) crash of a 747 freighter in Afghanistan.

Oh my god. That's just... at least it was quick.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:57 PM on June 12, 2015


I get the impression that the camera angles and perspective employed really emphasize the rate of climb in those take offs. On the other hand, I have seen Fat Albert in person and have yet to find a video that lives up to seeing it live.
posted by TedW at 8:58 PM on June 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


Waiting for a 787's Pugachev's Cobra.
posted by Auden at 9:02 PM on June 12, 2015 [3 favorites]


I don't have the time or inclination to verify. Inclination...Hee-hee-hee...
posted by The Potate at 9:10 PM on June 12, 2015 [4 favorites]


I would totally pay extra money for that takeoff. It's my favourite part of any flight, the sudden push back into the seats and that moment when you realize the wheels have left the ground. It's exhilarating.

Yes, totally. I would pay money for a fighter jet takeoff -- I have no interest in the aerial acrobatics or dog-fight zaniness, but an opportunity to feel serious acceleration and liftoff would be really neat.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:16 PM on June 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


"the USA will have a fleet of 60m cargo jets that can take off and land on a postage stamp"

Wait until I tell you how with our interstate system, they don't have to!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:34 PM on June 12, 2015 [3 favorites]


Everyone agrees it's not actually 90 degrees, but what is the actual angle of climb?

From this article it looks like the angle would be around 30 degrees. I remember someone tossing around 40 degrees for the max takeoff angle for a 787 at one point but its pure anecdata.
posted by N-stoff at 9:37 PM on June 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


Wait until I tell you how with our interstate system, they don't have to!

There's also the small matter of two immense oceans.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:51 PM on June 12, 2015


It is a trick of photography known as telephoto flattening. Objects are flattened into the same vertical plane in the distance. Ever noticed how distant hills and mountains seem almost vertically steep but then when you get closer you see that you can walk right up them?

The 787 engines at maximum thrust are less than half the minimum aircraft weight so it is incapable of vertical or ballistic flight. On the other hand, an F-15 with afterburners provides a thrust that is twice the weight of the aircraft and can go vertical.
posted by JackFlash at 10:03 PM on June 12, 2015 [7 favorites]


"From this article it looks like the angle would be around 30 degrees."

IIRC a passenger 747 lands on about a 3* slope, and the Space Shuttle landed on about a 30* slope, which made watching the latter land TOTALLY TERRIFYING. It looks like it's falling out of the damn sky.

"There's also the small matter of two immense oceans."

Shhh! We're gonna Caligula those with aircraft carriers!

posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:08 PM on June 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


Can someone explain how that thing doesn't stall at takeoff?

Stalling is about the angle between the wings and the airflow (the angle of attack), not between the wings and the ground.


Also whopping great fucktons of thrust never hurts.

The 787 engines at maximum thrust are less than half the minimum aircraft weight so it is incapable of vertical or ballistic flight. On the other hand, an F-15 with afterburners provides a thrust that is twice the weight of the aircraft and can go vertical.

Well, a 787 could go into vertical flight for a little while, and if you did it with enough altitude under it it might even be survivable. An F-15 can just keep accelerating up until it runs out of air, fuel, or engine life.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:18 PM on June 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


On the other hand, an F-15 with afterburners provides a thrust that is twice the weight of the aircraft and can go vertical.

In the 90s at Lambert airport in St. Louis there was an Air National Guard wing that flew F-15s. McDonnell Douglas also had an assembly plant there. A couple times I saw them do a thing where'd they start to take off like normal, then go perfectly vertical with afterburners roaring before getting to the end of the runway. At least that's what it looked like to me. It was very impressive and gave the folks waiting for their TWA flights a nice show.
posted by zsazsa at 10:19 PM on June 12, 2015


an F-15 with afterburners provides a thrust that is twice the weight of the aircraft

Nah. There are quite a few fighters that can hit a shade over 1:1, but nothing like 2.
posted by ryanrs at 10:48 PM on June 12, 2015


The F-15 has two 24,000 lbf thrust engines with afterburners. The empty weight is 28,000 lbs. Close to 2x, but not fully fueled.
posted by JackFlash at 11:23 PM on June 12, 2015


“How do you navigate this thing?”

“Point.”

“Point?”

“Get to the general volume and then point in the right direction.”

“Secret is plenty of power.”

“Delicate finessing of delta-V is sign you haven’t really got enough power.”

“Power is all.”

“You can do a lot by just pointing.”

“If you’ve got enough power.”

“Though sometimes you have to sort of allow a bit for deflection.”

“That’s a technical term.”
posted by sebastienbailard at 11:37 PM on June 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


Chances are pilots won't need to pull off such a dramatic maneuver in regular service, but

...it's good practice for if you ever need to get the hell out of Vietnam again.
posted by pracowity at 11:43 PM on June 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


Cool! I'd like to see two of them in an airshow doing that fake head-on collision, last second wing-flip maneuver (is there a name for that?)

Seriously, though, it's a beautiful bird.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 11:48 PM on June 12, 2015


Nah. There are quite a few fighters that can hit a shade over 1:1, but nothing like 2.

Holy fuck, this sounds like quite a threat to national security. Anyone got a few billion dollars we can throw at the problem? I feel unsafe.
posted by 7segment at 12:16 AM on June 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


Well the Space Shuttle can do that and more, so I guess you should give the billions to NASA.
posted by ryanrs at 12:21 AM on June 13, 2015 [3 favorites]


Dip Flash (and others wanting to experience some serious take-off acceleration-and-climb), you should try to find a soaring club that has a winch and take a familiarization flight. Why a winch? Well, your usual sailplane launch (in the US, where tugs are common) is a slow takeoff behind an Ag Cat or Pawnee. In Europe (where avgas is even more expensive), and a few clubs in the US, they use a ground based winch with a giant diesel engine that can accelerate you from zero to 70kts, and from ground level to ~1000ft AGL, in about 10 seconds. Rest of the flight is sedate, but damn, that launch. It's nowhere near a carrier cat launch, but it gives me respect for the concept.
posted by Alterscape at 12:41 AM on June 13, 2015 [3 favorites]


Boeing sponsors a promo film at the Air and Space museum, and although it's been a while, I recall one of their people saying that the shape of an albatross or osprey wing was the inspiration for the 787 wing.

Lovely airplane, innit?
posted by Thistledown at 3:28 AM on June 13, 2015


A commercial airliner needs to be able to continue the takeoff if an engine fails at the least opportune time (i.e. too late to safely abort the takeoff). So if you have only two engines, a normally operating aircraft has roughly twice the power it needs to take off, and thus an empty aircraft flown by a test pilot has rather astonishing climb performance. A 4-engine craft needs to be able to take off on 3, so it isn't so overpowered.

Also, in real service, engines will not be run at full thrust through the takeoff and climb as that increases wear and tear.

Back in the 1980s I took a 757-200 with about 20 passengers on it, and the pilot had a little fun with the climb. I think it took us a while to find all the stuff that had been "safely stowed for takeoff", once we leveled out...
posted by Ella Fynoe at 3:39 AM on June 13, 2015 [4 favorites]


A full passenger load on this thing is 26 tons (around 60,000 lbs) and that's not including cargo or fuel.

So when flying empty you've got a hell of a lot of spare power to play with.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 4:23 AM on June 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


I literally have nightmares - I mean, over and over again nightmares - about this sort of stuff. Planes flying low to the ground, at odd angles, following highways, massively accelerating or decelerating. I don't know why; I'm not actually scared of flying. But I still get these nightmares and they're amazingly like that video.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:49 AM on June 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


all standing out in the middle of a cornfield when out of nowhere a 787-8 buzzes you at low altitude and crashes into a tanker truck
posted by indubitable at 4:55 AM on June 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


Well, now I know how the pilots land in OpenTTD.
posted by lmfsilva at 5:08 AM on June 13, 2015


Per wikipedia, MTOW (maximum take-off weight) with passengers, cargo, and a full fuel load is around 228 metric tons on a 787-8. Dry weight is a little under 118 tons. For a half-hour display, plus a one hour emergency fuel reserve to get to another airport if something closes the runway, this bird will be carrying somewhere between 5 and 20 tons of fuel, and no cargo or passengers. So it's doing this display at about 60% of the weight it would normally be at for a fully loaded service flight.

Also note that modern wide-body twins like the 787 and the A350 have a higher power-to-weight ratio and can climb faster and cruise higher and faster than a late second world war piston-engined fighter.

And if the 787 video didn't convince you of that, here are five Airbus 350 XWB airliners doing formation aerobatics. 1200 tons on the wing!
posted by cstross at 5:14 AM on June 13, 2015 [6 favorites]


I too have had dreams about aircraft crashing, for as long as I can remember. The details change (once it was a bizarre Soviet propeller-driven cruise missile) but it's always the same basic sequence - aircraft flies low and slow overhead, disappears behind hill, pall of smoke. I'm intensely unafraid of flying, so it's not that; I assumed that I'd seen something on the television when very young that made an impression.

And this talk of A380s and 787s doing aerobatics is all very well, but there can be only one best story about one best aircraft.
posted by Devonian at 5:53 AM on June 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


It looks slightly less vertical than a departure from National.
posted by sonascope at 6:20 AM on June 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


There's also a tradeoff to be made between takeoff distance and departure angle. During takeoff, you accelerate to a sufficient speed, then increase the angle of attack by pulling back on the yoke and rotating the aircraft, thereby increasing lift past the point where the wings support the aircraft and it lifts off. If you're not interested in the shortest takeoff distance, you just delay rotation until you're moving much faster and, depending on how long you delay, you might really jump off the ground.
posted by indubitable at 6:53 AM on June 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


Good afternoon. Welcome to Vietnam Airlines flight 5793. There will be no meal service today.

*meow*
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 7:28 AM on June 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


There's also a tradeoff to be made between takeoff distance and departure angle.

Which reminds me of this video of a heavily-laden cargo plane taking off on a hot, windless day, complete with priceless commentary by cheeky Canberra air traffic controllers.
posted by Multicellular Exothermic at 7:35 AM on June 13, 2015 [15 favorites]


All modern airliners, lightly loaded, can do this. They're designed to be able to fly for hours with one engine. When they're lightly loaded, like they are for these demonstration flights, they're almost STOVL. Fundamentally, aircraft performance is based on what's on the aircraft. The less it freight it carries*, the faster it can climb and the farther it can fly on a given load of fuel -- or it can carry more fuel instead of freight and fly even farther. A big part of the pre-flight paperwork is figuring out how much you have on board, so you know how much fuel to take on board. You don't want to take too much fuel on board, because then you burn fuel hauling fuel around the skies. That costs money for no reasons. Of course, if the weather's bad, you may have to do that anyway.

The takeoff run, BTW, was about 2200 feet. They could have actually taken off in less distance, they left the wheels down to get more forward speed to allow for the dramatic climb.

Having said that, the 787 is, in fact, the prettiest airliner I've seen since the Super Constellation. The issue, of course, is Aerodynamics. You follow the rules, or else, which meant most of them had a certain sameness, but somehow, the 777 had a certain something to it, as if Boeing was like "okay, we still have to follow the rules, but you know, we can follow the rules and make the birds looks beautiful" and with the 787, they turned that up to 11.

Those wings are just beautiful.


* Including the self loading freight.
posted by eriko at 7:38 AM on June 13, 2015 [4 favorites]


Alterscape has it right; you don't even need engines for a launch like this. Here are some glider winch launch videos:

1 (achtung: Kravitz)
2 (achtung: Brahms)
3 (achtung: self link)
posted by tss at 7:39 AM on June 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


At least that's what it looked like to me. It was very impressive and gave the folks waiting for their TWA flights a nice show.

You still get that today, because Boeing is still doing work on F-18E/Fs at the plant at STL. So you'll hear them testing those birds. F-18s are impressively loud, even more so than F-15s, surprisingly.

Nothing like F-4s or B-1s, though.
posted by eriko at 7:41 AM on June 13, 2015


Or an Avro Vulcan.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:06 AM on June 13, 2015


Oh yeah. When my family was stationed at Hahn in the 70s, we used to go out on the balcony sometimes to watch the F-4's take off at night on full afterburner. Good times.

You can have loads of fun with "high performance takeoff" in the youtubes. Not as much as with "low pass," but still.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:08 AM on June 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


I think the subtext here is that there's still a bit of uncertainty about "plastic" airplanes and the extent to which Boeing used carbon fiber in some of the more flight critical parts of the 787. Showing off some stressing maneuvers is a good way to let people know that this plane can do everything a full-aluminum plane can do.
posted by backseatpilot at 8:09 AM on June 13, 2015


Also, some zoomy video makes for better press than the latest software glitch or battery fire.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:18 AM on June 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


Show me your Area Ruling

There was an early concept of the 787 that had a wasp-waist. I wish they had gone ahead with that.
posted by Mei's lost sandal at 8:40 AM on June 13, 2015


Virgin 747 barrel roll. (yes , I know it's fake)
posted by chavenet at 9:13 AM on June 13, 2015


you could tell this wasn't a military joint beause the music wasn't SAIL
posted by subbes at 11:29 AM on June 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


I spilled tomato juice all over myself just watching that.
posted by 4ster at 2:18 PM on June 13, 2015


, I recall one of their people saying that the shape of an albatross or osprey wing was the inspiration for the 787 wing.

I was just noting that it was the first airliner I've seen that actually looks like a bird in flight.
posted by smidgen at 3:17 PM on June 13, 2015


I'm not so sure that takeoff was "near vertical". I think the camera angle was deceptive.

It was definitely a hell of a climb, for a civilian jet, but I don't believe it was a tail-stand.


Tru, but I'm 900% sure I would have dropped my drink, nuts, napkin, and poop if I experienced that on a commercial flight.

That was crazy.
posted by hal_c_on at 4:27 PM on June 13, 2015


  … there can be only one best story about one best aircraft

Can I just say that I used to spend afternoons watching Concorde do touch-and-go landing training at Prestwick? Apparently it was the fastest way to get the requisite number of landings in for pilot certification. A pretty bird, sure, but a filthy-loud one.
posted by scruss at 5:12 PM on June 13, 2015


The camera is above the plane, and as the plane ascends you can see its underside. This means that the angle between the camera and the ground (which is perhaps around 75 degrees?) must be less than the angle of the plane's ascent. If it's not vertical at the end of the initial ascent it's not far away.

By the way, I don't know if this airport follows the FAA standard for airport markings, but if it does then the center markings are 120 feet (36.5 m) in length and the gaps are 80 feet (24.3 m) in length. So the distance from the start of one stripe to the start of another would be 200 feet (59.8 m). This would allow us to estimate the airplane's speed and angle of ascent.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:46 PM on June 13, 2015


Being of a certain age, what I find most remarkable is a Boeing airplane plastered with the words Vietnam Airlines not loaded with lethal weapons.
posted by hwestiii at 6:44 PM on June 13, 2015


Viet Nam! They destroyed the Chinese, the Mongols, the Mongols again with "The Muslim Omar" as their baddest-ass general, and boy howdy, he was bad-ass, still got his ass beat, the French, the Ozzies, and the US of A trying to re-enact WWII and failing.

China on the regular thinks they're better at this conquest thing on the Indochina coast than they have been since forever. It usually doesn't end well.

Especially now that Viet Nam has embraced the giant ogres (the USA) as their best friend forever. Nuke us, bitch, and get nuked, is the message being sent with that plane.

I will stop now, lest I be sucked into an examination of the USA as an imperfect anti-imperialist hegemony, which will make all kinds of people upset on either side of the political spectrum.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:49 PM on June 13, 2015


I was late to work once because I got caught up watching History Channel's documentary about history's greatest dogfights. Holy wow, planes and the people who fly them are unbelievable!
posted by Queen of Spreadable Fats at 8:40 AM on June 14, 2015


sonascope: It looks slightly less vertical than a departure from National.

Ah, National Airport (thanks for not calling it Reagan National). Surrounded by no-fly zones and some of the priciest waterfront property in the DC area. when we lived in Arlington, we could tell what the cloud cover was like in the mornings before opening the shades, just by the sound of the planes.

Add me to the list of people who love takeoff. National was so much more fun to fly in/out of than Dulles or BWI.
posted by mon-ma-tron at 10:52 AM on June 14, 2015


If you want to get a feel for the crazy things unloaded airliners can do (in this case a 747-8F) have a gander at this delivery flight for Cargolux:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnBr3enzW1I

Now, it's traditional to do a wing wave as a thank you as you fly off in your new plane (see a more normal wave again from Cargolux https://youtu.be/_yjvhUxtx6E?t=327). But that 1st one was pretty extreme. There are endless threads on aviation forums about whether it was dangerous or not or any one was "disciplined" but it sure looks like he overshoots on the second bit of the wave and the plane looks to be in a pretty low energy state.

Against that of course we have long lens camera angle distortion and the fact that it just flying PAE to SEA which is about 11 minutes. So, empty plane with basically zero fuel = temptation gets the better of anyone ;)
posted by Beware of the leopard at 12:15 PM on June 14, 2015


National was so much more fun to fly in/out of than Dulles or BWI.

Short takeoffs and landings are a lot of fun. We came back from a trip a few weeks ago, and I decided to fuel up a nearby airport with cheaper gas. The runway is normally 2,600 feet long (plenty for a little Skylane, impossible for anything much larger) but because they're repaving part of it only 1,600 feet was usable at the time. Again, no problem for the little Skylane, you just need to handle it right.

Taking off with only 1,600 feet of runway, with a small army of construction vehicles at the end of the pavement, was an exciting way to give my wife her first short field takeoff experience.
posted by backseatpilot at 6:39 PM on June 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


That's all very well until it goes on fire.
posted by DZ-015 at 7:17 AM on June 15, 2015


« Older “The president’s done everything except let me fly...   |   J/K!! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments