vapourware trails in the sky?
Boeing has announced that the first delivery of its long-awaited 787 Dreamliner will finally take place in "in the third quarter of this year". The 787 Dreamliner. Pic: Boeing The seventh delay in getting the aircraft to Japan's All Nippon Airways was provoked by a fire last year aboard one of the flight test aircraft. All …
Note the scalloped edges around the rear of the engine cowls.
Now I have seen this somewhere before. There's a standard "prop" 747 that crops up on TV regularly, it's a 747. Now this sports two odd features, first being the same scalloped cowls and the second being that all four engines are mounted as siamesed pairs on the inner engine mounts, with the outer ones sporting what look like extended range fuel tanks. I've seen this thing as a prop in a few shows and also sitting in the background when Top Gear are out on their airfield track so, presumably, that's where it lives.
I'm guessing that's a testbed (whose?) and the scalloped cowl edges have proven valuable enough in some regard (noise deadening from their effect on the bypass stream is my guess) to make it to a production plane.
Anyone know any more? Am I right in my guess as to the reason here for the cowl mods and also what's up with the siamesed engines on that 747? I'm intrigued.
What made me laugh in Casino Royale was that to make it different from a 747, they put 2 engines per pylon (like the B52), with the outboard pylons having fuel tanks. I can't imagine any modern aircraft passing certification in that configuration.
Luckily, I tend to keep opinions like that to myself, and unlike a previous house mate of mine, I don't let it spoil the whole film.
...is exactly that from an engine perspective, having seen it upclose and personal at Dunsfold Wheels & Wings, there's nothing real about those engines, except the metal in the cowlings.
The rear of them are even boxed in with black-painted wood.
A case in this instance, of art imitating life, rather than the other way around.
Why should we believe a banking analyst? All his interest is ROI for investors in Boeing.
All companies have 'teething problems' the difference with aircraft is that peoples lives are at risk.
As with any new item, they should be avoided until they have some history of use - let someone else be the guinea pig.
With nearly a two year delay in delivery you have to wonder just how airworthy these aircraft will be - is the FAA going to change the rules for Boeing again? (Prior to the 777 two-engined aircraft had limitations on their distance to the nearest airport).
As a frequent traveller, along with other frequent travellers. my travel agent (a live body) knows my seat preferences, my drop-dead seats (never, ever fly) as well as my aircraft choices (again, a never use decision). (The greatest, most reliable aircraft was the DC3!)
Early version of 737's should be avoided as should some American carriers (AA has a virtual aeronautical fleet of flying rustbuckets) and definitely the American regional carriers.
The youngest fleets are to be found with many LLC's and other airlines in the Far East.
Think this is unnecessary worrying? Think again if you take a South America/European flight (where did that Air France flight go?) or 'over the top' across the vast wastelands of the Arctic.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021