ryzer
Member
Registered: 18th Mar 03
Location: Berkshire Drives:UGLY MUG
User status: Offline
|
stumbled across this via pistonheads today,
it made me smile, love it when big company's do silly things sometimes.
But this scrawl appearing over a map of the U.S. is in fact the flight path taken by Boeing's 787 Dreamliner during a test-flight.
The 18-hour flight saw the aircraft - said to be Boeing's most fuel-efficient - travelling more than 10,000 miles from Washington State to Iowa as it traced out 787 and the Boeing logo in the skies above the U.S.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2100489/Now-THATS-sky-drawing-Boeing-787-Dreamliner-maps-number-company-logo-10-000-mile-flight-U-S.html#ixzz1mah9laS6
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
That's incredible.
|
noshua
Member
Registered: 19th Nov 08
User status: Offline
|
Bet that beat sitting for 7 hours flying to America in one direction
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
He added that the flight path had been checked with air traffic control centres and the route avoided restricted airspace.
I bet they didn't and I doubt there's much restricted airspace at the altitude they were flying at, controlled on the other hand. /Pedantic.
|
Rick Draper
Member
Registered: 10th Feb 01
Location: Cheshire
User status: Offline
|
I bet they with the 747-800 was half as efficient as a passenger jet as the 787....
|
sand-eel
Member
Registered: 15th Mar 07
Location: carluke/braidwood--IRNBRULAND
User status: Offline
|
Bit of a waste of fuel really...any plane could do that with GPS.
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by ed
quote:
He added that the flight path had been checked with air traffic control centres and the route avoided restricted airspace.
I bet they didn't and I doubt there's much restricted airspace at the altitude they were flying at, controlled on the other hand. /Pedantic.
The service ceiling is still 43,000ft, they would have been around the 40,000ft mark, this is still typical heights for short-range domestic aircraft like the 737. There are absolutely tonnes of air corridors around the area that 787 flew.
Going by the telemetery data, the flight cruising altitude varied between 37,000 and 41,000ft which is smack bam in the height for other cruising aircraft.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE236/history/20120209/2100Z/KBFI/KBFI
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by sand-eel
Bit of a waste of fuel really...any plane could do that with GPS.
It was actually a test flight, not just a bit of tomfoolery. They were running all sorts of diagnostics for a final shakedown of the ETOPS system. This is a planned procedure of running one engine at idle speed for extended periods of time and letting the other engine pick up the slack. It gains certification from the FAA to basically do the big hops across the pacific/atlantic etc etc.
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rick Draper
I bet they with the 747-800 was half as efficient as a passenger jet as the 787....
They actually did exactly the same thing with a 747-8 a few months ago http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE523/history/20110802/1330Z/KPAE/KPAE
From reports I read, it did exceedingly well. Remember that the 747-8 runs 4 at a lower thrust rating so slightly better fuel burn compared to the 787. It is still a big beast though, but the swept wing has always aided greatly to the 747's speed and economy. It's still a great design even in 2012 and with modern composites and design input, it is a real competitor to the A380.
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey
quote:
Originally posted by ed
quote:
He added that the flight path had been checked with air traffic control centres and the route avoided restricted airspace.
I bet they didn't and I doubt there's much restricted airspace at the altitude they were flying at, controlled on the other hand. /Pedantic.
The service ceiling is still 43,000ft, they would have been around the 40,000ft mark, this is still typical heights for short-range domestic aircraft like the 737. There are absolutely tonnes of air corridors around the area that 787 flew.
Going by the telemetery data, the flight cruising altitude varied between 37,000 and 41,000ft which is smack bam in the height for other cruising aircraft.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE236/history/20120209/2100Z/KBFI/KBFI
They would have been in Class A airspace, which is controlled no restricted. They would have filed a flightplan, which isn't asking for permission 
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
imagine lodging that flightplan with AirServices ROFL
|
SetH
Member
Registered: 15th Jul 01
User status: Online
|
ROFL @ the CS arm chair aviation experts.
I dont see what the Beef is and think its pretty cool myself but I am just a layman i guess and not a 1337 hax0r aviation analyst.
[Edited on 17-02-2012 by SetH]
|
