The mileage of a 747 is...

[crab]

Originally posted by: zimu

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: geckojohn

I just don't pay attention to airplanes that much.... so tell me are they tough guy?
At least i don't waste all my day posting in front of a computer..

Alright, alright, calm down. No reason to start a big flame fest.

There are different kinds of 747s.


747-100
747-200
747-300
747-400

According to the image names, those are some of the different models. I don't know the difference, and there may be more types.

i don't think the 100's and 300's are used much.
the 400 is bigger than the 200, both are jumbo with two floors but the 400 has a larger upper deck. you can tell it apart from the tips of teh wings, where the 400's point upwards at the end of it. lot larger, heavier- largest passenger airliner.

Not always...the 747-400 domestic does not have winglets, its packed full of seats and used on short, high density markets. The 747-400 freighter does not have a full upper deck, either. The -300 has a stretched upper deck (-400 style), and there are even SUD -200 models, used mainly by KLM until recently.

 

[falias]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: falias

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i have pics of the 1000th 747 built. its owned by singapore airlines, i've seen it twice so far.

cough

man i need to stop posting about 747s

yeah, but i took the damn pics myself at changi

your pics are lame though

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: falias
your pics are lame though

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: OIKOS
how much gallons does it take to take down the WTC???

you are a moron, seriously.

OIKOS, me and my entire town thinks you should fvck off.

bahahaha you have got to be kidding. i am yet to meet another ATOTer who likes oikos. i dont even quote or post in regards to his comments, so he cant possibly have anything to say about me. i, however, read enough of his retarded comments to have an opinion. he is a wanker, and you are obviously a tool for sticking up for him. maybe you are wankers together? i have no idea, but either way, he sucks at life, which is not up for debate. it is a fact.

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: Spike
The new boeing planes will not have the flip on the end of the wing, they thought it would improve performace due to wing space but it did not, so it has been canned.

actually the winglets do improve performance, and are not being phased out. southwest is installing a bunch of blended winglets on their fleet of 737s.

http://www.airliners.net/ - their forums are really informative

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: PipBoy

Originally posted by: Apex
And it takes about $10,000 worth of fuel to turn an aircraft carrier 180 degrees.

you got that from a Top Gun documentary didn't you.

Haha. You know, I don't really remember, but you could be right. Man, old age is really getting to me.

 

[Shivatron]

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS

Originally posted by: Spike
The new boeing planes will not have the flip on the end of the wing, they thought it would improve performace due to wing space but it did not, so it has been canned.

actually the winglets do improve performance, and are not being phased out. southwest is installing a bunch of blended winglets on their fleet of 737s.

http://www.airliners.net/ - their forums are really informative

It's true. The winglets improve effeciency by preventing the high pressure air from the lower surface of the aerofoil from swirling around the wingtip to the low-pressure upper surface.

As an aside, you'll sometimes see aircraft with winglets that point downwards. Although this is fairly unconventional, it serves the same purpose.

 

[Rumpltzer]

Originally posted by: Atticu5

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS

Originally posted by: Spike
The new boeing planes will not have the flip on the end of the wing, they thought it would improve performace due to wing space but it did not, so it has been canned.

actually the winglets do improve performance, and are not being phased out. southwest is installing a bunch of blended winglets on their fleet of 737s.

http://www.airliners.net/ - their forums are really informative

It's true. The winglets improve effeciency by preventing the high pressure air from the lower surface of the aerofoil from swirling around the wingtip to the low-pressure upper surface.

As an aside, you'll sometimes see aircraft with winglets that point downwards. Although this is fairly unconventional, it serves the same purpose.

I was just going to post something about Spike's comment on the wing "flip"... and his idea that the intended performance enhancement is based on "wing space". I guess it's already been taken care of!

Vortex elimination, man! So cool.

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: PipBoy

Originally posted by: Apex
And it takes about $10,000 worth of fuel to turn an aircraft carrier 180 degrees.

you got that from a Top Gun documentary didn't you.

Haha. You know, I don't really remember, but you could be right. Man, old age is really getting to me.

I remember the director talking about shooting this one scene and the carrier turned, messing up the shot. They told him it would cost $10k to change course back to the original direction, he had them do it, and said "you're not really gonna charge me for that are you?"

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: Rumpltzer

Originally posted by: Atticu5

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS

Originally posted by: Spike
The new boeing planes will not have the flip on the end of the wing, they thought it would improve performace due to wing space but it did not, so it has been canned.

actually the winglets do improve performance, and are not being phased out. southwest is installing a bunch of blended winglets on their fleet of 737s.

http://www.airliners.net/ - their forums are really informative

It's true. The winglets improve effeciency by preventing the high pressure air from the lower surface of the aerofoil from swirling around the wingtip to the low-pressure upper surface.

As an aside, you'll sometimes see aircraft with winglets that point downwards. Although this is fairly unconventional, it serves the same purpose.

I was just going to post something about Spike's comment on the wing "flip"... and his idea that the intended performance enhancement is based on "wing space". I guess it's already been taken care of!

Vortex elimination, man! So cool.

any idea how much less wake turbulence there is behind an aircraft equipped with winglets compared to one without?

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: PipBoy

Originally posted by: Rumpltzer

Originally posted by: Atticu5

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS

Originally posted by: Spike
The new boeing planes will not have the flip on the end of the wing, they thought it would improve performace due to wing space but it did not, so it has been canned.

actually the winglets do improve performance, and are not being phased out. southwest is installing a bunch of blended winglets on their fleet of 737s.

http://www.airliners.net/ - their forums are really informative

It's true. The winglets improve effeciency by preventing the high pressure air from the lower surface of the aerofoil from swirling around the wingtip to the low-pressure upper surface.

As an aside, you'll sometimes see aircraft with winglets that point downwards. Although this is fairly unconventional, it serves the same purpose.

I was just going to post something about Spike's comment on the wing "flip"... and his idea that the intended performance enhancement is based on "wing space". I guess it's already been taken care of!

Vortex elimination, man! So cool.

any idea how much less wake turbulence there is behind an aircraft equipped with winglets compared to one without?

i know that the vortices created by the wings can flip a plane behind the one that created it if it takes off too soon after the first. that is why they make you wait a few seconds before taking off, well that and generally safety.

 

[TechnoKid]

I've flown on a 747 and 777. I like the 777 much better.

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: OIKOS
how much gallons does it take to take down the WTC???

You should be banned for life for that comment.

Bill

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: aRCeNiTe

Originally posted by: OIKOS
how much gallons does it take to take down the WTC???

You should be banned for life for that comment.

Bill

Agreed. Why can't the Mean Mod break his foot off in your ass already

 

[geckojohn]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: aRCeNiTe

Originally posted by: OIKOS how much gallons does it take to take down the WTC???

You should be banned for life for that comment. Bill

Agreed. Why can't the Mean Mod break his foot off in your ass already

I agree too.. who thinks we should ban OIKOS?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: geckojohn

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: aRCeNiTe

Originally posted by: OIKOS how much gallons does it take to take down the WTC???

You should be banned for life for that comment. Bill

Agreed. Why can't the Mean Mod break his foot off in your ass already

I agree too.. who thinks we should ban OIKOS?

Me.

 

[db]

And for a little ol' DC9, the average taxi burn is 400 pounds.

Let's see, that's........... 59.7 gallons

 

[Linux23]

Originally posted by: OIKOS
how much gallons does it take to take down the WTC???

Feck off Dipshit!

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
747 sucks

i had to ride in the middle seat of the 5-seat middle section for 8 hours on a packed/full flight from brussels to NYC once, that was horrible :frown:

Try flying on an Air India flight from London to Chicago, on it's last leg of a 23 hour flight from Bombay. It did not smell pleasant. For 15 dollars more, we could have ridden British Airways, eaten normal food, and seen normal movies. But noooo...

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: OIKOS
how much gallons does it take to take down the WTC???

Assuming for a second that you're not a complete fvckstick and you didn't post that question to be an asshole, the correct answer would be approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel per tower, which is what the government estimates that the planes were carrying at the moment they hit.

Of course, I'm sure you did post that question just to be an asshole, so enjoy your ban. Enjoy it so much that when (if?) you get unbanned, you don't come back.

 

[Confused]

Originally posted by: OIKOS
how much gallons does it take to take down the WTC???

Bye.

AnandTech Moderator

I think we all breathe a sigh of relief and say Finally, THANK YOU MODS!

 

[dighn]

haha the troll is gone.

 

[SgtBuddy]

no road tax, so gas is much cheaper

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: Confused

Originally posted by: OIKOS
how much gallons does it take to take down the WTC???

Bye.

AnandTech Moderator

I think we all breathe a sigh of relief and say Finally, THANK YOU MODS!

Is it for good??

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: PipBoy

Originally posted by: Rumpltzer

Originally posted by: Atticu5

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS

Originally posted by: Spike
The new boeing planes will not have the flip on the end of the wing, they thought it would improve performace due to wing space but it did not, so it has been canned.

actually the winglets do improve performance, and are not being phased out. southwest is installing a bunch of blended winglets on their fleet of 737s.

http://www.airliners.net/ - their forums are really informative

It's true. The winglets improve effeciency by preventing the high pressure air from the lower surface of the aerofoil from swirling around the wingtip to the low-pressure upper surface.

As an aside, you'll sometimes see aircraft with winglets that point downwards. Although this is fairly unconventional, it serves the same purpose.

I was just going to post something about Spike's comment on the wing "flip"... and his idea that the intended performance enhancement is based on "wing space". I guess it's already been taken care of!

Vortex elimination, man! So cool.

any idea how much less wake turbulence there is behind an aircraft equipped with winglets compared to one without?

I'm sure that there's enough in both cases that you don't wanna fly your Cessna behind one.