The 747 is a small plane

Author
Discussion

Eric Mc

122,144 posts

266 months

Wednesday 12th October 2011
quotequote all
RobM77 said:
Great picture!

With regard to the Spruce Goose picture, I knew it was big, but I had no idea it was that big eek
It's main drawback was that it probably couldn't fly - a bit of a handicap for an aeroplane.

RobM77

35,349 posts

235 months

Wednesday 12th October 2011
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
RobM77 said:
Great picture!

With regard to the Spruce Goose picture, I knew it was big, but I had no idea it was that big eek
It's main drawback was that it probably couldn't fly - a bit of a handicap for an aeroplane.
hehe I'm still impressed by the size of the thing, given the time it was built and the technology around at the time.

Eric Mc

122,144 posts

266 months

Wednesday 12th October 2011
quotequote all
Hughes never went for half measures.

Simpo Two

85,735 posts

266 months

Wednesday 12th October 2011
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
It's main drawback was that it probably couldn't fly - a bit of a handicap for an aeroplane.
Maybe it would have done - but it was designed as a troop transport for WW2 and the war finished before it was built. And after the war the jet age had arrived and longer ranges meant large flying boats were no longer needed, so it was doubly obsolete.

That said, it looks woefully underpowered, especially to get off water. There must be a point where drag beats power whatever you do.

No sound unfortunately: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5XSESxKfKE

Eric Mc

122,144 posts

266 months

Wednesday 12th October 2011
quotequote all
It only ever flew in ground effect - so no one really knows how well it would really have performed.

Hooli

32,278 posts

201 months

Wednesday 12th October 2011
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
It's main drawback was that it probably couldn't fly - a bit of a handicap for an aeroplane.
Pffft minor fault.

Simpo Two

85,735 posts

266 months

Wednesday 12th October 2011
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
It only ever flew in ground effect - so no one really knows how well it would really have performed.
Ah, I thought the 'hop' was as high as it could go. If it could go higher, why didn't they do it, say on the next run?

Eric Mc

122,144 posts

266 months

Wednesday 12th October 2011
quotequote all
No one knows. Hughes went off ina strop and refused to fly it again.

The whole project was a bit of a fiasco with Hughes having to attend a Senate hearing to justify why the government should pay his development costs.

RobM77

35,349 posts

235 months

Wednesday 12th October 2011
quotequote all
Does anyone know how true to life the film "The Aviator" is? I remember really enjoying it when it came out, and was going to get it again soon on Love Film.

Eric Mc

122,144 posts

266 months

Wednesday 12th October 2011
quotequote all
By all accounts it wasn't too far off the mark. I've never seen it but I do know a bit about the Spruce Goose and what was going on around the project at the time. The BBC series "Reaching for the Skies" features part of Hughes testifying to The House.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT3q8wg_1-0

RobM77

35,349 posts

235 months

Wednesday 12th October 2011
quotequote all
I'd definitely recommend the film. I remember enjoying it at the time.

motomk

2,155 posts

245 months

Wednesday 12th October 2011
quotequote all
bigbubba said:
Ok,

well seeing as the Trent 900 engines on the Lufthansa A380 are 4.55m in length and the GEnx on the 747 are 4.69m in length it proves that this photo is BS. The engines on this A380 look at least 1.5 times longer than the 747 which mean the rest of the aircraft must be too.

BB
Not to sound too geeky/anorakish but that United Jumbo won't be using GEnx engines, Probably more like P&W PW4000 something or other which I am guessing is probably shorter than a GEnx engine and a BigBus Trent. I agree I don't reckon they are on the same runway. See them on the way to work and they don't outsize them that much.






RobM77

35,349 posts

235 months

Wednesday 12th October 2011
quotequote all
motomk said:
bigbubba said:
Ok,

well seeing as the Trent 900 engines on the Lufthansa A380 are 4.55m in length and the GEnx on the 747 are 4.69m in length it proves that this photo is BS. The engines on this A380 look at least 1.5 times longer than the 747 which mean the rest of the aircraft must be too.

BB
Not to sound too geeky/anorakish but that United Jumbo won't be using GEnx engines, Probably more like P&W PW4000 something or other which I am guessing is probably shorter than a GEnx engine and a BigBus Trent. I agree I don't reckon they are on the same runway. See them on the way to work and they don't outsize them that much.
I must admit, why would these two planes be sitting nose to nose on the same runway in the first place? Given the distance the photo is taken from it's probably not a publicity shot. Secondly, how on earth would they get out of that position; it's not like they have a reverse gear and I can't see one of those little tug things that pulls them around anywhere in sight.

Cyder

7,067 posts

221 months

Wednesday 12th October 2011
quotequote all
Thrust reversers?

Aizle

12,429 posts

176 months

Thursday 13th October 2011
quotequote all
Cyder said:
Thrust reversers?
Not when they are on the same conveyor belt, imagine the aftermath!

cheddar

4,637 posts

175 months

Thursday 13th October 2011
quotequote all
Zaxxon said:
This.

Definitely.

Urban Sports

11,321 posts

204 months

Friday 14th October 2011
quotequote all
Does this give a better idea?


croyde

23,036 posts

231 months

Friday 14th October 2011
quotequote all
That's better but the A380 does make the 747 look svelte and agile. Bit like parking my E36 next to an E90.

Fat Albert

1,392 posts

182 months

Friday 14th October 2011
quotequote all
Saw this nice little (!) model in BA's Headquarters on Wednesday:


They will be building a new hangar that will house 2 full A380s and one nose-in, that will be a big building!!