WT Forums

Home | WT Forums | Hogpedia | Warthog blog | Hosted sites
It is currently 13 May 2025, 19:13

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2006, 05:41 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2002, 10:29
Posts: 5935
Location: S of St Louis but in IL
LONDON -- It was the mother of all red-eye flights.

(Instead of red eye, I would think "red butt" would be more appropriate!)


Hong Kong to London the hard way, eastbound with the winds. Non-stop across two oceans and North America -- more than halfway around the world.

By the time the wheels of the Boeing jet touched down at London's Heathrow airport at 1:18 p.m. local time Thursday, it had set a distance record of 11,664 nautical miles or, measured on the same scale as a car's odometer, 13,422 miles (21,601 kilometers). Flight time was 22 hours, 42 minutes.

Since the dawn of the jet age more than a half-century ago, no commercial jetliner had ever flown as far non-stop without refueling.

In 1962, a Boeing B-52 bomber flew 12,532 miles from Kadena, Okinawa, to an Air Force base outside of Madrid, Spain, setting the unlimited distance record by a jet without refueling.

Boeing 002, the call sign for the plane, beat that mark handily. In doing so, it drew the attention even of those in aviation used to dealing with long-haul jets.

After the plane made its final turn point over JFK Airport and headed toward New England, an air traffic controller in Canada asked the pilots for their point of origin. The controller already knew the plane's
destination was London.

Boeing test pilot Randy Austin, who was piloting the plane at the time, told the controller it had come from Hong Kong. The controller, apparently not believing it was the Hong Kong in Asia, asked for that city's
four-letter designation used by pilots.

"Is this some kind of special flight?" the controller finally asked.

The controller was told it was a world record distance flight.

It is confusing. To go to London from Hong Kong, a plane would usually fly over Southeast Asia, then the Middle East and into Europe. Planes have been making that flight non-stop since 1983. The 5,300 nautical mile flight takes about 10 hours.

Other airline pilots heard the conversation between the Boeing pilots and the air traffic controller and started calling the 777 pilots to wish them well and to ask questions. How much fuel did they have left; how long had they been flying? Pilot talk.

Calls came in from pilots of American, Continental and El Al jets that were in the vicinity of the 777.

The route the jet took across the Atlantic on its final of four legs was close to that flown by Charles Lindbergh in his Spirit of St. Louis in 1927.

As the jet approached Heathrow for landing, it was placed in a holding pattern that continued for about 20 minutes. The Heathrow controller asked the 777 pilots how long they had been flying. Told the flight time so far was more than 22 hours, the controller who had put the jet on hold replied: "My apologies."

Boeing established the distance record with its 777-200LR Worldliner, the longest-range jetliner ever built. The plane, which will be able to carry more than 300 passengers in a three-class cabin arrangement, will not enter airline passenger service until early next year. Instead of paying
passengers, the plane on its record-setting jaunt carried nine pilots, two Boeing executives, several Boeing engineers, a flight attendant, customer representatives, 11 journalists and a BBC cameraman.

The flight started from Hong Kong Wednesday, flew into Thursday over the Pacific, then back into Wednesday when it crossed the International Dateline, and finally into Thursday again.

Arriving at Heathrow Airport under cloudy skies, two airport fire trucks welcomed the big blue Boeing jet with streams of water as it pulled up to a waiting media crowd.

"I feel great," said Lars Anderson, vice president of Boeing's 777 program, who led the Boeing group off the plane, followed by the journalists who had been invited along for the history-making flight.

The flight crew came off last, led by Captain Suzanna Darcy-Hennemann, project leader for the record-breaking flight and chief test pilot for the 777-200LR program.

The plane had 360,732 pounds of fuel before the engines were started in Hong Kong -- more than the combined weight of the plane, its passengers and their bags. When it landed in London it had 18,700 pounds of fuel remaining.

Call it a publicity stunt -- and Boeing certainly got a lot of media attention with the flight. But the distance record came at a time when several major international airlines -- Qantas, Singapore, Emirates and
Cathay Pacific -- are looking at the 777-200LR for ultra-long-haul flights. Boeing faces competition from Airbus in each of those hard-fought campaigns.

A Singapore Airlines 777 pilot took turns flying the jet with five Boeing pilots, another pilot from General Electric and two more from Pakistan International Airlines.

"We believe it is important to keep building the image of this plane and its capabilities," Andersen said when asked why Boeing wanted the record. "This flight underscores our strategy of point-to-point service."

The jet was still more than an hour away from Los Angeles, with a continent to cross and another ocean, when it passed the halfway point of the flight -- something once known as the point of no return. But it was five minutes ahead of schedule and the 777's two General Electric engines -- the most powerful ever built -- had burned 3,000 pounds less fuel than had been estimated for that point before the flight began.

"She knows what she has to do and she's going for it," Darcy-Hennemann said. That "she" is Blue Baby 2, the name the Boeing test pilots have fondly given the plane, which is painted in a Boeing blue livery. It is the second of two 777-200LRs that have been used in the test flight program that began last March.

Andersen broke open two bottles of Washington-state sparkling wine and everyone gathered in the spacious front cabin -- except the pilots -- to toast the halfway milestone.

An hour later, just after the plane passed over Los Angeles at 37,000 feet, John Cashman, director of flight-crew operations and chief pilot for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, and others on the Boeing team received a call from Alan Mulally, chief executive of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, who had led the program to develop the 777.

"Congratulations. You are changing the world," Mulally told one.

The big jet's unusual route to London had been mapped out three hours before take-off, calculated to set a distance record but also to catch the best possible tail winds along the way.

It took the flight over Taiwan, along the southern coast of Japan and across the Pacific toward Midway. Northwest of Midway the jet took the first of three critical "turn points" that are used to measure the distance record. The second turn point was Los Angeles and the third New York. The distance for the record was the sum of the four legs.

The plane actually flew farther than the 13,422 miles that went into the record book. That's because the distance record is measured by a straight line from the start to each of the three turn points and finally to the end point at Heathrow. But the plane did not fly in a straight line between those points. The pilots would sometimes change course slightly to find better winds, although each of the three turn points had to be overflown.

A flight map that is part of the jet's in-flight entertainment system showed the total miles flown just before landing at 14,042 miles.

The record flight came 100 years after the Wright Brothers, in 1905, set a distance record of 24 miles in 38 minutes, 20 seconds. It is considered aviation's first distance record and was recognized as such by the National Aeronautics Association, which was formed that same year.

A representative of the organization was on the 777-200LR to monitor the flight and certify the distance record.

About 11 hours into the flight, Bob Buchholz, Boeing's chief engineer for 777 safety, certification and performance, was talking with a reporter in the front cabin, noting the history being made.

He became teary eyed as he considered those first non-stop airplane flights across the Pacific, the Atlantic and the United States made so long ago by aviation pioneers such as John Alcock and Arthur Whitten Brown, who first crossed the Atlantic non-stop in June 1919.

Blue Baby 2 crossed them all .. and in one flight.

"Pilots Without Maintainers are Just Pedestrians With Leather Jackets and Cool Sunglasses."

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2006, 06:00 
Offline

Joined: 03 Jun 2003, 06:24
Posts: 1967
Not bad Boeing, not too bad...

It raises an intresting point. The plane is easily capable of doing such a long flight, but do we (the squishy bags of jello called passengers) actually want to sit in one place for that long?

I think its safe to say the Boeing Execs on that flight had slightly more than the 39" of pitch that folk in cattle class get (talking from experience here). And probably enjoyed the trip slightly more as a result.

Still can't take it away from BB2, good job...

You're born, you keep your head down and you die. If you're lucky...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2006, 09:51 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2002, 10:29
Posts: 5935
Location: S of St Louis but in IL
Maybe there's a workout room with treadmills next to the galley. then again, maybe not.

"Pilots Without Maintainers are Just Pedestrians With Leather Jackets and Cool Sunglasses."

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2006, 12:04 
Offline
Ex-Crewdog
User avatar

Joined: 18 Apr 2002, 19:39
Posts: 802
Location: Region 10
Career field: Crew Chief
This might make quite a stink with everyone wanting a new tanker for the Air Force!? KC-777-200LR anyone?

You might be a "Bulldog" if: You bend over and grab your ankles when you hear: "EXERCISE, EXERCISE, EXERCISE!"

_________________
3 Branches down... 2 to go!
Put on your tinfoil hats, the black choppers are coming, and I'm calling them in.
Former DCC OA-10A T/N 80-278


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2006, 12:51 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2002, 10:29
Posts: 5935
Location: S of St Louis but in IL
30mmJr would rather have a Boeing than an Airbutt.<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

"Pilots Without Maintainers are Just Pedestrians With Leather Jackets and Cool Sunglasses."

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2006, 16:08 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
This might make quite a stink with everyone wanting a new tanker for the Air Force!? KC-777-200LR anyone?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I think that very thing is being proposed. It's dumb.

Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2006, 16:58 
Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2003, 16:49
Posts: 970
Location: G-14 Classified
The autonomous air Blimp Refueler in the Movie Stealth Was certainly interesting.... Till it got blown up, then it was fantastic...

"The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see their near and dear bathed in tears, to ride their horses and sleep on the white bellies of their wives and daughters."
-Genghis Khan

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2006, 20:07 
Offline
Ex-Crewdog
User avatar

Joined: 18 Apr 2002, 19:39
Posts: 802
Location: Region 10
Career field: Crew Chief
Why is it dumb Chief? I mean, an aircraft that can fly nonstop, half-way around the globe (more actually), then have the ability to refuel other A/C is a great feat. I'm not sure of the total logistics of adding the "holding tank" to the airframe, but I'm sure it would be cost effective in the long haul to purchase new tankers instead of refurbing the 135's.

You might be a "Bulldog" if: You bend over and grab your ankles when you hear: "EXERCISE, EXERCISE, EXERCISE!"

_________________
3 Branches down... 2 to go!
Put on your tinfoil hats, the black choppers are coming, and I'm calling them in.
Former DCC OA-10A T/N 80-278


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2006, 07:13 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Why is it dumb Chief? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I think it is dumb because C-17's are better military airlifters than 777's and a superior dedicated tanker could be designed that would be smaller/cheaper (KC-135 weights). Then, more could be bought. An all wing configuration seems ideal to me for a tanker. It would not have appreciable cargo volume, just fuel tanks. Whenever an airliner can be used for transport, comandeer airliners from the civil air reserve. Don't buy any. C-17's (and C-130j's) can do the heavy lifting into tight spots where airliners can't. A related article was published today. I totally agree with the last two paragraphs.

<b>Pentagon To Stop C-17 Production, Start Aerial Tanker Program </b>(Posted: Wednesday, January 04, 2006)
[Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, Jan. 4, 2005]

(by) Amy Butler

In an amazing show of virtuosity, the Pentagon's civilian leadership is expected to stop C-17 production and stiff-arm any objections by starting an aerial tanker program that doubles as a transport and hinting at a low-observable, follow-on tactical transport program.

Pentagon officials are telling aerospace companies, in particular Lockheed Martin, that they are considering concepts for a airlifter that can more stealthily deliver cargo to the battlefield and better support the Army's goal of morphing into a smaller, lighter and more forward-postured force. The new airlifter would incorporate improved short takeoff and landing capability, perhaps through the use of lift fans like those designed for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

"For the past six months, that concept has been moved to the front burner," says a senior aerospace industry airlift specialist. "It would be a jet and have some low observability for penetration; it could have some refueling capability, and it's being considered for the 2015 time frame. Boeing and Lockheed Martin have both sent senior-level vice presidents to the Pentagon to brief their concepts. Engine manufacturers are also being told to start looking at more versatile propulsion systems."

Justification of the Pentagon's desire to cap C-17 production is to be in the yet-to-be-released Mobility Capabilities Study. The MCS has not been openly posted due to classification. Critics suggest the Pentagon will avoid releasing the MCS during the upcoming election season for fear of generating a debate about the Bush administration's decision.

The Pentagon's brass, including U.S. Air Force Gen. Norton Schwartz, the U.S. Transportation Command chief, is falling in line behind the study. He says 180 C-17s combined with 112 modified C-5s (at a cost of about $13 billion), a yet-to-be-purchased multirole tanker and a healthy Civil Reserve Air Fleet, will suffice for future needs.

Those with insight into the mobility and tanker planning say the Air Force will support a high-low mix of tankers. The Boeing 777 or a large Airbus would provide the strategic, transoceanic bridge capability and take on a substantial airlift obligation. The tactical, low end of the mix could be provided by a 737 tanker or the KC-130J which could also refuel Navy aircraft, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles.

The last requirement is expected to emerge over the next five years. The large tankers would refuel the smaller tankers, which would then operate near the battlefield or land at forward bases and serve in a ground refueling role. Air Force planners want to move away from the older 767 and buy the newer 777 or Airbus designs to take advantage of a global logistics pipeline in place for the airline industry.

<b>A warning comes from a senior Air Force official. He agrees that the service will say yes to a new tanker program. However, there are signs that requirements for the new tanker are being overloaded, and he predicts an early cost crisis like those that have damaged the Army/Navy Aerial Common Sensor and the Air Force's E-10 Multi-sensor Command and Control Aircraft programs.

"The requirement guys want it to be a tanker, a cargo aircraft, a communications relay node and platform for collecting signals intelligence," the Air Force official says. "The lack of requirements discipline is a big, big mistake. It will make the aircraft unaffordable and technically unachievable." </b>



Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2006, 07:41 
Offline

Joined: 15 Oct 2004, 06:52
Posts: 813
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>"The requirement guys want it to be a tanker, a cargo aircraft, a communications relay node and platform for collecting signals intelligence," the Air Force official says. "The lack of requirements discipline is a big, big mistake. It will make the aircraft unaffordable and technically unachievable."

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

A voice of reason in an insane procurement world. This thing, if it ever flies, will do none of the requirements well. Instead, it'll be another over-budget aircraft with a limited production run because the money ran out. Just what the hell is a "somewhat stealthy" aircraft? The idea is ludicrous. To take a cargo aircraft and try to make it stealthy is laughable when you think about the radar cross section posed by a large platform. What about the IR signature from four smaller or two large engines. The threat today is not from surface to air missiles, but from hand held optically or IR guided weapons. This one will make the F-22 look like a bargain.

OC


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2006, 07:47 
Offline

Joined: 12 Oct 2002, 11:09
Posts: 2857
KC-130J refueling navy aircraft. Isn't the top speed of the kc-130 near the stall speed of the super bug.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2006, 09:35 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
KC-130J refueling navy aircraft. Isn't the top speed of the kc-130 near the stall speed of the super bug.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The "J" model is 40-50 knots faster than the "H", I think. The J is better in every way except max payload, where it is the same.

Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2006, 12:51 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The autonomous air Blimp Refueler in the Movie Stealth Was certainly interesting.... Till it got blown up, then it was fantastic...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<i>Is this another case of life imitating art?</i>

<b>Lockheed Martin Aims To Test Military Spy Blimp By 2009:</b> Lockheed Martin Corp. is building a prototype spy blimp for testing in 2009, part of a Pentagon project to scan U.S. borders from 70,000 feet for months at a time. The High-Altitude Airship will be built in Akron, Ohio, where the U.S. military has been building lighter-than-air vehicles since the 1920s. The Missile Defense Agency last month awarded Lockheed Martin a $149 million contract to build and test the first model. Company officials say the long-term goal is to build an airship fleet to scan the entire U.S. border. About 10 airships could keep an eye on an entire U.S. border, Lockheed Martin said. The vehicles are expected to cost in the neighborhood of $50 million to $ 60 million, not including the sensors, to be used for about five years before needing a major overhaul. If successful, the program could offer the Pentagon a cheaper and more persistent alternative to spy satellites and reconnaissance planes. The airship will be able to linger for months at a time, for a fraction of the cost. "The basic vehicle is really incredibly effective to operate. The pound per hour on orbit is really down in the tens of dollars per hour," said David Kier, vice president and managing director of Lockheed Martin missile-defense programs, in a conference call with reporters Wednesday. (Dow Jones)





Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2006, 18:06 
Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2003, 16:49
Posts: 970
Location: G-14 Classified
..In the meantime... the border patrol is still doing the tactics we taught them at the 27th tass back in the early 80's.... kill the prop and glide with a tailwind. They never hear you and your only doing 40 knots. L-19's and cubs are still doing it in 2006...

"The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see their near and dear bathed in tears, to ride their horses and sleep on the white bellies of their wives and daughters."
-Genghis Khan

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2006, 05:21 
Offline

Joined: 03 Jun 2003, 06:24
Posts: 1967
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> "The basic vehicle is really incredibly effective to operate.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I'll tell you where you've heard that before - German car dealerships.

"Yes, the basic car is very cheap at $15,000
But you will want to consider the std options package:

Wheels $5k, Engine $10k, Seats $7k, Electrics $13k

We call this the Drivers Kit.

Would you be interested in seeing the additional Comfort kit and perhaps put some glass in the windows?"

It'll be the same with the Splimp, big bag of gas $50 million, sensor array $3 billion...

You're born, you keep your head down and you die. If you're lucky...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group