• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

787-9 at Farnborough..fly it like ya stole it...

Recpro

Recpro

Well-Known Member
With fuel for the demo and otherwise empty, the 787 has virtually the same thrust-to-weight ratio as a Northrop F-5E Tiger II. around .58.

I'm not usually one for commercial planes, this one is a beauty. We see 787's on air worthiness trials before paint regularly...

I'm probably paying attention as much because of the LI batteries, as anything else..:dunno:..the short landing at the end of the video is way cool, sounds like there is a version that is near STOL


...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzr313wSY_Y
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
I'd think it would be safe to say this plane is as different from the original 707 of 1958 as IT was from the DC-3-And this is BEYOND the obvious 4 engines vs 2. Who would have thought we'd be flying to Europe on 2 engines ?
 
My oldest son was part of the design team for the Dash 9 and has since moved on to another Boeing project. He mentioned that the 9 had quite the performance envelope for a flying bus. ;)
 
That demonstration should be able to convince some of the airlines to order these over a death buss !:D
 
There was recently one in my area doing crosswind tests (it gets a little breezy here in the spring).

It was a sight!
 

Attachments

  • 1978735_849816108378814_1069352705_n.jpg
    1978735_849816108378814_1069352705_n.jpg
    42.7 KB · Views: 10
Sandy G said:
I'd think it would be safe to say this plane is as different from the original 707 of 1958 as IT was from the DC-3-And this is BEYOND the obvious 4 engines vs 2. Who would have thought we'd be flying to Europe on 2 engines ?
Click to expand...

The two-engine certification for trans-ocean flights, as I imagine you know, Sandy, is called ETOPS... which may or may not actually stand for "Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming" ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

EDIT: Hey, I just learned a new "word" (neologism) -- backronym
 
Sandy G said:
That's true. But he was carrying only himself, & a LOT of avgas. The thing is that WE do it today on 2 engines as a matter of course, & nobody thinks twicet about it.
Click to expand...

But you asked who would have thought of it. Well as one of the founding members of TWA Lindberg certainly thought about it.
 
The landing at the end was...stunning. Looked like about 1000 to 1500 feet after wheels down, is that possible in an aircraft that size? A very nimble ride, too.
 
UMRKretread said:
The landing at the end was...stunning. Looked like about 1000 to 1500 feet after wheels down, is that possible in an aircraft that size? A very nimble ride, too.
Click to expand...

Really short.....there is a short field version spoken of.....he was really light too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom