Seen in Print

[chuck]

Quantas 747's have a "fifth" mount point on the wings for ferrying engines.

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/how-qantas-ferried-an-engine-on-the-wing-of-a-747/

Engine is stripped down/shielded to protect the core. The forward fan is removed and a special aerodynamic "cap" is installed to divert the airflow around the core.

The other shot of the engine mounted on the fuselage is a special P&W test bed unit. Rolls Royce is in the process of converting a Quantas 747 into their own test bed. Right hand photo is an image o what it will look like when finished (Plane was just delivered about a week ago)

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2019/15-10-19-rr-beloved-qantas-747-becomes-rolls-royce-flying-testbed.aspx

It won't be flying until 2020.

Last shot is off one of the two the NASA shuttle carriers. One is on display at Palmdale. The other is at Huston Space Center with a full scale mockup of "Independence/Explorer mated to the 747.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

[webenda]

Have not been in a 747 in a long time. All I remember was that it was not a good ride, sardine city, and not a plane I ever wanted to get into again.

Now I was just cross country twice in a 777-200. A good ride, fast, and actually not terribly uncomfortable either. Maybe the best cross country flights I've ever had.

Boeing 737-900 is a sardine ride also. The dark thing (lower left) is the hat of passenger in front of me. A plumb bob from the center of his hat would have hung between my knees.


The 737 must be hard to land. If anyone was asleep when landing in Atlanta or Tucson, the "carrier landing" at both airports would have woke the dead. The pilot to Atlanta apologized. The Pilot to Tucson said nothing, so as I passed him I said, "Nice carrier landing captain, you stuck it!" He just grimaced.

The MD90 was comfortable, my knees did not touch the seat in front, and the landings in Louisville and Atlanta were Cadillac smooth. Only thing about the MD90 is engine roar in the rearmost seats. Bring earplugs.

[webenda]

Quantas 747's have a "fifth" mount point on the wings for ferrying engines.

The 6 engines under the wing image must be photoshopped. Your link clearly shows only 5 engines in the same photo.

[webenda]

Rolls Royce is in the process of converting a Quantas 747 into their own test bed. Right hand photo is an image o what it will look like when finished (Plane was just delivered about a week ago) It won't be flying until 2020.

RR has this one in Tucson.


I have seen it flying around with one big engine and three smaller engines.


I last saw it in July of this year.

[chuck]

P&W also has two planes for testing. One does larger (aka jumbo jet engines) and the second has the smaller aux mount on the upper deck. The plane in the photo's in your last post may be RR's "big engine" plane and the one in the press release is the new small engine unit with a similar mount on the upper deck.

Re the "comfort" level in most airliners. The seat arrangements are set by the airline, not the manufacturer. They just build what the airline requests. I've only flown on three 747's and that was about 25+ years ago. The plane was comfortable, even in coach and the thing I liked was a 747 just lands, it doesn't bounce around. It just lands.

Most comfortable flight was on a Lockheed L-1011. That plane was way ahead of its time. Lockheed's engineers did a great job on it BUT it broke with too many conventions and its avionics were too sophisticated for the time. Lockheed had spent so much time and effort on military contracts they kind of forgot how to deal with commercial clients.

Most fun, 727 taking off from LaGuardia. You roar down the run way and just before you think you are going to wind up in Flushing Bay the pilot pulls back on the stick and the nose pitches up. The climb is so steep that if you drop anything, it's not going to hit the deck until it's 3/4 of the way to the rear bulkhead. That was the most complicated wing I have ever seen, the way it could increase size and it had forward slats, rear flaps, spoilers, etc.

Least comfortable seat configurations:

a) 757. It was a specific airline but I can't remember which one. I felt like I was squished into the back of my parents old 62 station wagon.
b) Any plane Spirit airlines operates. They have the smallest and most uncomfortable seats in the business UNLESS you are willing to pay for an upgraded seat. What you get upgraded to is a "normal" cramped airline seat.

Scariest flight

DC 10. It wasn't even turbulence or bad weather. Just a rough and poor ride. Plane was subject to periodic vibrations that caused the seat trays to drop down and there were rattling sounds coming from everywhere. When we went to land pilot slammed into the runway and then we bounced up and slammed down again, like it didn't want to stay on the ground. This was a big plane but it didn't behave/fly like one.

Flying used to be pleasant. The planes were well maintained and most of the airline/airport personnel were professionals. The passengers also tended to be much better behaved. Somewhere along the line all of this went to h*ll. I only fly when there is NO alternative OR I need to get somewhere in a hurry.

[rogruth]

The passengers on ANYTHING used to be much better behaved.

[chuck]

Roger said:

The passengers on ANYTHING used to be much better behaved.

LOL, most humorous but sad and true comment I've heard in a while.

People used to be nice or at least polite to each other. Now I'd just settle for civil.

[E7]

My only rides were in 1969 on a DC-9 from Memphis, TN to Harrisburg, PA and vice versa. Seating was fairly comfortable, and we even got a meal in one direction. Only rough moment was when the pilot cowboyed it into Pittsburgh. Not a big fan of flying.

[rex desilets]

"b) Any plane Spirit airlines operates. They have the smallest and most uncomfortable seats in the business UNLESS you are willing to pay for an upgraded seat. What you get upgraded to is a "normal" cramped airline seat.
"
A couple years back took Spirit from PHL to LAX; non-stop & cheap. OMG. Worst experience of my life...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

A couple years back took Spirit from PHL to LAX; non-stop & cheap. OMG. Worst experience of my life...

You get what you pay for (usually) and in the case of the airlines, you get less than you paid for...... Spirit is on the low end of the list of surviving airlines for good reason.

[rex desilets]

Yeah.
The non-stop flight was the influencer...hard to get from PHL to LAX non-stop. Price seemed to be a bonus.
Last time was on Delta...OMG

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Yeah.
The non-stop flight was the influencer...hard to get from PHL to LAX non-stop. Price seemed to be a bonus.
Last time was on Delta...OMG

Well, I just flew from LAX to Dulles on Thursday - 4 hr & 11 min on a 777-200. Best cross-country flight (even in coach) that I have had yet. I rarely fly on other than Unites or Southwest.

[chuck]

777 is a nice solid plane.

Delta is an OK carrier. Not as good as North West that they absorbed. I used to think very highly of American, very professional. Still are but not like the old days.

[rex desilets]

After our Spirit Air experience, I signed up Delta, because they're reputedly good. Flight TO PHL changed in Detroit (to a puddle jumper). The boarding gate to loading gate was, actually, less than the distance Earth-Moon. Barely made it in time...Mama is sorta old & a bad hip.
Flight back to LAX changed in Minneapolis. Solving a Rubix cube might have been easier than finding the departure gate, again just in the nick of time.
Otherwise, Delta with expensive economy is fine.
We have tried the LAX-IAD route. Nice nonstop, but a bitch of drive to suburban Philadelphia.
Plus, the Eagles suck, again.