Slashdot Mirror

Flying over a hill with a B52 with only 30 feet clearance is some crazy stuff indeed.

For years, commercial pilots had to essentially make the "low altitude drop in mountainous terrain" you are speaking of at Kai Tak in Hong Kong. The airport was essentially nestled up against a steep mountain, densely populated by tall apartment buildings and the ocean at the end of the runway. This called for some truly interesting descents and there were "incidents" on the runway but none major, if I recall, before the airport was eventually closed.

Check out this photo:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/076911/M/

As someone who flys enough to get more than occasional upgrades to first class, I can tell you that these kind of arrogant problem passengers are a lot more common in first class.

I actually had one tell me he wasn't going to return his seat upright during landing. I didn't get mad - I got more than even. The jackass had put his laptop underneath his seat since he was in row 1 - right in front of me and where I could get to it. I knew the passenger behind me in row 3 agreed with my sentiment, so the jackass who wouldn't "return his seat to the full upright position" now had his laptop about four rows back. :-)

When the plane stopped, I told him that since it was just me behind him his laptop was now about 20 feet further aft and he'd now have to wait for the plane to empty before he coule go find it. I also told him that had my wife or daughter been seated behind him I would have "ripped off your fucking head, shit down the bloody stump of your neck and pissed in your skull." Since I'm a former college football player that wasn't an idle threat....

And if you really think the plane you're in can't hit hard enough to crack a bone or two but not scatter the plane over a few square kilometers, look at this plane land a little crooked...

Some basic definitions...

- This is a plane
- This is an airplane
- This is an aeroplane
(check again. the 'airplane' is in America, the 'aeroplane' is not).

Some basic definitions...

- This is a plane
- This is an airplane
- This is an aeroplane
(check again. the 'airplane' is in America, the 'aeroplane' is not).

The Douglas DC-3: the first airliner design that could actually make money just carrying passengers, and still in service some 65 years after it's first flight.

Some recent pics of examples still in service: in Alaska, South Africa, Puerto Rico, Florida, England, and here's a military example from Guatemala.

The Douglas DC-3: the first airliner design that could actually make money just carrying passengers, and still in service some 65 years after it's first flight.

Some recent pics of examples still in service: in Alaska, South Africa, Puerto Rico, Florida, England, and here's a military example from Guatemala.

The Douglas DC-3: the first airliner design that could actually make money just carrying passengers, and still in service some 65 years after it's first flight.

Some recent pics of examples still in service: in Alaska, South Africa, Puerto Rico, Florida, England, and here's a military example from Guatemala.

The Douglas DC-3: the first airliner design that could actually make money just carrying passengers, and still in service some 65 years after it's first flight.

Some recent pics of examples still in service: in Alaska, South Africa, Puerto Rico, Florida, England, and here's a military example from Guatemala.

The Douglas DC-3: the first airliner design that could actually make money just carrying passengers, and still in service some 65 years after it's first flight.

Some recent pics of examples still in service: in Alaska, South Africa, Puerto Rico, Florida, England, and here's a military example from Guatemala.

The Douglas DC-3: the first airliner design that could actually make money just carrying passengers, and still in service some 65 years after it's first flight.

Some recent pics of examples still in service: in Alaska, South Africa, Puerto Rico, Florida, England, and here's a military example from Guatemala.

A brand new China Airlines 747-400 went off the end of the runway at Hong Kong's Kai Tak airport and into the harbor a few years ago. They ended up scrapping the plane at the airport due to damage.

Photos here.

This was the Gimli Glider, which didn't crash, but did run out of fuel and had to make a dead stick landing on the abandoned RCAFB Gimli. No-one was seriously hurt. The aircraft, registration C-GAUN, serial number 22520, is still in service after $1M worth of repairs. Here are some photos from earlier this year.

Bob Cringley says it is a Challenger 604.

I know Jobs has a GV (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=182101 ), but what does Billg have?

That's Buran, the Soviet space shuttle. This photo is showing the Russian/Soviet equivalent of the U.S. Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. I do believe the An-225 might have been custom-developed for this purpose, an extremely expensive proposition. The United States, on the other hand, transports the shuttle orbiters on a widely-available commercial aircraft -- in fact, the early photographs of the SCA clearly reveal American Airlines markings faintly visible on the skin of the plane! (Both 747s have since been repainted white with a blue stripe.)

They are not stock, though:

Modifications to tail to counter increased wake turbulence from Orbiter

SCA without orbiter, displaying attachment fittings like those on External Tank

SCA carrying orbiter Enterprise about to land

N905NA served with American until 1974. The other, N911NA, is from Japan Air Lines and was acquired by NASA in 1988.

I've got pictures of one of the Buran test articles if you're wondering how this Soviet version of the Space Shuttle looks from up close.

That's Buran, the Soviet space shuttle. This photo is showing the Russian/Soviet equivalent of the U.S. Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. I do believe the An-225 might have been custom-developed for this purpose, an extremely expensive proposition. The United States, on the other hand, transports the shuttle orbiters on a widely-available commercial aircraft -- in fact, the early photographs of the SCA clearly reveal American Airlines markings faintly visible on the skin of the plane! (Both 747s have since been repainted white with a blue stripe.)

They are not stock, though:

Modifications to tail to counter increased wake turbulence from Orbiter

SCA without orbiter, displaying attachment fittings like those on External Tank

SCA carrying orbiter Enterprise about to land

N905NA served with American until 1974. The other, N911NA, is from Japan Air Lines and was acquired by NASA in 1988.

I've got pictures of one of the Buran test articles if you're wondering how this Soviet version of the Space Shuttle looks from up close.

That's Buran, the Soviet space shuttle. This photo is showing the Russian/Soviet equivalent of the U.S. Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. I do believe the An-225 might have been custom-developed for this purpose, an extremely expensive proposition. The United States, on the other hand, transports the shuttle orbiters on a widely-available commercial aircraft -- in fact, the early photographs of the SCA clearly reveal American Airlines markings faintly visible on the skin of the plane! (Both 747s have since been repainted white with a blue stripe.)

They are not stock, though:

Modifications to tail to counter increased wake turbulence from Orbiter

SCA without orbiter, displaying attachment fittings like those on External Tank

SCA carrying orbiter Enterprise about to land

N905NA served with American until 1974. The other, N911NA, is from Japan Air Lines and was acquired by NASA in 1988.

I've got pictures of one of the Buran test articles if you're wondering how this Soviet version of the Space Shuttle looks from up close.

might be a Ukrainian-built An-225 "Mriya". It has a larger payload capacity and might be more suited for the purpose, having been used to transport the Russian shuttle in the past.

Here is one of the photos.

It's not a 767, it was an Airbus A-300...

Would be looking like this...
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=191200

Topic: If A 707 Hit The World Trade Center?...

While there has been plenty of creepy (and likely bogus) coincidence with that alt.prophecy.nostradamus guy, there is still a number of other chilling or otherwise creepy things to dig up from the past that relate, and maybe put into perspective, 9/11's events. Got passed this one [Airliners.net] just now; not sure how many have seen it yet. Apologies for redundancy. But the last post in the batch above was particularly prophetic, and I needed to share.

Boeing 757-200
Boeing 767-200

Lots of stock pictures of the planes and details about the types of planes...

Boeing 757-200
Boeing 767-200

Lots of stock pictures of the planes and details about the types of planes...

Boeing 757-200
Boeing 767-200

Lots of stock pictures of the planes and details about the types of planes...