Slashdot Mirror


Boeing 747 Recycled Into a Private Residence

Ponca City writes "Nicholas Jackson writes in the Atlantic about a woman who requested only curvilinear/feminine shapes for her new home and has purchased an entire Boeing 747-200. They transported it by helicopter to her 55-acre property in the remote hills of Malibu and after deconstructing it, had all 4,500,000 pieces put back together to form a main house and six ancillary structures including a meditation pavilion, an animal barn, and an art studio building. 'The scale of a 747 aircraft is enormous — over 230 feet long, 195 feet wide and 63 feet tall with over 17,000 cubic feet of cargo area alone and represents a tremendous amount of material for a very economical price of less than $50,000,' writes Architect David Hertz. 'In researching airplane wings and superimposing different airplane wing types on the site to scale, the wing of a 747, at over 2,500 sq. ft., became an ideal configuration to maximize the views and provide a self supporting roof with minimal additional structural support needed.' Called the 'Wing House,' as a structure and engineering achievement, the aircraft encloses an enormous amount of space using the least amount of materials in a very resourceful and efficient manner, and the recycling of the 4.5 million parts of this 'big aluminum can' is seen as an extreme example of sustainable reuse and appropriation. Interestingly enough, the architects had to register the roof of the house with the FAA so pilots flying overhead would not mistake it as a downed aircraft."

239 comments

  1. THey should house a server farm in it by alta · · Score: 1

    One with enough computers to stand up to /.

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    1. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully that plane didn't crash as hard as her web host.

    2. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Quantus347 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, thats not a bad Idea. When it comes down to it a plane is a structurally sound sealed can of high-grade aluminum, a common and ideal material for heat sinks and dispersal. All youd have to do is gut any insulation inside and sink it in a nice cold lake, which any deep enough can be.

      --
      Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
    3. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Screw that. If a 747 is only 50K, I'm building my next house out of a couple of DC-10s and laugh at all the money and time I saved.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    4. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by alta · · Score: 1

      Good point, those wings would make awesome heat sinks. And with the gas tanks and fuel lines, it's pre-made for liquid cooling.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    5. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you sunk it in a lake, it would rapidly fill up with water - aircraft are *not* air tight...

    6. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by sherpajohn · · Score: 0

      If you sunk it in a lake, it would rapidly fill up with water - aircraft are *not* air tight...

      O'rly? Makes me wonder why they seal the doors, and how they deal with the half normal atmospheric pressure at 35,000ft or so? I guess something that's not air tight can still experience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_decompression right?

      --

      Going on means going far
      Going far means returning
    7. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Nocuous · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your comment reminds me of Futurama; when the Planet Express is being dragged under the ocean, Proferror Farnsworth is asked how many atmospheres of pressure the ship can take, and he says that because it's a spaceship, it was designed to withstand, "between zero and one".

      --
      Don't take it personally, but I'm not going to read your pithy response to my post.
    8. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw that. If a 747 is only 50K, I'm building my next house out of a couple of DC-10s and laugh at all the money and time I saved.

      I'd like to get a few DC-8's. If they were good enough for Xenu, they're good enough for me.

    9. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by naturaverl · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most planes employ a self-adjusting louvre system that continuously pushes in the right amount of air to keep cabin pressure at the right level. When the amount of air coming in equals the amount of air flowing out (and there most certainly is air flowing out), cabin pressure is equalized.

      They do seal the doors, for passenger comfort. Yet, the plane is definitely not 100% airtight. Or watertight for that matter.

    10. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      O'rly? Makes me wonder why they seal the doors, and how they deal with the half normal atmospheric pressure at 35,000ft or so? I guess something that's not air tight can still experience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_decompression right?

      Probably because, in the usual course of flying a 747, the engines are running which have big dealybobs called 'compressors' which pump air to the cabin. A pressurized aircraft would be 'weather resistant' rather than waterproof. Note that the Airbus 320 that splashed into the Hudson river a couple of years ago floated (for a couple of hours) because it has a "ditch switch" that closes a number of valves and openings on the plane that makes it more water resistant.

      You probably could seal a fuselage enough to make it reasonably watertight at low pressures, but you don't see too many 747 submarines (this side of movies that is).

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by callmebill · · Score: 1

      All youd have to do is gut any insulation inside and sink it in a nice cold lake.

      Right. Let's warm up some lakes. That's a great idea.

    12. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Informative

      If aircraft were airtight, then they would retain sea level atmospheric pressure regardless of their altitude. They do not - as someone else notes, they have compressors running off the engines to pressurize the cabin.

    13. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by jcwayne · · Score: 0

      That's $50K + S&H.

      --
      Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
    14. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by magarity · · Score: 4, Informative

      and laugh at all the money and time I saved
       
      Pay careful attention to the bit about $8,000 / hr for transportation to get it to the building site before you get excited about the money you'll save.

    15. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Suzuran · · Score: 4, Informative

      They didn't get to push the ditching switch in the hudson river incident, which is why it sank so quickly.
      Airbus Industrie documentation specifies that an A320-family aircraft landed intact on the water (which is highly improbable, but...) with the ditching mode activated should float for at least three days.
      That is an ideal case, of course.

    16. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by bigdanmoody · · Score: 2, Informative

      Aircraft are not air-tight. Compressed air is constantly pumped into the cabin, and a series of poppet valves allow the correct amount of air to escape to maintain a safe pressure level - this amount varies depending on altitude and how air-tight the rest of the fuselage is. The doors are sealed to minimize the amount of compressed air that needs to be pumped into the cabin, and for sound and temperature insulation.

    17. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Airbus Industrie documentation specifies that an A320-family aircraft landed intact on the water (which is highly improbable, but...) with the ditching mode activated should float for at least three days.

      Contrary to the safety speech they are required to give you before take off ... except for that one in the Hudson, aircraft don't generally make "water landings". At least, not very well.

      Usually it's more like Swissair 111, with catastrophic results. I wouldn't want to be be present for one, that's for sure.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    18. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      and $200,000 to gut it. and $8000/hr to transport it. and $400,000 for the concrete slab and tie down structure to hold it.

    19. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's easy. Rent them and land them where you want it. Careful on the latter part.

    20. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Toronto already uses deep water cooling to cool buildings in the downtown area. It's popular method. So long as the lake is sufficiently bigger (in terms of heat capacity) than what is being cooled, there is almost no noticeable effect on the lake.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    21. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Well, close, but not quite right.

          Like a balloon, the aircraft will expand a little bit because of the internal pressure. That is by design. With the increase of volume, the pressure inside would be reduced slightly.

          What would be more problematic is that the passengers would start to die off on a long trip if the air was not exchanged with fresh air. Suffocation of the passengers and flight crew is not preferred. :) It would definitely reduce your repeat business. So they leak by design, and the air is replenished by the compressors (as you said).

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    22. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Each.

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    23. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you sunk it in a lake, it would rapidly fill up with water - aircraft are *not* air tight...

      Water-tight and air-tight are not necessarily the same thing. Air molecules are actually bigger than water molecules. So you could have something that is air-tight but still leaks water.

    24. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by couchslug · · Score: 2, Informative

      The pressure cabin (which is a long way from being the whole hull) is (mostly) air tight, but don't forget that it is PRESSURIZED by the environmental control system, which is typically driven by engine bleed air.

      A static, unpowered hull isn't airtight nor pressurized.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    25. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      and $200,000 to gut it.

      Two things: One, it's already pre-gutted, unless 50K also buys you expensive avionics, the black box and a shit ton of life vests. Two, gutting's one of the things I could do myself.

      and $8000/hr to transport it

      Well, yeah, in the US, where she lives on some fucking hilltop. I could get a DC-10 carted from my local airport to the property I'm thinking of for $500 and a case of beer. Probably less if I'm in the mood to haggle.

      $400,000 for the concrete slab and tie down structure to hold it.

      That's one way to do it. Again, location is important.

      Anyway, my point still stands: A 747 for 50K is ridiculously cheap.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    26. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That had to do with the remote location of the building site, not the choice of building material.

    27. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          They have air leaks, but they're still pressurized. They use outlet of one of the stages of the jet engine(s) and valves to maintain enough inflow to replace the outflow and maintain a comfortable pressure (with restrictions per FAA guidelines).

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    28. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by cowdung · · Score: 1

      Also it probably didn't help that one of the passengers PANICKED and opened the back door against the instructions of the flight attendants.

    29. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by zill · · Score: 1

      I've had it with these motherfucking servers on this motherfucking plane!

    30. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Toze · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah, but planes can transport themselves! And, if you land just right, they're self-disassembling.

      --
      No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
    31. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by darrylo · · Score: 1

      While no one really wants to be in one, you've got to admit that a somewhat-upside-down (110 deg -- sideways?) landing (Swissair 111) really reduces one's chances of survival, water or not. I don't think you can use Swissair 111 as an argument against water landings.

    32. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by robot256 · · Score: 1

      The statements

      One, it's already pre-gutted, unless 50K also buys you expensive avionics, the black box and a shit ton of life vests.

      and

      I could get a DC-10 carted from my local airport to the property I'm thinking of for $500 and a case of beer. Probably less if I'm in the mood to haggle.

      are contradictory. Either it's gutted and has to be shipped in, or it's not gutted and can be flown into your local airport. Unless they fly it to your airport before gutting it, I don't see how you're getting it bought and delivered for $50k + $500 and a case of beer.

    33. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      or it's not gutted and can be flown into your local airport

      It's only contradictory if you make the assumptions you did.

      Short version: You don't know my local airport.

      I don't see how you're getting it bought and delivered for $50k + $500 and a case of beer.

      Heh. If I'm clever and connected enough, the $500+case of beer is all I'll be paying.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    34. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Deadstick · · Score: 1
      the engines are running which have big dealybobs called 'compressors'

      The engines ARE the compressors. The first stage in a jet engine is a compressor -- it's those blades you see from the front. Air goes through them, then into a combustion chamber where fuel gets squirted in and ignited -- but some of the air gets bled off before getting there.

      That air goes into an assembly called an air conditioning pack, or just "pack", where some thermodynamic trickery involving turbines and heat exchangers cools it from several hundred degrees F to a nice cabin temperature and lets it out into the cabin.

      Near the tail of the airplane there's an assembly called the outflow valve that senses the cabin pressure and dumps air overboard at just the right rate to get the pressure the crew has selected.

      rj

    35. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      I have a problem believing that a brand new 747 is only $50,000. Even without the seats, avionics, engines, etc, there's no way in hell it costs the same as a decent sports car. Either it's a typo, or there's some shenanigans afoot.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    36. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can use Swissair 111 as an argument against water landings.

      No, more of an example of the ones that don't work.

      My argument against water landings comes from having worked in the aircraft industry.

      The laughing derision from the maintenance employees and insiders over water landings is the large basis of my disbelief in them.

      I didn't get the impression they put much stock in the notion. In fact, I got the impression that it was largely considered to be a myth by them. Of course, I don't have actual data, but the office guffawing over the topic didn't instill any confidence.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    37. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by ohiovr · · Score: 1

      You could get some Mexicans to do it for you for 1/5th that.

    38. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that your local airport had a decommissioned DC-10 lying around for the taking. Sounds like that could work out pretty nicely for you.

    39. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      Who said brand new?

    40. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by mirix · · Score: 1

      Sometimes water landings work out, however.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    41. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Its not brand new. Its an old 747-200 series airframe that has reached the end of its life and is no longer economical to fly.

    42. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by davester666 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they are going to install the wing right-side up or upside down...In a strong wind, it could make for a very exciting couple of minutes!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    43. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      The takeoff speed of a 747 is pretty high, over 150 knots, so unless there's a hurricane/typhoon or a tornado, there's nothing to be worried about. Even the rotation speed is much higher than most storms are likely to provide.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    44. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Part of the reason that they don't make water landings well is because there is so little actual data about it, in part because of the danger of landing on the water even when fitted with extensive safety gear. Scully's landing wasn't impressive just because no one was seriously hurt. It provided a huge volume of data that the NTSB, the FAA, the airlines, and the manufacturers are going to be poring over for years. It was an example of just about everything after the engine failure going right. New procedures will come out of it, new autopilot (or at least assisted) landing sequences will be developed to handle it, and the survival rate may actually go up a bit.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    45. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of people used to think water landings were inherently unsurvivable, even though there have been several documented incidents where small commercial jets landed in the water and all or most onboard survived - such events were rare and just weren't famous enough. The Hudson incident obviously means only the stupidest Americans would continue to believe that.

      It is imagined that a wide body (like a 747) can't successfully land in the open ocean because the forces involved are really tremendous (many boats you see happily sailing about on the calm waters of a lake or river would be ripped to pieces in the open ocean) but we don't know because nobody has ever had a properly working 747 and felt the need to try to land it in the open ocean. It would definitely be difficult, but maybe it isn't impossible.

      A study of private aircraft (by far more likely to be involved in such unscheduled landing attempts) by the relevant US agencies concluded that given the choice between a water landing and an attempt in apparently flat but unprepared (ie not a road or airport) land, it was a toss-up, with very little difference in injuries or deaths. In fact you were more likely to survive the initial water landing, it's just that you had a chance of drowning shortly afterwards (e.g. door crushed shut by impact or you can't swim). Pilot skill is the main thing, and luck.

      A survival expert (carrying emergency toolkit, knows to unlatch door before final descent, can swim well) should probably aim for a lake not the adjacent cow field when he realises he only has five minutes of fuel left. If he does so he has better than 90% chance to survive, and a fairly good chance to be essentially uninjured. Of course if the lake is _frozen_ that changes everything.

    46. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      That's the speed for the whole (loaded) plane to take off. If the pieces are disassembled and reassembled into a house, then the lift created by the wind blowing through might very well be enough to at least rock the roof a fair bit.

    47. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Air molecules are actually bigger than water molecules. So you could have something that is air-tight but still leaks water.

      Huh. I always thought is was the other way around, that air-tight is tighter than water-tight. Live and learn. :)

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    48. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by hitmark · · Score: 1

      While going more with a mental image then any math, i suspect that any water landing, that was anywhere above borderline stall speed, would result in the engines, and whatever sections of wings related to them, go bye bye. And that event would toss the plane in some direction or other based on what engine contacted the water first, even if the time between them was less then a second.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    49. Re:THey should house a server farm in it by alta · · Score: 1

      I'm not proposing you fill the wings up with water, I said use the gas tanks and fuel lines...

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
  2. Downed Server! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    more like it. Register it at ICANN?

  3. Another Variation by Zyrkyr · · Score: 5, Informative

    A guy here in Oregon had the same idea, but without the architectural finesse: http://www.airplanehome.com/

    1. Re:Another Variation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's also a guy in London trying to do a similar thing with a recycled train carriage.

    2. Re:Another Variation by hey · · Score: 1

      Except this one looks like a junk yard.

    3. Re:Another Variation by WhiteDragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A guy here in Oregon had the same idea, but without the architectural finesse: http://www.airplanehome.com/

      Indeed, there's already a company selling airplanes as homes commercially, http://www.airplanehomes.com/. The airplanes are mounted on a swivel, so they can face into the wind.

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
    4. Re:Another Variation by rwa2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good stuff! They seem to be doing a lot of this in Europe too... There's an entire hostel built into a retired 747 in Sweden:

      http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/02/11/reclaimed-jumbo-jet-hotel-in-stockholm/

      Older article with links to other related projects:
      http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/creative-recycling-jumbo-hostel.php

    5. Re:Another Variation by falken0905 · · Score: 1

      From a "News For Nerds" point of view I find this project -much- more interesting. I've never been a reader of Architectural Digest.

    6. Re:Another Variation by GoodNicksAreTaken · · Score: 1

      But the guy in Oregon is named Bruce Campbell and lives in Hillsboro. Not THE Bruce Campbell though. THE Bruce Campbell lives in Jacksonville, Oregon.

  4. Someone should do this with a space shuttle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't they basically being given away for scrap now? Maybe someplace
    Alternately, can you get a good price on a B52 in mothball?
    g=

    1. Re:Someone should do this with a space shuttle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't they basically being given away for scrap now?

      Uh, no, they're not. The current shuttles aren't officially retired yet, once they are they'll be donated to museums.

    2. Re:Someone should do this with a space shuttle! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Alternately, can you get a good price on a B52 in mothball?"

      Most of them have been chopped as part of START treaty compliance and the rest are retained for parts. (Neat to watch in person. The blade crashed through the fuselage like a meat cleaver through a stick of butter.) You could likely contact dismantlers near AMARC about old military transport hulls.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bsWUO4o8I4

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  5. What about strong winds? by onionman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm assuming that the architect will consult with the appropriate engineers before building the structure, but still I wonder how a house with airplane wings for roofs will fair in a major storm?

    1. Re:What about strong winds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better ask Dorothy.

    2. Re:What about strong winds? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...I wonder how a house with airplane wings for roofs will fair in a major storm?

      "Whooosh..."

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:What about strong winds? by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      it will be no different than any other roof. The walls will prevent airflow being under the wing which will destroy the potential for the tremendous lift capabilities of the airfoil. All roofs experience a certain amount of up forces in wind, but they rarely overcome gravity, and if they do still have to be strong enough to overcome the mechanical connections (roof to wall to foundation). As for the water tightness, that should be very easy. I imagine that drip edges at all of the wall to underside of roof will be necessary, but they are common components of buildings as it is.

    4. Re:What about strong winds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But look at the actual pictures of the design. (Yeah, I know, I'm expecting the person who made the above comment to RTFA and this is slashdot...)

      There are significant overhangs where sections of the upper wing (roof) section where there is no wall beneath it.

      Not so for the bottom wing (roof).

      Could be an interesting experience to be in that house when there's a strong wind blowing!

    5. Re:What about strong winds? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I wonder how a house with airplane wings for roofs will fair in a major storm?

      It's in Malibu. This is not a concern. How a house with airplane wings for a roof will fair under the wrath of the homeowners organization is a much bigger concern than the weather.

    6. Re:What about strong winds? by howzit · · Score: 1

      You put the wing upside-down. The stronger the wind, the more it hugs earth. We have the roof of a grand-stand for a baseball stadium here in Cape Town where it's designed like an upsidw-down wing for high winds.

  6. Extreme one-upmanship? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Funny

    You think your life is a train-wreck? Well, my house is a plane crash!

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Extreme one-upmanship? by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought when seeing the pictures. It looks as if a plane crashed on top of that hill. It looks terrible in my opinion.

      --
      The game.
  7. Holy crap! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    That's pretty awesome, actually.

    I'm stunned you can buy an entire decommissioned 747 for $50K -- that's a lot of material.

    My favorite thing from the second link is:

    Although, we did find out that we have to register the roof of the house with the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) so pilots flying overhead do not mistake it as a downed aircraft.

    Now that would make for some strange calls to flight control ... uhh ... tower. ;-)

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Holy crap! by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, why do they need to keep the wings? It's not like someone can live in that part, and it massively increases the probability of a pilot misidentifying it from above.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    2. Re:Holy crap! by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 1

      I'm stunned you can buy an entire decommissioned 747 for $50K -- that's a lot of material.

      I'm sure the cost of moving the plane far exceeded the price of the plane itself. If you have a 747 sitting around you no longer need it's probably expensive to dismantle and recycle, and after a while "$50k and you haul" sounds like a deal.

    3. Re:Holy crap! by alta · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think the guy should have authorization to talk to tower just like any other.

      Tower, AC156D, going to read, over.

      Tower, AC156D, taking a piss, over.

      Tower, AC156D, tower using microwave, over.

      Tower, joining the Mile High club, at 12ft, over.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    4. Re:Holy crap! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, why do they need to keep the wings?

      Why? You couldn't build a better roof-truss than a wing of a 747. It's a huge structure designed to support lots of weight.

      Use it as a roof, and it's basically an engineering marvel. From the same article I quoted before:

      In researching airplane wings and superimposing different airplane wing types on the site to scale, the wing of a 747, at over 2,500 sq. ft., became an ideal configuration to maximize the views and provide a self supporting roof with minimal additional structural support needed.

      A 2500 square foot, pre-engineered roof. Two in fact. All as part of the $50K in material costs. I seriously doubt you could build that inexpensively -- and if it's designed to keep a 747 in flight, it's bloody solid!

      it massively increases the probability of a pilot misidentifying it from above.

      That's why they had to register it with the FAA, so that when pilots call it in it's a well known landmark and they don't scramble people.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Holy crap! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the cost of moving the plane far exceeded the price of the plane itself.

      Dude, seriously, at least try to read some of the article:

      Additionally, incorporating prefabricated lightweight components off site and delivering them to the remote site via helicopter, although at a cost of $8,000/hr. became realistic after considering the cost of getting traditional labor and material to the site.

      Yes, it was expensive. But, in the context of this project, it was "cost effective" -- outrageously expensive, but, apparently not as stupid as the alternative.

      If you're building on 55 acres of Malibu California, and you own a Mercedes dealership ... cost is relative.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Holy crap! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Nope it costs NOTHING to dismantle and recycle. People will gladly buy them. There is a crapload of aluminum and copper in those things.

      Recycling a plane is a net profit.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Holy crap! by drachenstern · · Score: 1

      can't read the article, the site's down :p

      --
      2^3 * 31 * 647
    8. Re:Holy crap! by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, why do they need to keep the wings? It's not like someone can live in that part, and it massively increases the probability of a pilot misidentifying it from above.

      Judging by the pictures they'll be used for aesthic and/or shading purposes.

    9. Re:Holy crap! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      can't read the article, the site's down :p

      Oh, sure, that's what they all say. ;-)

      Thanks, now I've refreshed my page to confirm what you say, and I no longer have the article either. Bastard!! ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re:Holy crap! by LoudMusic · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think the guy should have authorization to talk to tower just like any other.

      ...

      Except that it is owned by a woman.

      ... a woman who requested only curvilinear/feminine shapes for her new home and has purchased an entire Boeing 747-200 ...

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    11. Re:Holy crap! by timeOday · · Score: 1

      It blows me away that renting a helicopter costs $8,000 / hr. Apparently you can operate some tactical fighter jets for less than that. (By this source the F16 is down to $5K/hr, while the F22 is up to $40K/hr... gulp).

    12. Re:Holy crap! by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because she wanted *feminine* shapes, and without the wings a 747 looks anything but ;-)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    13. Re:Holy crap! by bigrockpeltr · · Score: 1
      people dont even read the summaries anymore?

      provide a self supporting roof with minimal additional structural support needed

      this basically means that the wings are designed to support their own weight while being attached to the plan on one side only.
      someone further up mentioned they would have to probably include extra "roof strap" type reinforcements in case of high winds but i think once it is sealed off properly no wind should be getting under the wings to produce any lift. However, IANAE (Engineer)

      --
      $ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
    14. Re:Holy crap! by natehoy · · Score: 1

      You're comparing unrelated costs. Operating cost rental cost. The rental includes a lot of little details like, say, a pilot.

      Rental cost = operating cost + cost of qualified pilots + cost of qualified loaders/unloaders + share of annual maintenance costs + insurance + profit for the owner + several things I'm probably forgetting.

      The helicopter probably costs far less than $8,000 per hour to actually operate. If you owned your own helicopter and were qualified to pilot it, that is.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    15. Re:Holy crap! by kmcarr · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, why do they need to keep the wings?

      Why? You couldn't build a better roof-truss than a wing of a 747. It's a huge structure designed to support lots of weight.

      Um, roofs do not need to support a lot of weight, there's generally nothing on top of them. Unless you happen to live in Buffalo, NY and are carrying a heavy snow load. But this house is being built in Malibu. Weight loading on this roof is not a factor.

      And the structural elements inside an aircraft wing are optimally designed to distribute the loads typically found on a wing, not a roof. Even a half-assed engineer could design a truss system better suited to a roof than a jumbo jet wing.

    16. Re:Holy crap! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Um, roofs do not need to support a lot of weight, there's generally nothing on top of them.

      Well, it has to support itself without sagging in the middle. If it's strong enough to keep a 747 aloft, I'm sure it's more than up to the task of being a roof -- specifically, if you support them with walls, you don't really need to worry about the wing segments sagging under their static load, because they're already designed for that. I suspect you need fewer load bearing walls, for example. The diagrams make it look like a small(ish) number of support columns.

      Even a half-assed engineer could design a truss system better suited to a roof than a jumbo jet wing.

      But, could they design and build two roof sections of 2500 square feet for the cost of yanking the wings off the aircraft and shipping them? From the sounds of it, reusing the aircraft components actually gave them a hell of a lot of material -- much of which had already been engineered for strength, for a "relatively" affordable sum. I think once you're building the multi-million dollar residence, the intact wing was actually cheaper than designing/building a roof that size.

      Nobody is saying that an aircraft wing is the optimal/cheapest way to build a big roof. What they are saying is that as he was looking into how to meet the design requirements, and concluded that an existing airplane wing gave him a lot of what he needed.

      Having been allowed to tour the inside of a 747 which was stripped down almost to the airframe -- it's a massive structure. Using a wing as a roof is actually a fairly cool thing. Hell, I'm sure the fuselage has a couple of acres of aluminum in it, and loads of structural steel. :-P

      Even a half-assed engineer can appreciate at least some of the coolness of this.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    17. Re:Holy crap! by timeOday · · Score: 1

      You're comparing unrelated costs.... Rental cost = operating cost + cost of qualified pilots + cost of qualified loaders/unloaders + share of annual maintenance costs + insurance + profit for the owner + several things I'm probably forgetting.

      Yes, it would be hard to relate those exactly. The DoD itself produces different costs that do or do not include costs such as standing up facilities and running the pilot training schools, although any estimate would include maintenance.

      Doing a quick search on hiring a private jet, they start at around $1,700 / hour, and about $3k/hr for a 9 passenger helicopter. So, at $8K / hr, the heavy lift helicopers do demand quite a premium.

    18. Re:Holy crap! by matfud · · Score: 1

      Not quite as it is very profitable to get all the usefull components (avionics, engines, some of the fittings, wiring looms etc. out as many can be reconditioned and resold. The rest is just aluminium that needs to be recycled after removing all the non profitable stuff which can be expensive to do.

    19. Re:Holy crap! by freeweed · · Score: 1

      Great, Twitter on air traffic control frequencies.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    20. Re:Holy crap! by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Granted, but that premium is justifiable.

      Even if your passengers weigh in at 200 pounds each (FAA standard seems to be around 170 pounds), your 9-passenger whirlybird isn't capable of lifting a single ton even if there are no passengers on board. The capability to lift heavy loads means a big, high-maintenance, and very fuel-thirsty whirlybird.

      Think "panel van" compared to "18-wheeler with a double trailer".

      The price probably includes more than one pilot and some seriously-trained people and quality gear to strap its cargo properly, too, because dropping a 20-ton load on someone's house is somewhat frowned upon.

      Not to mention the "drop stuff on people's houses" insurance they have to carry. :)

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  8. sad... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    too bad he had to level a hilltop and clear away some forest to build his stupid house.

    recycling?
    greenwash fail.

    1. Re:sad... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      too bad he had to level a hilltop and clear away some forest to build his stupid house.

      Well, someone with 55 acres of land in Malibu aren't doing this for environmental reasons.

      In this case, it seems like it was a means to an end since she wanted all curved shaped. This isn't an "environmental" project, this is an innovative architect.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:sad... by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where do you propose people build houses? Only on naturally level ground, on which no vegetation is growing?

      My hunting cabin is making LEED Silver, despite my having to 'clear away for forest' and 'level a hilltop'.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    3. Re:sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Even the recycling part doesn't really count for anything at all since they are still taking valuable aluminum out of circulation. If they had recovered aluminum from cans in a landfill, that would be one thing, but taking aluminum that would already have been reused doesn't really accomplish any eco purpose -- in fact, it makes aluminum *more* scarce which increases the demand for mining. It would be like building a house out melted-down gold bars and bragging about recycling.

    4. Re:sad... by necro81 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How 'bout building in some place has already been graded, attached to the utilities, and has road access? Like, say, the endless horizons of unfinished subdivisions, abandoned buildings, and decayed urban centers in the world?

      Better yet, buy and existing structure and renovate it, which is far greener than most new construction.

    5. Re:sad... by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ... so if I buy some land in the country ... I can't level land and cut trees down to build a house? Granted, a plane is a bit different... but if I own my own property?

    6. Re:sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had this very thought. The superstructure of a modern home is usually made of wood, a renewable resource. Rather than recycling this plane, we now have to go mine more aluminum, a process that is far less ecologically concise. Yes, this is a great work of art/architecture, but lets call it what it is; a home(toy) for the rich.

    7. Re:sad... by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      Last place on the planet I want to live, is in a decaying urban center.

      As for buying an existing structure, my current home is a nearly 200 year old farmhouse, so I'm on board with that idea. But where I need a cabin, there are no existing structures to renovate.

      I like how you saved that a in your first sentence though. You really minimized consumption of resources on that one.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    8. Re:sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the issues with parking a giant metal hulk up there instead of traditional building materials.

      20 years from now when this needs to come down how are they going to get rid of it? Dynamite?

      There's just something gross about this whole thing...

    9. Re:sad... by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      According to the architects site they are doing this using the footprints of existing structures that were destroyed in a fire. So this is a fairly eco-friendly installation.

    10. Re:sad... by necro81 · · Score: 1

      I can't level land and cut trees down to build a house?

      You may, but it's a bit disingenuous to then go prancing around about how "green" it is, no matter how many repurposed wings you stick on it.

    11. Re:sad... by kg8484 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      No, you can do it, but don't call it green. It's like what Scott Adams said when he was building his "green" home:

      The greenest home is the one you don't build. If you really want to save the Earth, move in with another family and share a house that's already built.

    12. Re:sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Someone* owns everywhere. Should we concrete over the entire world?

    13. Re:sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure you can, but just don't call it 'green'. Because it isn't.

    14. Re:sad... by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      What is it you think he's going to hunt?

    15. Re:sad... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      No, you can do it, but don't call it green

      The owner of this house is not calling this green. The architect isn't even really calling it green.

      In this case, a clever architect decided it would be cheaper to meet his (rich) client's needs by reusing parts of an airplane.

      "Recycled" in this case is not an indication that this was intended to be an environmentally friendly house. It's a mansion, and some of the design goals were well met by using the existing components of a 747.

      This isn't some tree hugger making a "green" home -- this is a wealthy lady who owns a big Mercedes dealership building a massive home on 55 acres of remote property. This is more about the architect than anything even remotely to do with saving the environment.

      I'm sure there's nothing else "green" about this home unless it's in support of her Feng Shui. :-P

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    16. Re:sad... by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      So, for the purposes of slaughtering innocent woodland creatures, you cleared away forest, bulldozed a hilltop, built a cabin, ... and then got an environmental stamp of approval for the project?

      You are my hero. Call me up and let's go find Bambi.

    17. Re:sad... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Well that worked for Trantor, Coruscant, and Core Prime...

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    18. Re:sad... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Aw... you went and ruined their smug righteous indignation... that's like all a green fanatic has to brighten their dreary soy-fueled lives.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    19. Re:sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      too bad he had to level a hilltop and clear away some forest to build his stupid house.

      recycling?
      greenwash fail.

      Or he used an existing site were the house had burned down and then designed the house to minimize the need for grading.

      See what RTFA can do for you.

      Schmuck

    20. Re:sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he

      gender fail.

    21. Re:sad... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 3, Funny

      What they should have done, is just bury the nose of the airplane in the side of the hill with the rest of the plane intact. This would cause multiple reports to 911 by people scanning Google maps.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    22. Re:sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did that once, but the family objected.

    23. Re:sad... by gmarsh · · Score: 1

      I don't have a hunting cabin. Does that make me LEED Platinum?

    24. Re:sad... by llZENll · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i don't know how much aluminum is in a 727, but i would guess a lot, i do know it is a very energy intensive process to mine and refine aluminum, more so than many other materials. might it be 'greener' to recycle the aluminum and use brand new materials for the house? greenwash from many angles...

    25. Re:sad... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      "Recycled" in this case is not an indication that this was intended to be an environmentally friendly house.

      Recycling in general is not necessarily environmentally friendly. Recycling takes energy, sometimes more energy than you save. Sometimes there's a lot of toxic chemicals used in the process.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    26. Re:sad... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Recycling in general is not necessarily environmentally friendly.

      That's even without considering that the definition of "environmentally friendly" can be both variable and highly political.

    27. Re:sad... by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      That's simply ridiculously reducing the argument. I might as well argue that you should not be typing on Slashdot on your computer/phone/whatever ... I mean, should we really turn all of the world's resources into electronics?

      I'm fine with governments reserving land, within reason of course. Public parks, forests, etc. I'm not fine with governments selling me (eventually, through a long line of private owners) land and then telling me I can't use it, even though I paid for it and "own" it.

    28. Re:sad... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Like, say, the endless horizons of unfinished subdivisions, abandoned buildings, and decayed urban centers in the world?

      Well when you put it like that it does sound really attractive. Screw my nice plot in the hill country with the stream through it, I want a decayed urban center endless horizon! Detroit, here I come!

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    29. Re:sad... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Aw... you went and ruined their smug righteous indignation... that's like all a green fanatic has to brighten their dreary soy-fueled lives.

      No... They never let facts ruin a good indignation!

    30. Re:sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The greenest home is the one you don't build. If you really want to save the Earth, move in with another family and share a house that's already built.

      I feel that way every time I see someone driving a brand new Prius and I'm in my 10 year old car.

      And the irony is, they get to use the carpool lane with only 1 person in the car.

    31. Re:sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this, my dear greenies... is why you fail.

      Nobody wants to level a couple crack-houses and live in the middle of the remaining ghetto (say, for example, detroit) so that they can feel uber green. Besides which, you can't put a plane there... though the local savagery would love to tag something different for a change.

    32. Re:sad... by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

      Or a stream of Beastie Boys tourists, all chanting "Licenced to Ill". Although that's probably not a desired effect (what with that "meditation pavilion" and all), it's arguably better than willfully generating needless emergency calls.

  9. Boeing 747 as a youth hostel by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1
  10. Just one problem: by WiglyWorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't a 747 about as falic a shape as you can get?

    1. Re:Just one problem: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Penis envy.

    2. Re:Just one problem: by spun · · Score: 1

      Not exactly curvilinear/feminine shaped, is it? I think what she wants is a house made out of large sheets of ham thrown against the side of a cliff.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Just one problem: by knappe+duivel · · Score: 2, Funny

      If your penis is 747-shaped you have a big problem, mr WiglyWorm

    4. Re:Just one problem: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An actual penis is probably "more" phallic shaped. Just guessing though. Then again, I do not see the efficiency of "recycling" a plane by burning that much helicopter fuel to put it on top of a once beautiful mountain top.

    5. Re:Just one problem: by vlm · · Score: 1

      Nice misspelling. www.getfirefox.com

      Ariane rocket, specifically AR40 model? I believe that style is referred to as "cut" as opposed to "uncut".

      A BGM-109 has rather manly proportions for an unmanned missile.

      In the era of, and preceding, "dont ask dont tell", it seems pretty obvious why most rocket designers had to be civilians instead of military personnel. Must have driven the security clearance officers crazy.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:Just one problem: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your penis is 747-shaped you have a big problem, mr WiglyWorm

      Hey pal, play with it.. don't talk to it.

    7. Re:Just one problem: by WiglyWorm · · Score: 1

      Alright... I'll give you that.

    8. Re:Just one problem: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the wind blows...it will lurch upward in a glorious erect position.

    9. Re:Just one problem: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      More to the point, nearly all planes that carry a significant number of passengers are tubes (with a few twists) with wings attached.

      There's a good aerodynamic reason for that.

      What about submarines? Again, there are engineering reasons why they are round that have nothing to do with being phallic.

      If you look at your arms and legs, you'll notice that they're also roughly tubular in shape. Is that phallic too?

    10. Re:Just one problem: by WiglyWorm · · Score: 1

      Firstly, I had my tongue planted firmly in cheek in the initial posting. Second, just because something has a REASON for being phallic doesn't mean it is NOT phallic. Yes, a submarine, a rocket, an airplane, and a large blood engorged sausage all have reasons for their shapes, but all their shapes are roughly that of a penis.

    11. Re:Just one problem: by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Actually, there have been some interesting shapes other than phallic proposed.

          1950's Northrup Flying Wing (passenger aircraft)
          1995 Boeing BWB (1995 Popular Science article showing 800 passenger airliner)
          2000's Boeing Blended Wing Body (BWB) X-48B
          Concept (predicted by 2040) Airbus A350H

          When designing an aircraft, you have to consider how much air it has to shove out of the way. To accomplish that, they slowly taper the cross section from nothing (in front of the plane) to the cabin size, and then keep that cross section until they taper it back down to nothing.

          The cross section doesn't have to be round, although it helps design a strong frame. It could be a wide oval, or something completely different. Hard corners tend to be a bad thing though.

          That's why the flying wing design does work so well. But we won't be seeing those in use anytime soon. Why? Because people are afraid of change. What airline would agree to drop billions on a fleet of new aircraft that are faster and more efficient, if the passengers will refuse to fly in them? So we continue seeing existing designs with subtle modifications. These frequently don't make it past the drawing board, and if you've looked around a commercial airport lately you'll see they're all still tubes with wings.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    12. Re:Just one problem: by KnownIssues · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, your penis is as phallic a shape as you can get.

    13. Re:Just one problem: by seeker_1us · · Score: 1

      You assume the person posting the question was a guy.

    14. Re:Just one problem: by sempir · · Score: 1

      A 747 falic??? Thats a phalicy.

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    15. Re:Just one problem: by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      That's why the flying wing design does work so well. But we won't be seeing those in use anytime soon. Why? Because people are afraid of change. What airline would agree to drop billions on a fleet of new aircraft that are faster and more efficient, if the passengers will refuse to fly in them?

      At a guess, I'd say the problem is more likely to be with the airports. Their...ahem...their docking maneuvers are more accommodating of length than girth.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    16. Re:Just one problem: by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          That's what SHE said.

          Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)

          Airports can be very flexible. The flying wing design should have a reduced wingspan, which has to be accounted for anyways. It's just radically different, which would cause problems, mostly with the airlines buying the planes. If they suspect passengers may refuse to fly in some radically different aircraft, their sales will go down. It's all business, not progress or efficiency.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  11. A glimpse of the future? by iONiUM · · Score: 1

    If oil continues an upward trend, and we don't find a suitable substitute, air travel will become far more expensive in the future. The air line industries are already having difficulty, so maybe they will subsidize by selling some aircraft off for recycling.

    Instead of just one house though, they could probably use the materials to do a lot more. I don't know what. Is there rare earth elements in them? Maybe that part alone will become worth more than the plane if China has its way.

    1. Re:A glimpse of the future? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      If oil continues an upward trend, and we don't find a suitable substitute, air travel will become far more expensive in the future. The air line industries are already having difficulty, so maybe they will subsidize by selling some aircraft off for recycling.

      Some airlines are having difficulty, others are making money quite nicely.

      The financial crisis put a big damper on business travel - particularly in Business and First class - which is most airline's bread and butter. This trend has started to reverse itself over the last 6 months, however.

    2. Re:A glimpse of the future? by vlm · · Score: 1

      Instead of just one house though, they could probably use the materials to do a lot more. I don't know what. Is there rare earth elements in them?

      Being mostly aluminum, the first thing that comes to mind is a nice mobile home, but I'm guessing a rich chick like her would not want to live in a doublewide. And the last thing Hawaii needs is a tornado/hurricane magnet as its well known on the mainland that those things attract tornadoes.

      The most exotic component of aircraft of that era is probably some of the counterbalancing weights, which were probably removed before she got it. Solid blocks of W in the old days, depleted U in the modern era. In her house I'm sure they just weld stuff into place instead of balancing on a pivot... probably. Oh and the engine fan blades are pretty interesting metallurgically but I'm sure they were removed to keep other engines running.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  12. Not economical by most standards... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Sure, they bought the plane for $40k (according to the video), but then they are paying $2 million to build the house. That is slightly more than what most people consider "reasonable" for the cost of a house.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Not economical by most standards... by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      55 acres in Hawaii. Any idea on cost for the land? $2mil for building something on it is just a drop in the bucket...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    2. Re:Not economical by most standards... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      55 acres in Hawaii.

      Not Hawaii. Malibu, California.

      And, I'm sure it's a hell of an expensive plot of land. I'm betting absurdly expensive, in fact. $2 million to build it probably is gonna translate into an overall property worth several times that.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Not economical by most standards... by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

      My guess is that the house could be built for a lot less. Considering where this house is being built, I doubt cost is much of a concern.

      If you consider the fuselage to be nothing more than the outer shell, $40k is still reasonable. What you put in it is up to you. In areas where land is cheap, I wonder if this approach could be used to construct office or warehouse facilities.

    4. Re:Not economical by most standards... by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      The cost of the land in no way makes the US$2 million more economical. It just means the land itself was not economical either.

      To me, this is just a person who is spending way too much money to be able to say "I built my house using a recycled 747 because I wanted all curved shapes". What one could have done with that money is build a house that would have very little ecological impact and used considerably less energy and water.

      It takes a lot of money to build a truly "green" house, and the person in this article could have done it, probably for much less than what is being spent now.

    5. Re:Not economical by most standards... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Malibu Hawaii?

      I was under the impression it was Malibu California....

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    6. Re:Not economical by most standards... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          You haven't looked at housing prices out there, have you? I rented several houses out there, between 8 to 3 years ago (more or less), and the values on those houses ranged from $600,000 to over $1,000,000. They weren't amazing houses, nor were they on huge pieces of land.

          [tappity] [tappity] [tappity]

          Looking at realtor.com, the cheapest house in Malibu is an 830 sq/ft unfinished (like not completely built) house for $450,000.

          You don't have to go very far down the list to get to houses over $1,000,000, and the most expensive one is a 9,000 sq/ft home on 37 acres for $65,000,000.

          $2 million isn't anything spectacular for those who can afford it. For the rest of us, we won't even consider it. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    7. Re:Not economical by most standards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Malibu is not in Hawaii.

  13. Radiactive Waste? by Manip · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Did nobody mention to her that planes are very radioactive partly because they spend so much time in the thinner atmosphere and partly because there is depleted uranium (which is more likely to cause heavy metal poisoning) used as weights within them? Sounds like a lovely material to build a house out of. Maybe she should paint the outside with lead based paint, water the garden with agent orange and then install asbestos for installation? Jokes aside - fools with their money. This fool sounds like she has a ton to waste and deserves what she gets.

    1. Re:Radiactive Waste? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It depends on when the aircraft was built as to whether it has DU as its weights or not, some 747s do and some do not. The radioactivity picked up from high altitude flying is negligible in terms of future use of the material, its never going to be emitting enough radiation to be an issue.

    2. Re:Radiactive Waste? by vlm · · Score: 3, Informative

      The original poster doesn't even understand what neutron activation is or how its completely irrelevant to this situation, yet he's scared of it. Brilliant.

      you could have accurately shortened it to

      its never going to be emitting radiation.

      The stereotypical granite countertops are probably going to pump out about as much gammas as she'd get from flying at low altitude.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Radiactive Waste? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Maybe she should paint the outside with lead based paint,

      Hey, that'd take care of the radiation problem.

      --
      -- Alastair
    4. Re:Radiactive Waste? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      This fool sounds like she has a ton to waste and deserves what she gets.

      Yeah, a mansion on a beautiful hillside. What a total loser she is, huh?

  14. Looks like just the wings by natespizer · · Score: 1

    From the article it looks like they are just using the wings.

    1. Re:Looks like just the wings by necro81 · · Score: 1

      I agree. They certainly didn't get those large expanses of plate glass from a 747. You could do something interesting with the passenger windows, building up a large window from many smaller panes, but they clearly didn't do that here. Might actually be pretty well insulated - airplane windows are multi-layered.

    2. Re:Looks like just the wings by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      If you read the article you will find that they are using the entire plane. The architect's site diagrams where each part is used. The front part of the fuselage is used as a meditation space, with the cockpit windows as skylights (for instance). The wings are used as roofs for the main house, with the tail wings used as a roof for the master suite. The fuselage is used as roofs for several other structures.

  15. Aerophile by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In researching airplane wings and superimposing different airplane wing types on the site to scale, the wing of a 747, at over 2,500 sq. ft., became an ideal configuration to maximize the views and provide a self supporting roof.

    Let me guess -- it creates a lifelike visual stage with mellow yet crisp organic textures and deep black interscene silences. The muscular yet deft support structure enhances the vista responses of the viewer, allowing full appreciation for the rich yet subtle display of thermal inversion in the valley below.

    1. Re:Aerophile by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Let me guess -- it creates a lifelike visual stage with mellow yet crisp organic textures and deep black interscene silences. The muscular yet deft support structure enhances the vista responses of the viewer, allowing full appreciation for the rich yet subtle display of thermal inversion in the valley below.

      That was uncalled for. Don't do that around here, OK?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Aerophile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maximizing views and providing an efficient roof structure seem to share none of the characteristics of the nonsense speech you just enumerated. Thanks for trying.

    3. Re:Aerophile by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You sir win. Very well constructed post.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  16. What about insulation? by JustNilt · · Score: 1

    I realize the "wing house" is not really just an intact airplane but as others have posted, folks apparently have been known to use them intact as well. Since these need to get up to a rather high altitude, I assume they're fairly well insulated already. I do wonder, though, how much insulation would be left and if it's truly suitable as a home (aside form the oddball nature of it) without major remodeling aside from putting up walls for rooms.

    I also wonder if the $50,000 included transportation costs. Sheesh, for that matter, will all the new young urbanites end up essentially living in the modern equivalent of expensive trailer parks?

    --
    You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
    1. Re:What about insulation? by demonbug · · Score: 1

      First, it is Malibu, so no insulation needed - it is always 78 degrees out, except for those times when the whole place is on fire (this happens every 5-15 years).

      Second, and more seriously, one of the articles indicated transport costs of $8,000 per hour for the helicopter used. I'm guessing it was picked up at the Mojave Airport (large mothball fleet there), so probably a couple of hours round trip. I would guess it would take several trips to move an entire 747, even if it is conveniently disassembled (unless they have a really powerful helicopter). So probably spent at least as much on transport as on materials.

    2. Re:What about insulation? by CWCheese · · Score: 1

      There was measurable snowfall accumulation in Malibu in both Jan-2007 and Dec-2008, albeit for just a hour or so each time.

      --
      Have a Day!
    3. Re:What about insulation? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Shhh.. They don't like hearing that.

          Go out there sometime. You'll have people telling you that some areas and their "microclimates" are perfect year round, no matter what. Blue skies, perfect humidity, and the perfect temperature.

          *average* highs are 62F to 74F.
          *average* lows are 45F to 58F

          peak highs reach 100F.
          peak lows drop down to 28F.

          So if you're having a perfectly average day, then all should be good. Things aren't just average all the time. I used to live 20 miles from there, and ended up going all over the area. Nope, it gets fucking hot in the summer, and fucking cold in the winter. So it's not as hot as Phoenix, AZ, and it's not as cold as Barrow, AK, but it's sure as hell not room temperature day and night, year round.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    4. Re:What about insulation? by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      Depends on your point of view I think - I'm from Western New York, which is known for cold winters and lots of snow. You get a full four seasons there, for sure.

      I then lived in Orange County for the past two years. Yes, there is variation - it's not the same all the time, as you say. But for all practical purposes, it is. You don't need to have three wardrobes (summer, fall/spring, winter) - you might not wear the same thing on the hottest day of September as you do in January when it rains (the two or three times it rains the whole year), but if you're not over-sensitive to temperature you easily could. That's what I did, anyway, because it takes a lot of cold to bother me.

      Once you leave Orange and LA counties, of course it's different. But think of the kind of people who tell you it's the same year-round - these are the people that never leave those counties unless it's on an airplane.

      Malibu is, of course, in a mountain/hilly area, but you have to go a little further north (or east) to get into the hills with significant climate variation.

    5. Re:What about insulation? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Oh, I agree totally that New York gets wilder climate changes. :) I was up there a few years ago in April. On the first day, it was chilly enough for me to wear a jacket open (it was probably 55F, and I grew up in Florida). As the day progressed, it was too warm to wear the jacket. The next day it was in the 20's and snowing all day.

          I know people who lived in Palmdale and Lancaster (west of LA, in the high desert) who talked about highs in the 90's and 100's, and lows in the 20's with snow, in the same day. They warned friends coming over to visit "bring a jacket if you're staying after dark".

          I've been lucky enough to have at least set foot in most of the US, and parts of 3 other countries. In one year, I was standing near Mt. McKinley when it was -4F (that was just November), and somewhere in Arizona, where the rooftop carrier on our car melted from the heat (+120F in August). I can attest to the fact that +80F feels cold, when you just drove from where it was +120F. Some people think I'm weird for keeping a winter wardrobe in Florida, but you never know when work will summon you to somewhere that it's god-awful cold. The last chilly trip was to Chicago, and it was -7F outside the datacenter.

          I didn't mind LA so much, except for the dust, smog, and the first summer I was there it hit 105 for a month.

          I know about those 3 days of rain. Well, except one year where it rained every day for two months. The mudslides made national news, and the house I was staying in was almost one of them. Between the earthquakes, mudslides, and wildfires, I was glad to move back to the land of hurricanes. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  17. used all of it... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    I call shenanigans... Where did they put the fuel tanks, the Engines, and you cant use the wiring for the house, it's not even the same type of wiring. Also all those uncomfortable seats. The house is going to have incredibly ugly furniture.

    From the photos it looks like they only used a few parts of the aircraft. and the home could have been built without any airplane being flown to the worksite.....

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:used all of it... by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

      I guess it comes down to your definition of "all". Some of the parts you mentioned could be stripped and sold as scrap. Others could be sent off to a used parts warehouse. I don't know what anyone could do with those ugly seats, but I'm not sure this particular 747 was a passenger plane. If it was cargo plane (as some 747s are), the interior would be almost entirely bare.

      Perhaps their definition of "using it all" simply means they did not send anything to a landfill.

      To me, the purchase price of $40k means it was thoroughly scavenged before the sale. I think there is more than $40k of scrap value in a fully equipped 747.

    2. Re:used all of it... by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I don't know what anyone could do with those ugly seats

      I've sat on ex-airplane seats in two nightclubs (one in London, one in Berlin). They fitted very well with the decor -- in one case as scrap airline seats from dystopian present, in the other as spaceship seats from the year 3000.

    3. Re:used all of it... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      The engines were doubtless used for parts before the plane was purchased. You also clearly know shit about planes because most of the fuel is stored in the wings. Seats are interior furnishings, not part of the structure of the aircraft. Further, the airplane was not flown to the site (did you see a runway on top of that hill?), it was brought in on trucks, just as any house-building material would have been brought in.

      So your criticisms are fail, fail, and fail with a side of ignorance.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    4. Re:used all of it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >the home could have been built without any airplane being flown to the worksite.....

      disagree, it would have required at least 1 flight to the site.

    5. Re:used all of it... by maxume · · Score: 1

      It says right in the summary that they trucked it in using helicopters.

      That's a little different than most material deliveries.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  18. Looks like a plane crash from above by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting mobile home though

  19. hgtv video of wing house by trb · · Score: 2, Informative
  20. The Story Makes Sense Until... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    They started talking about "first-class". I am not familiar with this at all. When I go to the airport, after I get strip searched the security guards usually duct tape me to my baggage and check me in steerage-class. I'm happy if I arrive at my destination.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:The Story Makes Sense Until... by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

      That's what happens when you tell the ticket agent, "Please don't lose my bags." Stop making such outrageous requests and they will let you sit with the rest of the passengers.

    2. Re:The Story Makes Sense Until... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      That's what happens when you tell the ticket agent, "Please don't lose my bags." Stop making such outrageous requests and they will let you sit with the rest of the passengers.

      Don't lose my bags? I was talking about my carryon bags. The checked bag fees keep going up; I just fedex my larger bags before I leave now. I can fit enough supplies for most layovers and cancellations into my carryon - at least as long as I'm not trying to fly to Upstate New York in February.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  21. Not impressed by anotheryak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A lot of people have built homes from disused airplanes. Nothing new there.

    This is "much ado about nothing" from a rich woman interested in some self-serving publicity about how wonderful she is.

    A "meditation pavilion"? Really? She recycles a couple wings, which are rather easily to recycle anyway by melting them down, but then throw away most of the airplane instead of using the fuselage as a home. Then, as others have mentioned, she cuts the top off a mountain for her feminine palace-thing.

    And the "use all parts of the Buffalo" quote is more self-serving crap. First of all, it's a Bison, not a Buffalo. Second, they only "used all parts" because they were bloody hard to obtain. You try killing a giant, angry bull with a rock and a stick and see how hard it is.

    When times were good, and they had lots of bison, they just cut off the best parts and left the rest to rot--this can be documented from the multiple "buffalo jump" sites where they chased Bison off cliffs. You take all the parts from a couple because you need them, but when it gets down to the end, you just cut off the humps and tongues. The "perfectly ecological Native American" is a myth invented by Europeans. The Native Americans are the same as humans all over the globe. What a shock.

    1. Re:Not impressed by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      "buffalo jump" sites where they chased Bison off cliffs.

      The buffalo flew (briefly).

      The 747 cockpit reminds one of a buffalo in profile.

    2. Re:Not impressed by nigelo · · Score: 1

      The major difference between a Buffalo and a Bison is that you can't wash your hands in a Buffalo.

      --
      *Still* negative function...
  22. Feminine shape? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

    Have any of you ever seen a 747?

    -b

    --
    No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    1. Re:Feminine shape? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry to respond to myself but I just had to add some things.

      -no, they sure as hell did not disassemble all 4,500,000 pieces. Most of that number is fasteners (rivets) which are destroyed by being removed (and need to be replaced).

      -here are a few things that aren't part of a "sustainable" house: many pounds of lead, cadmium all over the place, hydraulic fluid, fuel cells with fuel residue, halon fire suppression system, primer loaded with chromates, toxic insulation, plastic and fabric treated with flame retardants, etc.

      -trucked cross-country

      What this amounts to is a pile of used scrap aluminum generously sprinkled with hazardous waste. 8 years in aviation maintenance has been enough for me to lose any childhood fantasies about living in airplanes.

      It just bugs me that they're using words like green and sustainable around an airplane. Might as well build a house out of pre-RoHS electronics.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    2. Re:Feminine shape? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Have any of you ever seen a 747?

      Yeah, the engines. Large, round, very noisy.

      Seems like a lot of women I know.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Feminine shape? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      It's not like they put all the hazardous materials in specially for the house, and you think all of that hazardous waste would have vanished into magical fairy land if the aircraft structure had not been repurposed? It was doubtless address when the structure was stripped and chopped, just as it would have been in any reclamation of materials from an aircraft for whatever purpose. Also, this just in: building materials are routinely trucked "cross-country" though in this case it was known to be intrastate rather than interstate.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    4. Re:Feminine shape? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that normal houses don't have their share of waste or that the finished airplane house was leaking hydraulic fluid. I'm saying that it's stupid to call either of them green or sustainable.

      I could build a house out of vcr's because of some fetish with magnetic tape but it wouldn't be green or sustainable just because it saved some vcr's from the dump. It would just be a self-indulgent, if whimsical, drain on my extravagant wealth.
      (the $50,000 quoted in tfa is a minuscule portion of the house's actual cost)

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  23. Economical price of $50,000 BUT... by dcavanaugh · · Score: 3, Funny

    On move-in day, each item is a carry-on and subject to a baggage fee of $50. You can't have an airplane without junk fees!

    1. Re:Economical price of $50,000 BUT... by norminator · · Score: 1

      Pro: Tons of bathrooms

      Con: All the bathrooms are barely big enough to stand up in.

    2. Re:Economical price of $50,000 BUT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aaaaand all her guests have to go through a nude scan or get frisked!

    3. Re:Economical price of $50,000 BUT... by infinite9 · · Score: 1

      On move-in day, each item is a carry-on and subject to a baggage fee of $50. You can't have an airplane without junk fees!

      Worse than that, does she have to go through security every time she comes home? Does she have to put on her seat belt every time she sits down? Did she reuse the airplane bathrooms? Does turbulence occasionally throw her out of bed? No more than six ounces of liquid allowed in the house?

      "Sorry I'm late. It took me an extra 20 minutes to get clearance from the tower before I could push back from the garage."

      Bu-bye now, Bu-bye.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    4. Re:Economical price of $50,000 BUT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Practice for the "mile high club"?

    5. Re:Economical price of $50,000 BUT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My take on the raving over the $50k price tag is that what it really means is that scrap 747s are underpriced.

  24. Make sure it includes the fire exit by wholestrawpenny · · Score: 1

    Or, who really needs an excuse to use the inflatable ramp to get out of a plane?

  25. Sell advertising space! by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

    If there was ever a perfect place to advertise life insurance, this is it.

  26. I'm living on a jet plane by stkpogo · · Score: 1

    don't know when I'll ever pack again

  27. A Boeing 747?!? Luxury! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Funny

    When I was a boy, we lived in the landing gear of a crashed Spitfire! . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:A Boeing 747?!? Luxury! by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Oh we used to dream of living in a crashed Spitfire's landing gear! It would have been a palace to us! All 150 of us had to live in a shoebox in the middle of the road... but you try to tell young people that today and they won't believe you!

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  28. 4.5E06 pieces ??? by feufeu · · Score: 1

    I'd call everybody who takes the four and a half million pieces of the 747 apart to convert it into something, say... a house, a maniac. This would include deriveting all aluminium sheets from the wings etc and riveting them back together... For the sake of what ???

  29. From TFA: by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

    "The 747 represented the single largest industrial achievement in modern history and its abandonment in the deserts make a statement about the obsolescence and ephemeral nature of our technology and our society."

    "Captain, our hyperbole filters are at 127% capacity and rising! I'm diverting power from weapons and life support to create an inverse tachyon pulse using the main deflector dish to try and compensate!"

    I'm a hardcore plane guy. (Boeing products in particular) But at the end of the day....it's just a hunk of well shaped aluminum. 30 years of flying leads to metal fatigue. Time marches on. Besides, we've put men on the moon, split the atom, tamed the Yangtzhe and Colorado rivers, created artificial organs, and made it possible for mankind to set our DVR's from our cell phones (making it possible to never miss another episode of Dancing with the Stars or Jersey Shore). There are many industrial achievements that stand above the 747.

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    1. Re:From TFA: by speroni · · Score: 1

      Even to keep it in the realm of aircraft there's the F-22, JSF, Stealth Bombers, SR-71s, ...

      In commercial aircraft there's still the A380 and the 787...

      --
      Eschew Obfuscation
  30. Next? by punapea · · Score: 1

    We all get an old submarine, paint it yellow and move into that??

    --
    Death comes to those who wait.
    1. Re:Next? by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      Well, in the town where I was born...

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  31. Old News... by MrWin2kMan · · Score: 1

    This was on HGTV two years ago...they have recently been running recycled clips of it on other shows.

    --
    Nothing to see here but us trolls...move along...
  32. Tackiness by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    This is just to show that money neither buys class nor precludes one from committing stupid, senseless (and this tough economy, insensitive) acts of excessive tackiness and expensive attention whoring.

  33. She had the wings helicoptered in last year by mrsnak · · Score: 1

    Made for interesting local news around here.

  34. The land it's parked upon.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...probably emits more radiation than the airframe has ever accumulated during its years of flying.

    Know anybody who has granite rocks in their landscaping, or granite countertops in their kitchen or bathrooms? Take a handheld geiger counter the next time you visit them and entertain them with the small amounts of radiation emitted by their granite :-)

  35. And for those lonely nights... by bobdotorg · · Score: 1

    ... she can fire up Otto.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
  36. replace a less efficient house by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 1

    Actually, it may be more efficient to replace the existing house with a more energy efficient house.

    Link goes to one of my all time favorite Ted videos, because I often find myself asking the same questions as Catherine Mohr; except, where I guess, she has quantitative answers!

    --
    Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
  37. One drawback comes to mind. by wcrowe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The biggest drawback I can see to having a home built out of aircraft aluminum is the corrosion issue. Contrary to what many people think aluminum does corrode. It is not as active a metal as steel, but it DOES corrode.

    If you take aluminum and fasten it to other structures with dissimilar metals you are liable to have a major corrosion problem on your hands. I'm thinking Malibu would have a more electrolytic atmosphere (being near the ocean) and so the problem would be compounded. Perhaps some sort of anodic protection could be put in place during construction.

    Anyway, I'm just wondering if anyone is thinking about the potential corrosion problem.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:One drawback comes to mind. by swb · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the architect thought about it but then said "WTF, she's a rich cunt and by the time it's a problem, I'll be dead or retired."

    2. Re:One drawback comes to mind. by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      The biggest drawback I can see to having a home built out of aircraft aluminum is the corrosion issue. Contrary to what many people think aluminum does corrode. It is not as active a metal as steel, but it DOES corrode.

      Architects build with aluminum all the time. I am sure they are taking the appropriate measures. I am actually wondering more about how they are removing the old paint and the steeped-in passenger/cattle smell.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  38. It's all symbolism by EmagGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The 747 is a symbol of American industrial and technological innovation and might. Taking one apart and turning it into an eco-home is really just a symbol destroying American industry to save the environment.

  39. Why not? There are thousands of houseboats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not? There are thousands of houseboats. Also long and narrow. Albeit, I can't think of a better house thermal insulation than the one made for minus 40-60 C. ! :-DDD

  40. Same old BS. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    Economical. Right.

    The airframe might have cost $50k but what about everything else? How much did everything necessary to make this building livable (insulation, wiring, sheetrock, flooring, lighting, plumbing, etc) cost? I'm guessing even the foundation was built separately with the plane serving as little more than a skin. I was expecting to see a plane, or at least part of it, sitting on this property. Oh yeah, then there's making the skin weatherproof given that all those panels were cut up and taken apart. And I haven't even mentioned the massive expense of hiring architects and engineers to work on so unique a project. And clearly they had experts involved to help address any potential rules regarding home construction.

    If they didn't balk at paying $8000 an hour to pay for a helicopter I doubt money was an issue here.

    The house is very cool and I like how they repurposed materials. But I find it an insult when they try to suggest that somehow this enterprise was done on the cheap. This seems to be a common trait with the green movement when it comes to recycling objects for a different function. They try to impress everyone by how inexpensive or easy it supposedly is to do what they're describing when that's the furthest thing from the truth. If it were so easy everyone would be doing it. This isn't like cutting a milk jug in half and using it for a flower pot.

    1. Re:Same old BS. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      One last thing... Does your average house even have $50k worth of materials in it? Without a point of reference that figure is meaningless.

  41. $50k? by loshwomp · · Score: 1

    Where does one pick up a surplus 747 for $50,000? I have some shopping to do.

  42. 4.5 million parts by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing they didn't use the engines, that saves a few parts.

    But if they preserved the cockpit, woot! Not likely, the instruments were probably worth more than the fuselage. But a working radar disk would be fun, just to point it at visitors. Actuators also are worth more in reuse/salvage than to just be left on parts. Imagine the fun of hydraulic leaks when you tweak the flaps for ventilation...

    I wish I could afford to do this. Wicked fun...!

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  43. Elephants by zmooc · · Score: 1

    17000 cubic feet. How many elephants is that?

    The imperial system. Not very popular outside of Myanmar and the USA.

    --
    0x or or snor perron?!
  44. Better do periodic corrosion inspections! by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Aircraft aren't designed to be parked for years without pressure washing, inspections, corrosion repair, and repaint. Park 'em near salt water and things get much worse.

    There is good reason the AMARC "Boneyard" is at Davis-Monthan.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  45. 727 home by FencingLion · · Score: 1

    Not far from where I live someone is living in a 727:

    Google map: http://ur1.ca/21vv0

    --
    Just keep swimming.
    1. Re:727 home by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      That's pretty neat, it even looks like there's a landing strip carved out of the trees in front of it ;)

  46. Pressure by Dr.+Zed · · Score: 1

    The engine's compressor is used and pumped into the cabin to replace escaping air.

    So, no it's not airtight. Minus 10 geek points for not watching the Mythbusters episode where they had to seal the heck out of the cabin to run their explosive decompression test.

    1. Re:Pressure by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      They were also using a junked-to-hell, old-as-shit airplane they found in a fucking SCRAPYARD. Of course it isn't airtight, it's been decommissioned because it's fucking BROKEN, hence why it's in a SCRAPYARD.

      Also, although the engines pump air into the cabin, it's not like this thing is a sieve that needs the engines to constantly keep it from depressurizing completely. A big issue is humidity, there isn't much of it at cruising altitude and so a lot of the air is recycled in order to prevent everything from drying out. There's some flow in and out of the plane, but it can be shut off if necessary to become almost completely airtight. (I say almost because it can't possibly last forever, but it'll last a couple hours, which is effectively airtight.)

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  47. Old idea by arivanov · · Score: 1

    The first private golf club in Bulgaria near Ihtiman on the main Europe Turkey highway has the main cafe building made out of bits from a decomissioned Tu-154. It has been there for 20 odd years now. Parts from the tail are used for signs on the highway. The fuselage and the wings are incorporated in the building. I can think of at least two more cafes and restaurants made out of decomissioned Il-18s and there is a hotel in Germany made out of one as well.

    You can get an airframe which is past its max hours on the cheap fairly easily. Transportation is a bit of a hassle, but it generally costs less than building a dwelling of the same size. So if you have a big enough chunk of land and get this past the planners (especially in countries like UK) that is doable.

    There is an easier, cheaper and better option though which is also easier to get past the planners. With the rail transport going to sitting places only there is a suprlus of Pulmans and their East German equivalents (used in ex-Soviet Block). These are way easier to adapt and convert into a supercool house.

    --
    Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
    http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  48. Welcome to Megaton by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

    Is she going to have a robot in front that says:

    "Welcome to Megaton, friendliest town a-round!"?

    --
    That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
  49. Quite the bargin by helixcode123 · · Score: 1

    Gee. I was going to buy a little single engine Cessna, but I guess I can spring for a 747 since you can pick one up for only $50,000.

    --

    In a band? Use WheresTheGig for free.

  50. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, just like twitter?

  51. Hmm ... by Stooshie · · Score: 0, Redundant

    " ... requested only curvilinear/feminine shapes for her new home ... "

    But was quite happy to live in a large phallic shaped jumbo!

    --
    America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
  52. Smart dude...I want one! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    This guy pretty much showed how useless our recycling is, especially when he bought a plane for 1/3 the price of a house, and has so much materials left over, that he can build other units, like a pool storage facility, and etc...

    Smart, smart , smart!

  53. +5 corrections to +5 informitive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Most planes are not pressurized. Large commercial planes have to be due to where they operate.
    2. The pressure usually comes from turbine bleed (you have bleeds from may different stages on the turbine for many different uses. like pressurizing the plane or starting other turbines). Not louvers pushing air into a plane.
    3. You control the back bleed to control cabin pressure. The command for fully closing the back bleed is "freeze the puppies Scotty.", this is because the way the warm air gets from the cabin to the cargo hold where your pets are riding, is through the back bleed. You close this bleed when the cabin is not maintaining pressure... or you saw several yap dogs loaded into cargo.

    The doors are sealed by the plane pressurizing ("They" I presume being the crew, do no real sealing other than closing the door). So if you see someone try to open the door in mid flight just point at them and laugh while pelting them with your empty drink containers, as there is no way they can pull the door in enough to open it outwards. You have to pull those doors in first.

  54. Think containers, if you are going for a bargain by watergeus · · Score: 1

    If you are really serious and want to have a shelter quick, start thinking and tinkering with containers.
    Cheap and easy to transport. Almost rust free, easy to glue and stack together.

    Search for "ISBU container homes" or "shipping containers".

  55. Re:Think containers, if you are going for a bargai by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's definitively on my radar, just a little harder to sell the SO on that, whereas an airliner (and now I'm thinking boats, too) is a more aesthetic choice.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!