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."
A guy here in Oregon had the same idea, but without the architectural finesse: http://www.airplanehome.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awhaCJlfO0w
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!
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
No, your penis is as phallic a shape as you can get.