There are a huge number of test flights as part of integrating and certifying new parts. Or even just new algorithms. After passing simulation, want to make sure this new cooldown algorithm doesn't make the engine explode? Apply it to one of the 4 engines and go fly around for a few hours to simulate production load.
So this was probably a test flight that was going to happen anyways, just pick a clever route and now you have a huge promotional thing too!
Are you implying that every single passenger aboard a normal commercial flight is there for some absolutely necessary, useful purpose? I'd wager not, in which case a large quantity of the fuel used in the normal course of operations is also 'wasted' - or, at least, used sub-optimally - the passengers being the only reason the flights are undertaken in the first place.
"Are you implying that every single passenger aboard a normal commercial flight is there for some absolutely necessary, useful purpose?"
Are you implying that nobody should spend so much as a thousandth of a second hesitating before wasting trillions of dollars worth of a resource which represents 100% of the world supply that will ever be available, when retaining even a single ounce of that same resource could have been used to save the lives of 3 billion people?
/s
(jeez, read what you're responding to and your response. I'm making fun of it with this post because your style of response is so ridiculous.)
But dude, football! And the twelfth man! And stuff!
>You're right, nothing is absolutely necessary, there is not point arguing about this.
Don't you hate when arguments get to this point?
You know what else isn't a waste of fuel? Dumping thousands of gallons of it onto the ground and burning it. I mean, who doesn't enjoy a good bonfire, right? You cannot prove that I don't!
Apparently, this route was the result of a test flight. Really the only legitimate explanation for something like this.
So you would cancel this test flight of a new 747 freighter variant and possibly end a multi million dollar program just because they flew it in the pattern of the number 12?
It looks like flight aware is using Mercator... which is what I assume most navigational charts use. If it is Mercator, then straight lines on the map are lines of constant bearing in reality, so pretty straight forward to follow.
I think the premise was that the actual route flown might have been much more complicated than it looks, if the map projection used by the aircraft wasn't the same as that used by the tracking service.
People in charge of the database is able to load arcs with a given radious. It's not possible to do it from the mcdu (the flight computer keyboard and display). I guess this was designed on the ground and then loaded at the aircraft.
since the flightplan shows a certain number of lat/long style waypoints you can assume they did this. Entering arcs in the FMS is somewhat possible (by approximation, i.e. multiple FIX<radial>/<distance> points); but entering these digits that way would be unpracticle (albeit NOT impossible).
Initially I looked at the site from the Iphone so I didn´t see the details. In fact is as you say, just waypoints set in a square way. The rounded corners is just the normal turning radio of the B747.
In theory you're right; but on the scale they flew this pattern; maintaining a constant heading will look like a straight line. Also, as mentioned in other replies; the map projection has a big impact on this (e.g. A lambert projection will show a constant heading as a curve).
Not normally a sports fan, but living in Seattle while the Seahawks go to the Superbowl is tons of fun just because of all small ways the various techie industries are coming together.
E.g. seismic monitoring of CenturyLink Stadium (which is engineered to be one of the loudest), Boeing putting on this stunt, office buildings with "12" spelled out over multiple floors, 12-cent Starbucks.
Always happy to see these guys in the news. The site is powered by Apache Rivet, which I helped work on. It never saw wide adoption, so the one big user always makes me pleased that it did take off somewhere.
Traditionally, the first substitute player who fields when a member of the fielding side is injured. In Test matches, twelve players are named to a team prior to the match, with the final reduction to eleven occurring immediately prior to play commencing on the first day.
Correct. Texas A&M alumni here. Our 12th Man has a 90 year tradition. It was a bit of a shock moving to Seattle and seeing that they had a 12th Man too. It wasn't widely known at the school until the Seahawks went to the Super Bowl in 2005. Shortly afterwards the two teams reached an agreement that worked well for both of them.
No, it's not. You are describing BIRGing, or somethings. #12 refers to supporting the team, including making noise in the stadium to affect the outcome of plays.
I didn't even know what BIRGing was before you posted your comment. I know what #12 is meant to refer to. My observation is that "BIRGing" often accompanies the whole "#12" thing.
You may or may not be aware, but this stuff is generally done on test flights where they need to be in the air for a certain amount of time but have no specific location they need to do it. Might as well spell something out in the sky while you're at it. I doubt Boeing would do this sort of thing otherwise, since it costs tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of dollars to keep a 747 in the air for hours.
Boeing a sponsor of the Seahawks, and the aircraft is a freighter owned by Boeing and used for testing (equipment? possibly used to haul parts?). The livery doesn't appear to be just for the Superbowl, so it's probably a permanent marketing/PR piece for their local city.
I wonder how much that really costs, though. The plane has to be painted one way or another, so you're paying for the design (which doesn't seem too involved here, since it's borrowing elements from elsewhere) and whatever extra work is involved with painting a more elaborate pattern.
Still, not entirely zero, you're right. I imagine the extra cost for the paint job came out of the marketing budget. Probably well worth it.
While bare aluminum saves weight, the TCO is higher:
"While the lighter weight of a polished airplane saves fuel costs [...] this savings is more than offset by the higher cost of washing, polishing, and painting a polished fuselage throughout its service life. The net operating cost of polished airplanes, calculated as a percentage of the total operating cost, is between 0.06 percent and 0.30 percent more than the total operating cost of fully painted airplanes."
> I doubt Boeing would do this sort of thing otherwise, since it costs tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of dollars to keep a 747 in the air for hours.
It was only 5.5h, pretty short compared to a 10h+ transatlantic flight (although in the latter case, it's the passengers who are paying for the fuel.)
You're right, they should take passengers on point A to point A test flights. Want to volunteer? No meals on board, and you stand a slight chance of dying, but it's better than surfing the Internet!
Net? Probably nothing. Boeing has lots of test flights to do just to rack up hours of operation and so forth so a flight like this easily fits into their budget of flights they have to do anyway.
747-800 burns about 2,900 gal of fuel per hour at cruise altitude and speed. This was done at 12,000 feet which probably doubled the fuel consumption. Without accounting for takeoff/climb fuel, we're looking at around 32,000 gallons of jet fuel. Cheapest fuel BFI is 5.59/gal so a good estimate for the total bill would be $178,880.00.
For everyone who's trying to say this was a waste of fuel please think about the purpose of test flights. In this instance they were testing a new freighter variant. How else do you expect to test and tune new aircraft/parts? Besides it's Boeings money to waste even if it was.
I realize it's the high desert, so few people live there, but I'm surprised all that airspace was open for such a flight. Aren't there any military installations around?
...yep, total rubbish. But at least the Climate Change (LLC, TM, Patents Pending) we've been hearing about gets a boost from it. One plus is that it gives all of us non-interested people an interest: Whoever is playing against Seattle (Denver, I think) really needs to win this one.
Yes, the Seattle Seahawks are the only team taking PEDs in the NFL. Side note: at least 2 of those suspensions were actually for narcotic drugs not PEDS, including Brandon Browner who is now suspended, leaving them without their second best corner. His offense? Smoking pot - while playing in the CFL. 4 years ago.
It's worth noting that the Broncos' best linebacker Von Miller was also suspended for 6 games for smoking pot (prior to it being legalized in Colorado) and then trying to cheat the drug test. Stupidity is not unique to any one team.
True - I'm actually assuming this is a 49ers fan commenting, so I wasn't making a comment in relation to Von Miller. To be fair, Browner is being suspended an entire YEAR for something he did before he was in the NFL that is now legal in the state he lives in and did NOT try to cover it up. Amazing.
As a life-long Seahawks fan and long-time season ticket holder, I'll correct some misconceptions.
First off, Browner was in the NFL prior to the incident. He actually started with the Broncos as an undrafted free agent out of college, then broke his arm in training camp and was ultimately cut. Unable to latch on with another NFL team, he started playing in Canada and was there for several years. When Pete Carroll was hired as the coach in Seattle, he inherited a lackluster roster and was looking to upgrade talent. He remembered Browner from Pac-10 (now Pac-12) college days (Browner played for Oregon State University, Pete Carroll coached USC), and gave him a try out. Browner made the team, became a starter.
After he was cut from Denver, he was reportedly broke, sleeping on friends couches and there was no reliable way to contact him (no cell phone). Once you're a member of the NFL player's union, you're obligated to take drug tests. What Browner didn't know (and most everyone, for that matter) was that unless you file your retirement papers, you're still under obligation to take the drug tests. Browner was supposed to take the drug tests, but without any way to contact him, he wasn't able to do so and didn't realize he was missing them. Missing a drug test automatically places one into "stage-3 offender" status, which basically means that if you fail any sort of drug test, you're automatically banned from the NFL (but can apply for reinstatement after a year - which is almost always granted).
So, what happened was is that he smoked weed and failed the test. Because he was placed in stage-3 due to his missed drug tests while he was in Canada, this failed drug test means he is suspended for a year and can apply for reinstatement after his suspension is up. It is devastating to him because he was on track to get a lucrative contract, as he is an above-average cornerback in the NFL. Now he will enter free-agency suspended for the better part of next year, and at the age 30 (which doesn't bode well for NFL players).
I love Browner and hope they get it sorted out. I've watched him play for years: he went to my alma mater and plays for my favorite NFL team.
Here are some progress pics from earlier today:
http://i.imgur.com/R1kERlg.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/YNMNnJr.png
More info for the curious: http://www.geekwire.com/2014/boeings-new-seahawks-themed-747...