What is Digg?129 Comments
- toxicgonzo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+97Engine 2 refuses to obey the no smoking sign
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+99That's what happens when the ***** hits the fan....literally.
- NorCal05, on 10/12/2007, -2/+60It would be a little scary, but the 777 was designed to be able to take off with a full load of passengers, luggage, and fuel with only one engine. Discovery Channel: +1
- blimpmaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+47I used to work at Boeing in the late 80's and early 90's. I mostly worked on the 57 and 37 programs but I had a lot of friends on the 777 program. When the 777 was in early stages of production one of my good friends built the composite cowling's for the engines. I can remember when he would fly to Connecticut twice a month to repair cowling's that had been damaged during engine tests. The PW 4000 engine used on the 777 generates so much thrust that they would blow up. Fan blades would be jettisoned through the cowling's and shred them into millions of tiny pieces.
I would suspect that this is what happened to the plane in the picture. Each Boeing airplane is designed to fly on half power. With the 747 that would be with two engines. However, flying for 500 miles would be idiotic and probably a death wish.
One other thing, Boeing airplanes are so over-built that 9 out of every 10 fasteners could be removed and it would still be airworthy. They really do build the best planes in the world. - AhrenBa, on 10/12/2007, -7/+50Wow, I am tired of hearing, "Will it blend?". Please stop...
But as far as the pic: Very cool! I am just glad I wasn't on that thing when it happened! :) - pgup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25There's something on the wing!!
- DesertFlyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23salinemist, you do realize Boeing and Airbus do not make engines, right?
- fudgebrown, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Shot with Nikon D70, Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 - I wish I had that lens...
- sparkalex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Who the hell are these sick people commenting on that site?!?!
One comment was as follows....
"Fantastic shot! Broken engines are very difficult to capture, especially Rolls Royce ones. I've seen P&W & GE engines go up in smoke on 777s a few times on various sites, but due to the reliablilty of RR engines, its hard to capture them. Thank God one finally went! Great photo. 5 stars!"
Thats just messed up O_O - DesertFlyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18epilonious, I don't know if my user name hinted at it, but I am pretty well into aviation. Let's try an clear up some common misconceptions among the public.
"A. It would have to emergency land full of fuel or fly around with a dead engine for several hours considering Airbuses don't have fuel dumps"
Truth time: Boeing planes like the 737, 717 and 757 cannot dump fuel. It was an option on the 767. The same goes for similar Airbus models. The A320 cannot dump fuel, the A330 has it as an option. The Airbus A340 and 747 series of aircraft can dump fuel. The general rule of thumb is how close the max takeoff weight is to the max landing weight tends to determine whether or not fuel dumping capabilities are needed.
"B. The nose gear might have jammed."
I assume this is in reference to the jetBlue A320 that had the nose gear jam sideways. This could happen to Boeing planes as well, it has actually happened to a few 747s. This is so rare and usually has something to do with the airline's maintenance rather than the aircraft.
"C. The autolander might decide to try and land the plane as if it had all working engines despite pilots trying to over-ride it"
This cause an accident in some unusual circumstances (a low fly-by at an airshow) when the A320 was new. Since then, both Airbus and Boeing have continued to use fly-by-wire systems. The system has been much improved, which is shown by the A320's excellent safety record.
"D. The tailfins might snap off in the ensuing hard maneuvering because of those pesky rate-sensitive composites discovered in gamma-testing."
I guess those "pesky composites" work pretty well since Boeing is creating an entire plane out of them, the 787. The A300 had some problems, yes, but it was designed in the 70's and was one of the first aircraft to use composites. That accident in New York where the A300's tail broke off was due to pilot error according to the NTSB report. The first officer used so much rudder that it overstressed the structure of the aircraft Improvements have been made to how the flight crews are trained on the A300 and the aircraft are being checked make sure they are safe. It's not like you'll find very many passenger A300s in the US anyways, only American Airlines has them and they do JFK-Puerto Rico or Miami-Puerto Rico. I would feel safe and confident aboard an A300.
"I have too many Aero friends who will change airlines if they see they were stuck on an Airbus due to all the non-publicized horror stories and dumb things they keep doing in terms of engineering."
I guess it's fine to fly a different schedule based upon aircraft, but most people don't care. Airlines would not buy these aircraft if they were not safe, it would cost them more than they could gain. I'm not picking on your friends or yourself, but these are very common misconceptions that don't have very much merit. Air travel is very safe, and to make it seem otherwise is ridiculous.
I would like to see your data on how Boeing aircraft only have problems with the engines. I guess that's why the FAA would like airlines to fit their 737s with additional flight data recorders just for the rudders since there have been an unusually high number of incidents during cruise with erroneous rudder movement? I'm not saying the 737 is safe by any means, but please do not try and make it sound like Airbus are unsafe while Boeing are perfectly safe. - benijuana, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16I think I'll visit Malaysia another time...
- fudgebrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12People shoot planes a lot - YOu see it quite often on photo forums - they will set up and shoot planes flying over the runway - so i say it was not setup.
- protocol0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13i believe that would warrant a great big OH NOEZ.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14No different from people who look at trains, or cars, or boats.
It's actually quite a compliment, RR engines rarely, rarely break, and to actually capture one on film is quite an achievement. - K5Fury, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Yes, the 777's engines produce enough power to fly the plane with only one engine. You just don't want to continue on with only one engine in the light that the only engine running could fail leaving it a giant glider.
When pilots are taking off there are certain things they say during the take off run
V1 - in the event of an engine failure, the pilots have enough runway to stop the aircraft without running out of runway
VR- rotation speed (the speed the aircraft has enough lift for flight)
V2- in the event of an engine failure at or beyond this speed is too fast to stop on the runway but suffecient enough to have the aircraft take off, turn around, and then land - abid786, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Why does someone say this on every picture that is submitted?
- brotherfranciz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15There are a lot of aeroplane enthusiasts out there, not sure about the exact number of enthusiasts though...
"And exactly how many people is that Mr. Statistics-Out-Of-My-Ass?"
But the funny thing is, jesuschrysler never mentioned any statistics... - Sagard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I see your lack of obvious grammatical errors, so I am calling YOU a fake.
Just because something is good doesn't make it wrong. - psygnisfive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Luckily it wouldn't. The 777 was designed to be able to survive a single-engine failure and be able to fly the rest of the way to its destination. One of the reasons the plane only has 2 engines is to reduce the chances of failure. The engines are thus more powerful to be able to propel the plane by themselves, in the case that one should fail.
- sideshowRAHEEM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Hello this is your captain speaking if you take a look out the windows on the left side of the air craft you should see a trail of smoke that's coming from engine number 1, if you take a look out the right side of the plane you should see a beautiful view of the earth thats getting closer and closer and..............
- lotsofgadgets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"I doubt it could climb, but a 747 at 20,000 ft can glide for something like 500 miles if all engines go out and wings are intact."
If it lost all engines, it would have no hydraulic pressure, causing a loss of all flight control surfaces. It would fall like a stone.
This is not true at all, the 747 has an APU which provides hydraulic and electrical power in the event of a total engine failure. If that isn't enough it also has a Ram Air Turbine (RAT) which is essentially a propeller hooked up to a hydraulic pump. The RAT deploys from the belly of the aircraft and windmills in the air providing enough hydraulic power to maintain the flight controls. Google for the "Gimli Glider" and read about the 767 that dead stick'ed a landing in Canada due to a lack of fuel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider - rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8'pssshhhht.... aaaaaahhhhhh.... This is your captain speaking... aaaaaahhhhhh.... we all know that proper engine maintainence is... aaaaaahhhhhh.... key to safe flying.... aaaaaahhhhhh.... so sit back, relax, and enjoy the short flight back to the airport.
- zonker77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Yeah look at the rest of the airliners.net site, there are literally hundreds of thousands of airplane pics, most far less interesting than that one. People love airplanes, its not so hard to believe that somebody happened to catch one having problems.
- Pix869, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13dongiaconia, Perhaps instead of saying "funny whitty things" first to try and get that all-important number to rise, you should say something relevant?
- nbcivic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7i concur, that is one of the clearest pics i've ever seen.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's the exact same as if you're looking at just about any mechanical thing in the process of breaking.
Some people aren't scared when engines go out, because they know they have a very high chance of living given the circumstances of only one engine being out.
If this were, say, a picture of a plane crashing into a building, it would be entirely different...
...then again, you have those explosion enthusiasts. - jesuschrysler, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14it's really not that weird considering the amount of people that are taking pictures of planes at all times all over the world.
- Flashman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5No, the easy way to take pictures of bullets is to do it before they're fired, duh.
- wvannus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The 777 can take off on one motor.
- MacEagle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Absolutely. All takeoff data is computed for the possibility of losing an engine on takeoff. If the aircraft is too heavy, the runway too short, you are not allowed to takeoff. Not saying it will climb like a normal aircraft, but it will climb safely to allow for a safe landing.
- sparkalex, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@Hexagram
You missed the point ... they said "Thank God one finally went!"
I dont think they would say that if they were a passenger on that plane or a relative - rshu4you, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4ummmm Engine parts?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Two or 3 fast cycles, lock to lock, followed by catastrophic failure is characteristic of dynamic instability, i.e. flutter."
I'm not an engineer, but is it unrealistic to expect that the pilots shouldn't be able to do anything that MAKES IMPORTANT PIECES OF THE AIRPLANE FALL OFF??!!!! I'm mean wtf? - rohanch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@moofer
Actually the RAT would provide enough hydraulic pressure to keep control even with the engines failed. It wouldn't going to fall "like a stone", although you wouldn't be able to go for too long...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_air_turbine - sTiVo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4it "rly" is annoying to shorten already short words.
- zioxide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"If it lost all engines, it would have no hydraulic pressure, causing a loss of all flight control surfaces. It would fall like a stone."
umm, no it wouldn't. - benijuana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5thats how digg is. on the article about the stolen gps phones, i was the only one who pointed out that the thief had his 13 year old son be an accomplice to robbery, and was dugg down while everyone else debated the inner workings of GPS satellite technology. There is nerd-dom on a whole different level here, it can be pretty sick sometimes
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_91
Says the engine exploded although it does not specify what reverse thrust might or might not have had to do with the accident. - anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Have a blast Malaysia Year 2007"
"We're smokin' Malaysia Year 2007"
"We're flying without wings Malaysia Year 2007"
...I'm done. - LoveWidescreen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Will someone please explain why Alot, a town in India, is so damned popular on Digg and Slashdot?
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=alot&gwp=13
This just doesn't make sense. "About 10 seconds after liftoff from runway 19R something happens with the left engine. Alot of smoke and fragments of metal and other material falls down on the runway." So, an Indian town of smoke and fragments of metal...? WTF does that mean?
It *looks* like the phrase should actually be "a lot" with a f**king space in between the "a" and "lot", but apparently it's all about a town in India. You guys are just weird. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Very neat!
@Mugdcoffee
He's very far away, I'd assume 500 yards or so. (Plane spotters have been severely under fire after 9-11, when, for 99.9% of them, just enjoy sitting there watching planes, the same way people follow trains because they like them.) Due to the great distance away he is, he is able to zoom in quite far (I'd assume a very large lens) and take one, if not several pictures of the plane.
There's no way he wouldn't be able to take a picture of it, unless of course he was so close the plane either knocked him over or didn't fit in the frame. How do you think we take pictures of bullets? Those are capable of going much faster then any commercial airliner can. - grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They may want to put that landing gear back down
- Ades, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3no fake.. actually this was picture of the year in sweden.. in a big swedish newspaper
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4These rinky dink countries don't maintain their machines. Look at this one for christ sake.
http://iagblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/chinese-aircraft-maintenance.html - S1ngular1ty1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The pros take tons of pictures at once so they can sift through them and find the 1 that came out the best. They don't sit there and try and time their picture perfectly. They just take lots of pictures close to when the think the action is going to happen.
- kidcodea, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4im sorry to resemble human, but what interests me is, WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT PLANE FILLED WITH PEOPLE? FLIGHT WENT ON OK?
- maxhrk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0723489&size=L
how about this one? :) - spritom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And keep an eye on that number 1 engine gauge over there, its running a little hot
- Thex1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The web site is devoted to this sort of stuff so there a enthusiasts everywhere taking every available shot with the best cameras they can get. This was probably a very high speed multi-shot sequence, and by chance there was bird strike on number 1 engine...Fredrik had a lucky day to capture the shot and save the plane..
- washcapsfan37, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2But could it take off if it was on a conveyor belt move at the exact speed to match the acceleration of the plane?
*dodges thrown items* -
Show 51 - 100 of 127 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is