You just gotta love America

[172driver]

Here's a video of the first flight of the new 747-8. Note the 'little guys' at the holding points. Can you imagine Airbus doing a 'first flight' with a couple of Cessnas in the foreground?

Good on Boeing :ok::ok:

[Jan Olieslagers]

???? Where's the video? And what's the continent got to do with it?

[[Edit: You might well be right about Airbus, though: THEY would gladly inconvenience all and sundry for the sake of their own grandeur, or so I understand.]]

[Ultra long hauler]

Here's a video of the first flight of the new 747-8. Note the 'little guys' at the holding points. Can you imagine Airbus doing a 'first flight' with a couple of Cessnas in the foreground?

Good on Boeing :ok::ok:

America? Video?
Try not to booze too much before posting…………..


###Ultra Long Hauler###

[Shunter]

5slKvtQe5UE

[172driver]

Thanks Shunter, my video link disappeared...:confused:

[IO540]

You are right 172; here they would notam the airport closed, kick off GA, and the place would be heaving with yellow jackets :)

[SNS3Guppy]

Last time I was in Liege we held short of 5R in a 747 while several 172's did touch and go landings.

[patowalker]

Quito was closed for an hour during a festival in the 80s, so that my buddies and I could fly through the approach in hang-gliders.

The local Britich Caledonian manager was not at all pleased that their aircraft was meanwhile held on the tarmac at Guayaquil. :)

[jxc]

Looking at that I think it has a shorter takeoff roll than a Socota Tb9 :E

[IO540]

Looking at that I think it has a shorter takeoff roll than a Socota Tb9

Never heard of a "Socota". What is it?

[Lew747]

Gorgeous looking jet! :ok: Does anyone know why they never retract the landing gear after take off on a first flight?

[IO540]

In case it got stuck :)

A gear up landing on a 747 has gotta cost a few bob, not to mention a shock load job on four motors :)

[SNS3Guppy]

The shape of an airframe in flight is not he same as on the ground; the airframe twists and pulls slightly; what fit once may not fit now.

The 747 frame flexes considerably, even on the ground, as fuel and freight are loaded. Certain exit doors can't be closed, if left open during large fuel uplifts, for example.

A new design on an initial flight is not intended to do more than prove flight. The flight envelope, including systems use, is gradually expanded in steps as part of the test and evaluation process.

During the second flight of the 787, a minor gear problem developed. Boeing 787 Has Landing Gear Glitch on Second Test Flight - BusinessWeek (http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/travelers_check/archives/2009/12/boeing_787_has.html)

When the initial flights are not about proving the landing gear system, leaving it down makes sense. Why complicate an already critical time with irrelevancies?

[Jan Olieslagers]

Looking at that I think it has a shorter takeoff roll than a Socota Tb9
Never heard of a "Socota". What is it?
Successor to the very famous and successful Maroen Rellay.

[patowalker]

Never heard of a "Socota".Societe de Construction d'Omnibus de Tourisme et d'Affaires, successor of Morone-Soulnier.

[jxc]

Ok I'm sorry I did a typo shoot me :eek:

[Oldpilot55]

Naff graphics. Airbus do a cool paint job on their new stuff.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Here's a video of the first flight of the new 747-8. Note the 'little guys' at the holding points. Can you imagine Airbus doing a 'first flight' with a couple of Cessnas in the foreground?

Good on Boeing :ok::ok:

I've crewed 10 first flights on new-build aeroplanes, several of them new variants (I've not had the privilege of first flight on a new type, maybe one day), 6 of those as captain. None as big as a 747, but big enough.

If I was managing first flight of a new big jet, I'd have the whole place sterile for some time. You need to absolutely minimise the pressure on the flight crew to do anything other than bring the aeroplane back in one piece. If the flight test instrumentation falls over just after lining up, the crew need the time and space to just sort it out, re-brief, then carry on. If that takes half an hour, fine.

If those Cessnas were using another runway, fine. If they were likely to want the same runway as the 747, then frankly somebody's not doing their job properly.

Airbus don't do everything right - I've got quite cross with them on occasion, but in this regard, I think that they are utterly sensible.

G

[Wrong Stuff]

Out of interest, Genghis, why would the aircraft not be able to taxi clear, sort out any problems in its own time, then taxi back to the runway?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Depends what the fault is, and what fix best serves the requirements of the sortie. You just don't need the distractions and pressures - stop where you are and sort it if that's the right solution, taxi back if that's the right solution - but don't put yourself in the position of having to consider other people's priorities. Not on a first flight - the crew need the ability to be totally selfish.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Possibly the airport management don't know best what Boeing needed - or perhaps more likely, there's some bits of that video which aren't actually from the real first flight.

G

[KKoran]

If I was managing first flight of a new big jet, I'd have the whole place sterile for some time.
Good thing you don't fly for Boeing. They operate from public-use airports (in this case, Paine Field in Everett, Washington) and can't restrict other users.

[patowalker]

A bit like Airbus at Toulouse-Blagnac then.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Cranfield was closed all day yesterday for a piece of high risk testing on runway 03-21 (water ingress testing on a prototype business jet so far as I could tell). That's not normally a quiet spot either. Even I thought a 36 hour closure was a little extreme, but wasn't involved - just happened to be doing something else on the same airfield, and nosey.

My first-flights have mostly been at public airfields, but all of them I managed to negotiate a fair bit of "elbow room" - in one case at a very busy military airfield, who were good enough to give us a short (but long enough) into-wind runway and leave all the jet traffic on a longer crosswind runway. Ask nicely, explain your issues, and it's amazing what you can get.

No, I don't think that Boeing are a bunch of amateurs by any means, nor necessarily are the management of Paine Field. A quick look at a plate suggests that the 748 was lined up on 34L, and those Cessnas could easily have been using either 34R or even 29, at minimal trouble to anybody. US airports are generally very good at juggling multiple runways. Probably more likely than my original suggestion of incompetence, or the OP's suggestion that they were all sharing the same runway.

G