The final 'Queen of the Skies' 747...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYLYlIotHBk

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 1/02/2023 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
> The final 'Queen of the Skies' 747...
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYLYlIotHBk
>
>
>
>

**Boeing bet the company on the 747. It was a good bet.

One experience I had with a 747 was in a 747SP. Kinda like a regular
747, but stumpier. Same engines though. Anyhoo, we watched at KSA
(Sydney Airport) as a 747 from Delta (I think) took off. We took off 20
minutes later. I noted a feeling of acceleration I'd never felt from any
aeroplane before. It felt faster. We landed in Fiji and, 20 minutes
later, the 747 from Delta landed.

Qantas pilots I've spoken to, love the 747SP. Compared to a regular 747,
it was like a sports version. Faster, flies higher and handled better.
The only downside: It used more fuel per passenger, so most airlines
retired the 747SP early. As did Qantas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747SP

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 01-Feb-23 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
> The final 'Queen of the Skies' 747...
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYLYlIotHBk
>
>
>
>

Not just the last 747, but the last four engined airliner, I believe.

This will raise issues some time in the future for niche applications
that still really need four engine redundancy, such as flights to the
south pole.

Sylvia.

On 2/02/2023 9:41 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 01-Feb-23 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> The final 'Queen of the Skies' 747...
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYLYlIotHBk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Not just the last 747, but the last four engined airliner, I believe.
>
> This will raise issues some time in the future for niche applications
> that still really need four engine redundancy, such as flights to the
> south pole.

There are few, if any, applications where 4 engine redundancy is
required. Including flights to the South Pole.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 2/02/2023 6:16 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 1/02/2023 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> The final 'Queen of the Skies' 747...
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYLYlIotHBk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> **Boeing bet the company on the 747. It was a good bet.

It was indeed. It made them shit-tonnes of money.

> One experience I had with a 747 was in a 747SP. Kinda like a regular
> 747, but stumpier. Same engines though. Anyhoo, we watched at KSA
> (Sydney Airport) as a 747 from Delta (I think) took off. We took off 20
> minutes later. I noted a feeling of acceleration I'd never felt from any
> aeroplane before. It felt faster. We landed in Fiji and, 20 minutes
> later, the 747 from Delta landed.
>
> Qantas pilots I've spoken to, love the 747SP. Compared to a regular 747,
> it was like a sports version. Faster, flies higher and handled better.
> The only downside: It used more fuel per passenger, so most airlines
> retired the 747SP early. As did Qantas.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747SP

Lol :)

Sorry, but I find that comment amusing in the sense that it's a bit like
saying that a Mack handles better than a Kenworth :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 02-Feb-23 10:11 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 2/02/2023 9:41 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 01-Feb-23 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> The final 'Queen of the Skies' 747...
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYLYlIotHBk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not just the last 747, but the last four engined airliner, I believe.
>>
>> This will raise issues some time in the future for niche applications
>> that still really need four engine redundancy, such as flights to the
>> south pole.
>
> There are few, if any, applications where 4 engine redundancy is
> required. Including flights to the South Pole.
>
The south pole is outside the current maximum ETOPS rating of 370
minutes. Getting it within that limit would require the airfield at the
pole to be a suitable diversion airport, which it's unlikely ever to be.

Sylvia.

On 2/2/2023 10:13 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 2/02/2023 6:16 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 1/02/2023 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> The final 'Queen of the Skies' 747...
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYLYlIotHBk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **Boeing bet the company on the 747. It was a good bet.
>
> It was indeed. It made them shit-tonnes of money.
>
>> One experience I had with a 747 was in a 747SP. Kinda like a regular
>> 747, but stumpier. Same engines though. Anyhoo, we watched at KSA
>> (Sydney Airport) as a 747 from Delta (I think) took off. We took off
>> 20 minutes later. I noted a feeling of acceleration I'd never felt
>> from any aeroplane before. It felt faster. We landed in Fiji and, 20
>> minutes later, the 747 from Delta landed.
>>
>> Qantas pilots I've spoken to, love the 747SP. Compared to a regular
>> 747, it was like a sports version. Faster, flies higher and handled
>> better. The only downside: It used more fuel per passenger, so most
>> airlines retired the 747SP early. As did Qantas.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747SP
>
> Lol :)
>
> Sorry, but I find that comment amusing in the sense that it's a bit like
> saying that a Mack handles better than a Kenworth :)
>
You would but then, unlike you (a faker), 747 pilots know what they are
talking about, have qualifications and are, in the main, highly
experienced at their roles. WTF would you know about *any plane's*
handling capabilities?

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 2/2/2023 11:09 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 02-Feb-23 10:11 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 2/02/2023 9:41 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 01-Feb-23 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> The final 'Queen of the Skies' 747...
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYLYlIotHBk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not just the last 747, but the last four engined airliner, I believe.
>>>
>>> This will raise issues some time in the future for niche applications
>>> that still really need four engine redundancy, such as flights to the
>>> south pole.
>>
>> There are few, if any, applications where 4 engine redundancy is
>> required. Including flights to the South Pole.
>>
> The south pole is outside the current maximum ETOPS rating of 370
> minutes. Getting it within that limit would require the airfield at the
> pole to be a suitable diversion airport, which it's unlikely ever to be.
>
> Sylvia.

Darren is just trolling. He has no clue about planes, his only
experience with them has ever been sweeping out the hangar where *real*
LAMEs were working on the planes. Don't be fooled by his claimes to have
been an AME apprentice, he didn't meet the *minimum* year 10 entry level
to even be signed up to any apprenticeship ever.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote in news:trernk$hsut$2@dont-email.me:

> On 2/02/2023 6:16 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 1/02/2023 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> The final 'Queen of the Skies' 747...
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYLYlIotHBk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **Boeing bet the company on the 747. It was a good bet.
>
> It was indeed. It made them shit-tonnes of money.
>
>> One experience I had with a 747 was in a 747SP. Kinda like a regular
>> 747, but stumpier. Same engines though. Anyhoo, we watched at KSA
>> (Sydney Airport) as a 747 from Delta (I think) took off. We took off
>> 20 minutes later. I noted a feeling of acceleration I'd never felt
>> from any aeroplane before. It felt faster. We landed in Fiji and, 20
>> minutes later, the 747 from Delta landed.
>>
>> Qantas pilots I've spoken to, love the 747SP. Compared to a regular
>> 747, it was like a sports version. Faster, flies higher and handled
>> better. The only downside: It used more fuel per passenger, so most
>> airlines retired the 747SP early. As did Qantas.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747SP
>
> Lol :)
>
> Sorry, but I find that comment amusing in the sense that it's a bit
> like saying that a Mack handles better than a Kenworth :)

That's a perfectly valid comparison for you to make. Having never been at
the controls of any of 'em...

What a buffoon you are.

alvey
Oh btw Fraudster... How high are you today?

On 2/02/2023 11:09 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 02-Feb-23 10:11 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 2/02/2023 9:41 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 01-Feb-23 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> The final 'Queen of the Skies' 747...
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYLYlIotHBk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not just the last 747, but the last four engined airliner, I believe.
>>>
>>> This will raise issues some time in the future for niche applications
>>> that still really need four engine redundancy, such as flights to the
>>> south pole.
>>
>> There are few, if any, applications where 4 engine redundancy is
>> required. Including flights to the South Pole.
>>
> The south pole is outside the current maximum ETOPS rating of 370
> minutes. Getting it within that limit would require the airfield at the
> pole to be a suitable diversion airport, which it's unlikely ever to be.
Right....

> https://polarjournal.ch/en/2022/11/29/worlds-first-non-stop-scenic-flight-to-the-south-pole/

4 engined aircraft getting to and from the South Pole are *not* necessary.

--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 2/2/2023 1:29 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 2/02/2023 11:09 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 02-Feb-23 10:11 am, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 2/02/2023 9:41 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 01-Feb-23 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> The final 'Queen of the Skies' 747...
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYLYlIotHBk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not just the last 747, but the last four engined airliner, I believe.
>>>>
>>>> This will raise issues some time in the future for niche
>>>> applications that still really need four engine redundancy, such as
>>>> flights to the south pole.
>>>
>>> There are few, if any, applications where 4 engine redundancy is
>>> required. Including flights to the South Pole.
>>>
>> The south pole is outside the current maximum ETOPS rating of 370
>> minutes. Getting it within that limit would require the airfield at
>> the pole to be a suitable diversion airport, which it's unlikely ever
>> to be.
> Right....
>
>> https://polarjournal.ch/en/2022/11/29/worlds-first-non-stop-scenic-flight-to-the-south-pole/
>
> 4 engined aircraft getting to and from the South Pole are *not* necessary.
>
Only if said 2 engined aircraft have ETOPS approval to do so.

From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

Meanwhile, the first time that ETOPS-330 approval was given to a
four-engine aircraft was in February 2015, to the Boeing 747-8
Intercontinental.[14] It is the only ETOPS-compliant aircraft allowed to
run non-stop overflights over Antarctica with proper alternates,
alongside the Airbus A340 and A380.

I suggest you look into the ETOPS ratings, in particular the *approval
process* and the requirements for same. They even take *engine
reliability into account. What a surprise, eh?

Once a faker, always a faker, eh Darren.

>
> --
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 2/02/2023 7:13 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 2/02/2023 6:16 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 1/02/2023 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> The final 'Queen of the Skies' 747...
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYLYlIotHBk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **Boeing bet the company on the 747. It was a good bet.
>
> It was indeed. It made them shit-tonnes of money.
>
>> One experience I had with a 747 was in a 747SP. Kinda like a regular
>> 747, but stumpier. Same engines though. Anyhoo, we watched at KSA
>> (Sydney Airport) as a 747 from Delta (I think) took off. We took off
>> 20 minutes later. I noted a feeling of acceleration I'd never felt
>> from any aeroplane before. It felt faster. We landed in Fiji and, 20
>> minutes later, the 747 from Delta landed.
>>
>> Qantas pilots I've spoken to, love the 747SP. Compared to a regular
>> 747, it was like a sports version. Faster, flies higher and handled
>> better. The only downside: It used more fuel per passenger, so most
>> airlines retired the 747SP early. As did Qantas.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747SP
>
> Lol :)
>
> Sorry, but I find that comment amusing in the sense that it's a bit like
> saying that a Mack handles better than a Kenworth :)
>
>

That has to be one of the dumbest comments ever made in this group.
It's like saying a racing car driver can't tell the difference in
handling between two different race cars.

No wonder you never qualified for anything.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 2/2/2023 4:32 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 2/02/2023 7:13 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 2/02/2023 6:16 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 1/02/2023 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> The final 'Queen of the Skies' 747...
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYLYlIotHBk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> **Boeing bet the company on the 747. It was a good bet.
>>
>> It was indeed. It made them shit-tonnes of money.
>>
>>> One experience I had with a 747 was in a 747SP. Kinda like a regular
>>> 747, but stumpier. Same engines though. Anyhoo, we watched at KSA
>>> (Sydney Airport) as a 747 from Delta (I think) took off. We took off
>>> 20 minutes later. I noted a feeling of acceleration I'd never felt
>>> from any aeroplane before. It felt faster. We landed in Fiji and, 20
>>> minutes later, the 747 from Delta landed.
>>>
>>> Qantas pilots I've spoken to, love the 747SP. Compared to a regular
>>> 747, it was like a sports version. Faster, flies higher and handled
>>> better. The only downside: It used more fuel per passenger, so most
>>> airlines retired the 747SP early. As did Qantas.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747SP
>>
>> Lol :)
>>
>> Sorry, but I find that comment amusing in the sense that it's a bit
>> like saying that a Mack handles better than a Kenworth :)
>>
>>
>
>
> That has to be one of the dumbest comments ever made in this group. It's
> like saying a racing car driver can't tell the difference in handling
> between two different race cars.
>
> No wonder you never qualified for anything.
>

You know, Darren is so delusional that he probably thinks he can *fly* a
747. After all, he's claimed for at least 2 decades that he did a LAME
apprenticeship and he now claims to be a *qualified mechanic*.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 2/02/2023 5:16 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 1/02/2023 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> The final 'Queen of the Skies' 747...
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYLYlIotHBk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> **Boeing bet the company on the 747. It was a good bet.
>
> One experience I had with a 747 was in a 747SP. Kinda like a regular
> 747, but stumpier. Same engines though. Anyhoo, we watched at KSA
> (Sydney Airport) as a 747 from Delta (I think) took off. We took off 20
> minutes later. I noted a feeling of acceleration I'd never felt from any
> aeroplane before. It felt faster. We landed in Fiji and, 20 minutes
> later, the 747 from Delta landed.
>
> Qantas pilots I've spoken to, love the 747SP. Compared to a regular 747,
> it was like a sports version. Faster, flies higher and handled better.
> The only downside: It used more fuel per passenger, so most airlines
> retired the 747SP early. As did Qantas.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747SP
>
The 747 was the best ride in the sky until the A380 came along.

--
Clocky on programming 18 Feb 2022
"What, you copy and paste code into a sketch in Arduino, select the
libraries to include, modify it a bit and hit program"

Clocky on NASA 18 Mar 2022
"Oh, and btw... if you worked for NASA how is it thay you are seemingly
oblivious to Commodore Amigas used at NASA"