Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
65000 Ft At 400kts For 8 Hours?  
User currently offlineJayspilot From United States of America, joined May 2001, 298 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6194 times:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/NASA806

does anyone know what sort of aircraft this is? Ignore the line jumping all over the place. The reason it does that is that the plane was probably over the water for the flt and then came back.

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5413 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6157 times:

It's a Lockheed ER-2, N806NA!

http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/ER-2/Small/ED06-0117-24.jpg

Jimbo

[Edited 2006-10-10 19:15:05]


I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12438 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6157 times:

It has to be a business jet - perhaps a Learjet; however, the airspeed of 400kts is most likely inaccurate; above FL250 (?), Mach meters are more accurate.

User currently offlineATCGOD From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6067 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 2):
It has to be a business jet - perhaps a Learjet

Not a chance...LJ's aren't even certified to FL500.


User currently offlineJayspilot From United States of America, joined May 2001, 298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5983 times:

Bond007.. Thanks for the link.. you are right on that one. Are they doing weather observations??

On another note, I wish this site existed when the SR-71 or A-12 was flying for NASA still. That would have been sweet to track

Any Lear would not top FL520 and would not be able to stay up for more then 5 hrs. Still impressive, but the FL550 and up barrier is where I take a step back and say wow. I mean above 63,000 your blood can boil and they "fly" in a space suit.


User currently offlineTjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2435 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5897 times:

Look at this flight at 85,000':

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N...6/history/20060919/1845Z/KEDW/KEDW

And the pattern of this flight:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N...6/history/20060925/1529Z/KEDW/KEDW

Good stuff!!



Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
User currently offlineDTManiac From Germany, joined Aug 2004, 689 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5795 times:

Quoting Tjwgrr (Reply 5):
And the pattern of this flight:

The pattern somehow looks familiar to those I have seen from the Global Hawk unmanned aircraft. They had a show about that on tv the other day. Would those flights be visible on flightaware.com as well?



Gig 'em Aggies!!!
User currently offlineFoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2996 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5740 times:

Those are awesome! Didn't know you could see that sort of thing on Flightaware.


Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
User currently offlineAirTranTUS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5580 times:

Quoting Tjwgrr (Reply 5):
And the pattern of this flight:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N.../KEDW

What are they looking for? Seismic activity?


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6435 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5497 times:

NASA 806 or the Lockheed ER-2 is for most practical things a copy of the US Air Force U-2R (the latter later converted to U-2S).

The U-2R's and the ER-2 were built at the same time, but the ER-2 went directly to NASA, named 806, and has since been used for various science projects, mostly weather and environment related.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4999 times:

Quoting Jayspilot (Reply 4):
I mean above 63,000 your blood can boil and they "fly" in a space suit.

They are in suits mainly because the aircraft are not entirely pressurized (makes it lighter overall). When flying that high, pulling g's is structurally dangerous; they are not G-suits, just pressure suits.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4995 times:

Quoting ATCGOD (Reply 3):
Not a chance...LJ's aren't even certified to FL500.

I know many lear pilots who have taken 31's up to 510, there is a special tie tack you can get when you take one up there.


User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4742 times:

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 11):
I know many lear pilots who have taken 31's up to 510, there is a special tie tack you can get when you take one up there.

Yup... Lear 55 and 60's are rated to 51000ft too.

I've heard of Citation X's being able to get to FL560 even though Cessna says a 51K service ceiling.



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4677 times:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 9):
The U-2R's and the ER-2 were built at the same time, but the ER-2 went directly to NASA, named 806, and has since been used for various science projects, mostly weather and environment related.

25 U-2R's were ordered in 1968 and built during the 1970's.

The ER-2 was ordered in 1980 along with 35 TR-1's which were built during the 1980's.

Reference "Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913" by Rene J Francillon, Naval Institute Press


User currently offlineSeanp11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4647 times:

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 8):
What are they looking for? Seismic activity?

They're probably taking aerial photographs. That or doing some other kind of mapping, like LIDAR.


User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4611 times:

Quoting Seanp11 (Reply 14):
They're probably taking aerial photographs

The ER-2's are like a personal live Google Earth! lol
SWEET!



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4583 times:

Quoting DTManiac (Reply 6):
The pattern somehow looks familiar to those I have seen from the Global Hawk unmanned aircraft.

Not surprising, considering the Global Hawk is built for the U-2/TR-1 replacement mission.

Quoting DTManiac (Reply 6):
They had a show about that on tv the other day. Would those flights be visible on flightaware.com as well?

If the transponders are turned on, definitely. The Global Hawks are somewhat stealthy (though not full-on stealth aircraft) so it wouldn't show up nearly as well as a civilian aircraft. However, Global Hawks are FAA certified and can fly in the U.S. civilian airspace. They even file their own flight plans. I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4536 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 16):
They even file their own flight plans. I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

Welcome Robot Overlords!!! We bow to you... j/k

At least they don't break any rules like human pilots and they would never do something stupid that would endanger fellow onboard programs.  Wink hehe



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5413 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4427 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 16):
If the transponders are turned on, definitely. The Global Hawks are somewhat stealthy (though not full-on stealth aircraft) so it wouldn't show up nearly as well as a civilian aircraft. However, Global Hawks are FAA certified and can fly in the U.S. civilian airspace. They even file their own flight plans. I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

The fact that it may have a transponder is unrelated to whether it will show up on the tracking websites (although if it didn't have one, it most certainly won't show)....and if it has a transponder switched on, it is no less 'visible' to secondary radar than a 747 with a transponder on.

The flight tracking data is processed through numerous FAA/government filters before it gets to websites, and almost military traffic is excluded from the feed. The only ones that get through are because they happen to coincidentally file a flight number/callsign that corresponds to a valid civilian airline code.

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3855 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4397 times:

"...probably taking aerial photographs. That or doing some other kind of mapping"

Looks like over Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Parks.



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4364 times:

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 18):
The only ones that get through are because they happen to coincidentally file a flight number/callsign that corresponds to a valid civilian airline code.

Uhh... then the filters suck because i don't think that there is any such "civilian airline" named "National Aeronautics And Space Administration" with the callsign "NASA." I also know for a fact that their is NO civilian ER-2's flying around.



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5413 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4300 times:

Actually NASA is a civilian agency, so it's not a military flight at all 

Just out of interest (well it might to some!), the filter also thinks that any callsign starting 'N' then a numeric, is a N- registered aircraft. You'll sometimes see some foreign aircraft file 'N' in front of the registration. For example, the Libyan IL76s file 'N7TWIx' when visiting the USA...and therefore show on the tracking systems.


Jimbo

[Edited 2006-10-12 20:08:17]


I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2925 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4245 times:

Quoting Seanp11 (Reply 14):
Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 8):
What are they looking for? Seismic activity?

They're probably taking aerial photographs. That or doing some other kind of mapping, like LIDAR.

They mapped the entirety of Yellowstone National Park in that sortie. Could be looking at a number of things from volcanic to forestry use.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21571 posts, RR: 55
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4233 times:

Wow - I'm sure the view is great from up there, but eight hours in a pressure suit does not sound like fun.

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 10):
They are in suits mainly because the aircraft are not entirely pressurized (makes it lighter overall). When flying that high, pulling g's is structurally dangerous; they are not G-suits, just pressure suits.

Even if the planes were pressurized, they'd have to wear the suits, since their blood would boil in the event of a rapid decompression at altitude.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4221 times:

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 21):
Actually NASA is a civilian agency, so it's not a military flight at all

That's why NASA flights show up on Flight Explorer. Those little T-38's are always zipping around all over the place. It's fun to watch them take off from EDW and climb to 40000 ft in just a couple of minutes.



Mark


25 AsstChiefMark : I always liked this little story. An SR-71 crew was monitoring cockpit chatter near Los Angeles. A Cessna asked to clear to 4000 ft, a corporate jet r
26 AirSpare : Another mission was radiation monitoring. Some Beale U2-rs had to be contaminated after recovery. I was looking for the site where that story was tol
27 Post contains images Beech19 : Having been to FL420 before... i can only imagine the view at FL800+
28 Areopagus : He should have said, "Uh, I'll just throttle back a little."
29 Post contains images Lehpron : Concorde flew out there too, why didn't their passengers wear suits? Did you know the first Boeing 2707, the swing-wing Mach 3 monster, was designed
30 Beech19 : LMAO!!! It took me a second...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What To Do At DEN For 2 Hours... posted Thu Aug 4 2005 03:21:49 by NWADC9
At JFK For 6 Hours posted Sat Jul 30 2005 22:03:13 by Continental
MKE: Riders Kept On Plane At Mitchell For Hours posted Sun Jul 11 2004 16:28:28 by Vivavegas
What To Do At OSL For 3 Hours. posted Wed Feb 6 2002 13:03:19 by Thom@s
What To Do At PHL For 3 Hours? posted Thu Dec 28 2000 02:33:47 by Mls515
Slate: Why You Get Stuck For Hours At ORD posted Tue Jul 26 2005 23:38:45 by N328KF
JL17 Sat At The Gate Today For 5 Hours posted Mon Jun 13 2005 07:26:51 by Ktachiya
What To Do For 6 Hours At HKG? posted Sat Nov 8 2003 00:48:52 by Ryanb741
Toronto Muslims Held At U.S. Airport For 16 Hours posted Sat Sep 13 2003 03:43:36 by CanadaEH
NZ038 Delayed At TPE For 20 Hours. posted Mon Jul 8 2002 20:45:38 by Jiml1126