Seems a locomotive weighs between 36 and 54 tons, 72,000 and 108,000 lbs respectively. http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/chapt26.Html A loaded 744 around 400+ tons, 800,000+ lbs, seems that would be correct. There is a whole lot of difference in picking a locomotive up and using wings to lift a plane. The stuff I really know nothing about. Just by weight, seems like it would be possible.
WildcatYXU From Canada, joined May 2006, 2781 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13663 times:
Well. a crane powered by a 747 engine could most certainly lift a locomotive. Actually, cranes with much less powerful engines do.
As far as lifting a locomotive on wings, well, the first to do that wasn't a Jumbo, but Ruslan, the AN 124. She (or he?) transported a locomotive from YXU to SNN. I just wonder what had the pilots in mind while taking off with this load from YXU's 8800' runway...
FlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 13512 times:
You will be long gone and dead before Northwest retires its DC-9's and Air France washes its planes.
To show how far military aviation has come, one could realize that today one B-2 can do the work requried by tens of thousands of B-17's. During WWII, hundreds of aircraft would be sent to bomb one target. Today, one aircraft with usually only one bomb is requried to take out that target, and one bomber can strike multiple targets in the same mission.
Fbm3rd From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12184 times:
Quoting 777D (Thread starter): I believe I heard somewhere that a engine from a 747 can lift a locomotive?
I know I have seen the google-video in which a VA 747 blows over 2 different cars at full thrust. Can it blow over a locomotive? OR is that just too much weight? On that same video it said that if a 747 at full thrust was left in the same place for a long period of time it would rip up the pavement? Is that true?
Irobertson From Canada, joined Apr 2006, 601 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12002 times:
Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 3): As far as lifting a locomotive on wings, well, the first to do that wasn't a Jumbo, but Ruslan, the AN 124. She (or he?) transported a locomotive from YXU to SNN. I just wonder what had the pilots in mind while taking off with this load from YXU's 8800' runway...
I know people in London ON here who witnessed that. Said it was quite impressive, biggest aircraft ever to visit YXU. Apparently the 124 visits Toronto frequently, I've seen it on the cargo ramp once or twice while taxiing.
727forever From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 798 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11790 times:
Quoting Alphaomega (Reply 9): If a snowman was built on the ramp, and sucked into a turbofan, would anything happen?
And a trashed turbofan. They can eat snow without problem, until it is clumped together into a tightly packed snowball. The compression of the snow melts slightly and refreezes into ice. The blades don't like ice very much and you will damage them when injesting that amount of ice. We had an airplane with rear mounted fans takeoff years ago without being deiced properly. They simply did not deice the fuselage. All of the snow on top blew back into the #2 engine which really messed up about 20 blades. Oops.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 8247 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11717 times:
Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 5): It takes less than 1 second to suck a 100 ft roll of toilet paper into an B767 toilet.
Wow. Now that is impressive! With 3 sheets to the foot that's more than 300 sheets at a speed of in excess 18,000 sph (sheets per hour). Isn't that faster than Concorde or something?
Quoting FXfan (Reply 13): I'm told that the Wright brothers' first flight could have been done entirely within the fuselage of a C-5 Galaxy. Anyone know for sure?
I'm not sure this is correct. My impression is that the Wright brothers' first flight was before the C-5 was built. Wilbur died soon after that first flight - 1912 I believe, although Orville lived a lot longer, dying in 1948 at the age of 77. So I'm pretty certain that choosing Kitty Hawk rather than waiting for the C-5, despite the protection it would have given them from adverse air currents, was a good one.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 11553 times:
Quoting 808TWA (Reply 4): - Athough Concorde flew supersonic, the air entering the engines was slowed down to subsonic speed using a mechanical lift system internally.
All supersonic aircraft have to have some system of slowing the air entering the engine to subsonic speed, not just the Concorde. Jet engines can not function if supersonic air get to the compressor section.