Yes. Amazing stuff.
Transporting those engines or major subassemblies is a problem. What do you carry them in?
747 with the cowling off?
I know Boeing gets fuselages by train. (One derailed a couple/few years ago.) But this article says they use the 747-400 Dreamlifter to carry 787 parts.
737 fuselages are transported by that famous train. The Dreamlifter was built (as were the various earlier Guppy vehicles and Airbus’s current Beluga) to carry fuselage barrels.
The problem with shipping complete 777 engines (cowled or not) is they’re too big in diameter to fit upright versus the vertical height of the main deck or lower deck of another 777 or a 747. The fan & case can be removed and laid on its side; the diameter of that part is less than the width of the main deck and the fore-aft dimension is less than the height of the main deck. Getting them in through the cargo door is apparently a bit fraught. The rest of the engine is plenty small enough to be shipped in a cradle in the normal orientation.
Enough 777 engines and major subassemblies get moved around the world that it isn’t practical to use the very rare Dreamlifters or Guppies for that. At least not usually.
Nose load the cowling? is it split in 2 or more sections?
Looks like it’s the front of the engine cowling is riveted together as one piece. Picture in this article. It doesn’t look too thick so it might fit at in angle in the nose. Probably light enough to hand load.
Which one is the largest, the left one or the right one? 
Easy, remove a working engine from a 777 and strap the assembly on instead. It can take off and fly with one engine just fine.
The problem is the whole engine as a complete ready to use unit is taller than the main or lower deck even with nose loading. So to get the fan into the 747 you have to lay the fan & cowling down sideways so the shaft axis is vertical. So you have to ship the engine in two pieces: a core on a mobile stand with the shaft horizontal and a fan section with the fan vertical on some kind of pallet or low stand. Which then leads to the problem that you need a bunch of alignment tooling and cranes to put the two halves together when you get them where they are are going. Which makes unplanned engine changes in the field a big problem.
Try doing it in Russia. I worked for a company that ran a charter there and they couldn’t get the engines started. They tried to buddy start it and roasted an engine. For those who don’t know that’s putting a running engine in front of the engine to be started and spinning it up from air pressure.
Wowsers. 
AFAIK that was never a manufacturer-approved procedure on any airplane I ever flew. Could somebody who’s not too much of a deep thinker rationalize their way into trying it? Sure. Was this a written company procedure? I sure hope not. But I’d be interested to learn if I was wrong in that.
Shallow thinker? I’m your bloke.
Use the exhaust of the running engine to spin the compressor on the non-running engine. Maybe overspeed it a bit. Then taxi away so the spinning compressor is sucking in fresh air. And then do the starty thing.
I follow this channel. He’s talked about taking shifts in the bunk on International flights. Thats SOP.
But, everyone sleeping?
I found it interesting that other countries allow a quick 15 power nap while the other pilot flies. It makes sense because it refreshes someone thats tired. They’re alert afterwards.
But the FAA says no and pilots have to follow the rules.
Local incident where someone drove through a gate and onto the tarmac:
(Colgan is the FBO at the airport)
Brian
:
Here’s a post of mine from upthread on starting turbine engines:
The critical thing here is that in a normal start, even after you light the fire you need to have the starter helping the engine accelerate to a much higher RPM than you have at the moment. If you lit the fire and the starter quit just then the engine will melt down very quickly unless you immediately stop the flow of fuel and let everything spin down to a halt.
I’d be curious to know what kinds of RPMs one could get on each of the spools during a “buddy start” attempt. The one that really matters for a successful start is the inner spool, not the fan spool. That’s also the spool that I’d expect a “buddy start” to have the least, not most, RPM support for. Spinning the fan up looks pretty, but it’s getting the innards spinning that’ll lead to success.
Never say “never”, but I would not want to bet my job on that working on any reasonably modern airplane. And probably not on an ancient one either.
What’s the world coming to when you can’t catch a few winks in the cockpit. Seriously though, they’re not flying the plane. it’s flying itself. It’s pretty easy to fall asleep at night while watching gauges and doing busy work. If it were me and I was fading out I would play the “what if” game and work through emergency procedures to stay awake.
I believe we’ve discussed before why this is a pretty stupid assertion. I’d excuse it from a member of the general public, but you’re supposedly a pilot. On at least one occasion I remember giving an explanation of all the steps and monitoring necessary to get my bizjet to fly a charted arrival procedure (possibly somewhere in this thread). Which is to say, I’m still flying the plane when it’s on autopilot - I’m flying it through the automation.
Patrick Smith wrote this a while back:
Is that whooshing sound a low-flying jet, or…? 
I think the first sentence was sarcasm, then the rest was explaining how easy it is to make this mistake - but not that it’s a good idea.
Especially difficult for no. 2 on a 727.
The phrase “seriously though” is operative. The “plane flying itself” thing has been critiqued numerous times here and elsewhere, and it’s tiresome. Especially from a poster who should know better, sarcasm or not.