When Boeing started building the 747 in Everett, they didn’t have a paint shop at first. They flew the early planes down to Renton to paint them. That would have been a tight squeeze.
Renton is also where I did my first solo.
I am not a pilot. It’s a fascinating career but I’m totally a “hyperfocus on the irrelevant blinky light and not notice impending doom” type of person.
But many years ago I had connections who gave me an opportunity to play around in a full flight simulator, a 777 but if I ever knew what variant, I’ve forgotten.
After a while of messing around and “bouncing” the plane off Puget Sound (impact physics turned off or some such) I was told to try to land the thing at the airport “over there” on the screen. Yup, see it!
Turns out the instructor meant SeaTac and I aimed for Boeing Field and overshot it and we all simulationally died in suburbia.
Second time I got it right, though, and nailed a nice, smooth landing!
I then got tourtured with rapidly changing weather and winds and day/night cycles while circling Mt Rainier.
And that’s the sum of my piloting experience!
And the smart pilot knows they can be refilled.
I remember reading a projection of the performance of a 747 taking off from a typical major runway like Heathrow at minimum weight with maximum thrust, and that it could reach some ridiculous height before passing over the numbers at the far end of the runway. Can’t find the reference.
There are youtube vids of various airshow performances by airliners. Always pretty amazing. Some of which are shot from the air at angles that really emphasize (exagerate) the lift-off and zoom climb performance.
As a general matter, the bigger the airplane the smaller fraction of weight is the plane itself. So an almost-empty e.g. 737 might be at 40% of max takeoff takeoff weight, but an empty 777 / 787 might be at 30% of max takeoff weight. So the big boys have the greatest excess performance when light.
The 2- versus 4-engine thing matters also; all else equal the twins have more excess power than do the 3- and 4-engine models. Due to the requirement to take off with 1 of 2 = 50% of the engines failed. Versus the 3- and 4-engines who lose 33% or 25% of total power with a single engine failed.
the guy in me who struggled 130 seconds through an 8.8 earthquake, completely protecting an extremely outdated and out-of-use CRT TV-set (in 2010) … while wifey took care of the 3 toddlers 
… that guy can completely relate to this.
but - hey - in my defense *) … it was a SONY
and in my defense *) dont wake me up (hard and fast) at 3.34 a.m. and expect me to function
At one point, Martin Missfelder said blood gushed out of the man’s nose and mouth. He said the man lost “liters of blood,” some of which splattered onto the aircraft’s walls.
“It was absolute horror. Everyone was screaming,” Martin Missfelder told Blick.
Sounds like the beginning of a horror movie. Just another routine flight, when suddenly a man begins spewing blood from every orifice – virtually exploding. The passengers were now splattered with a deadly zombie contagion…
That sounds a lot like Ebola or Marburg. Viral hemorrhagic fever - Wikipedia are a horrific class of diseases and having one of those events on a long haul flight was a bit of a Kobayashi Maru scenario during tabletop training.
There are no good answer(s) when the tools we have at hand are insufficient to deal with managing the immediate mess, preventing further contagion, and most of all controlling panic.
The fact there were suspicions before departure to the point of FAs, pilots, and doctors looking at this guy and they still took him does not speak well of the decision-making process there and then. If a bunch of other passengers fall ill with a similar infection (if it is an infection), Lufthansa will have a very expensive problem on their hands.
I’m not sure what the airline policy was but spitting blood in a bag before takeoff sounds like a reason to rebook the passenger.
The dramatic engine fire observed on a 747 departing Miami, turned out to be a thrust reverser combusting, after an engine boroscope plug was not properly installed after inspection.
This allowed a flow of combustion gases from the engine hot section to impinge on the reverser, which ignited.
The engine itself was found to be ok.
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/193682/pdf
I’m amazed the borescope plug that came loose was still in the engine. They used the same inspection port so they saved some time inspecting the engine.
IANA A&P, but back around the hot section the cowling is pretty stout; it’s intended to keep any heat and fire mostly inside. I could easily see the plug coming loose and falling into the “bilge” of the cowling area and rattling around down there. They’re pretty heavy stout hunks of metal.
I don’t know how that plug installs and secures, but generally those thread into the engine case and then is secured with lock wire, some sort of tab, or …
Paradoxically, a plug like that which is unsecured is more likely to rattle out under the low pressure of idle operations than be blown out under the high pressure of takeoff power. At least until you’re down to maybe 1/2 turn of threads. But in that latter case the threads would tear out and the thread damage would be instantly obvious by eye, which NTSB did not mention. Suggesting the threads were fine and the plug simply backed out.
Or was never installed at all. I don’t know whether the airplane flew in the 4 days between the borescope inspection and the failure. But I’d bet that the first flight with no plug would trigger the fire. So that would be diagnostic for whether the plug had never been installed or had been installed loosely and worked itself out later.
To quote Joey Tribbiani, “Ew! Ew ew ew”: https://www.cnn.com/travel/maggots-delta-flight-turnaround-amsterdam/index.html
OK, Identify an airplane I saw at Oshkosh years ago. Probably turn of the century. My memory can be way off but as I remember it was a yellow high wing tricycle gear plane along the lines of a Cessna 182. It had cargo doors on the starboard side. It might have been a military or bush plane. It looks like it could take a medical litter. I was thinking it was a Lockheed but can’t find any reference to it. I remember it as being a big-name company that didn’t make this kind of plane.
Cessna 206?
That’s certainly the layout but I swear it wasn’t a Cessna which would be the logical ID. It also looked like an older airplane. I only saw it twice at Oshkosh. It was before they put the perimeter road in and I think it was in Sally’s Alley near the fence.
GA moves closer to unleaded future
The FAA delivered September 1 the long-sought approval of an unleaded fuel now cleared to power every spark-ignition engine on any airframe in the general aviation fleet.
And now less than a year and a half later:
I expect further lawsuits and don’t think this will happen.
Either it meets the demands for valve wear and is safe or it’s not. I’m not sure California can survive a legal challenge if it doesn’t.
Tricycle gear high wing non-Cessna cargo planes that look somewhat Cessna-like is a pretty short list. Pilatus Porter? That’s bigger and has a turbine. What else am I missing? Almost all such aircraft are Cessnas - 206’s and 210’s, mostly.
I had thought of the various Pilatus products, but all the high wing singles are also tail draggers.
Of course the Cessna Caravan (C-208) is the same general config as the 206, just a lot bigger.
I have a vague notion of a 1960s Australian or UK product by a minor manufacturer that looked a bit single-Cessna-ish. But with the usual British / Commonwealth awkward just-a-bit-queerness in spots of the design. But that’s very very soft; no way I can come up with a name or anything else useful.