the whole back was apparently engulfed in flames my uncle saw it, he heard a loud rumble and the was a big vibration and he looked up and saw a 777 on fire
when the engine opens it basically deflects the airflow . The high speed blast is no longer going throgh the nozel on the back, it blastes up and down where the engine opens from. the high speed blast hits the oncoming air and also disturbs the airflowing over the top of the wing and the bottom of the wing slowing the airplane down. i hope this helps .
yeah some of the fuel may have gotten on the ground and in the water but... at the right altitude and right airspeed JET A, which is the fuel that's used on these aircrafts, wouldn't be an issue if they decided to dump it... I think it evaporates quickly if I'm not mistaken, I remember reading about it in my aviation books plus... I live in Western Washington to and I saw this live, they reported what you're talking about and they said what I just said.
i saw the engines pop open when it was landing. im guessing it the engine reverse breakes or something. can someone explain how they work? seems so fascinating..
Both engines seem to be giving enough thrust to make a smooth, controlled landing. I've always wondered about the fuel dumping though. Why not make planes sturdy enough to land with full tanks? Wouldn't that also make them safer? Sure, how much are you willing to pay for "I'll get there for sure" instead of "maybe I'll die in a fireball"?
Of course when talking about engineering a plane, brakes and tires should be taken into account. Even a blowout during takeoff can lead to disaster, like in the case of the Concorde crash. Weight is always an issue with aircraft. But it seems a bit "flimsy" to assume that the landing weight will be considerably less than the take off weight. Normally that is the case, but I never liked engineering at the limits... it's cheaper of course. That's what I was saying, spending more for safer flight.
the whole back was apparently engulfed in flames my uncle saw it, he heard a loud rumble and the was a big vibration and he looked up and saw a 777 on fire
Amazing Landing
you know what sucks I couldn't see this because i was in school
Thank god bird's are not smoking in the air.
this is the most annoying music i've ever heard in my life. It's stuck in my head!! agh.
I came back for the music, its so wierd but i have to listen to it fuck.
I don't see an emergency. Smoke in cabin?
when the engine opens it basically deflects the airflow . The high speed blast is no longer going throgh the nozel on the back, it blastes up and down where the engine opens from. the high speed blast hits the oncoming air and also disturbs the airflowing over the top of the wing and the bottom of the wing slowing the airplane down. i hope this helps .
yeah some of the fuel may have gotten on the ground and in the water but... at the right altitude and right airspeed JET A, which is the fuel that's used on these aircrafts, wouldn't be an issue if they decided to dump it... I think it evaporates quickly if I'm not mistaken, I remember reading about it in my aviation books plus... I live in Western Washington to and I saw this live, they reported what you're talking about and they said what I just said.
You filmed out of a plane?! really good Video!
I like the music, whats the title of this song?
i remember this. i think it was a compressor stall on takeoff.
I think it was that Taco Bell I ate, dude........
its not AVGAS, it doesnt evaporate. jet fuel is a wax which is a liquid at room temp
@Anthony777300er You can question his choice of music without being rude.
Reverse thrust. Aids in slowing the aircraft down when landing.
no thats chemtrail lol
and this 777 belongs to asiana...
i saw the engines pop open when it was landing. im guessing it the engine reverse breakes or something. can someone explain how they work? seems so fascinating..
They redirect the bypass backwards slowing the plane.
good video but not sure about the music...
lol@the porn music comment
Both engines seem to be giving enough thrust to make a smooth, controlled landing. I've always wondered about the fuel dumping though. Why not make planes sturdy enough to land with full tanks? Wouldn't that also make them safer? Sure, how much are you willing to pay for "I'll get there for sure" instead of "maybe I'll die in a fireball"?
Of course when talking about engineering a plane, brakes and tires should be taken into account. Even a blowout during takeoff can lead to disaster, like in the case of the Concorde crash. Weight is always an issue with aircraft. But it seems a bit "flimsy" to assume that the landing weight will be considerably less than the take off weight. Normally that is the case, but I never liked engineering at the limits... it's cheaper of course. That's what I was saying, spending more for safer flight.