
Dreamliner spells out "787" & Boeing logo over US during test flight - ChrisArchitect
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE236/history/20120209/2100Z/KBFI/KBFI
======
DavidChouinard
Similar attempts:

Gulfstream V:
[http://flightaware.com/live/flight/GLF17/history/20070206/15...](http://flightaware.com/live/flight/GLF17/history/20070206/1538Z/KATW/KATW)

Cessna Logo:
[http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N750CX/history/20080307/1...](http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N750CX/history/20080307/1745Z/KICT/KICT)

Boeing 747:
[http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE523/history/20110802/1...](http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE523/history/20110802/1330Z/KPAE/KPAE)

Also, a thread from one of the pilots:
[http://flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/7_days/popular/24611/B...](http://flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/7_days/popular/24611/BOE236_787_performing_a_787_with_a_logo#36259)

Interestingly, this required a lot of work on our side to pull this off. Since
the route field on flights plans expects short input and this flight's route
is dramatically longer, it caused an FAA system to split the flight
arbitrarily into different legs.

(Disclaimer: I work for FlightAware)

~~~
squeed
I'd just like to say: Thanks for running such an awesome site!

I use FlightAware to hack airlines by trying to locate the incoming flight
that is to be my outgoing plane. Any plane landing ~60 minutes before my
departure whose make and model matches my flight is a suspect. I can usually
predict whether or not we'll have an on-time departure long before
announcements are made.

~~~
DavidChouinard
On some flights, we actually know what the corresponding inbound flight is. If
we know, we show a small "track incoming flight" link and consider it in our
delay prediction algorithms.

------
peteforde
I actually posted this about 16 hours ago
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3574619>) and I point this out because
it's always fascinating to me when the "right" time to post something on
different sites is.

For example, I believe days start at 8pm PST on Flickr (can anyone correct me
if I'm mistaken) and there's a power-user perspective that will wait to post
things so that they can get a leg up on the "interestingness" algorithm.

Anyhow, this post makes me smile even the second time around.

~~~
ChrisArchitect
(doh, wrote a long reply with thoughts a few hours ago from Hacker News Beta
mobile app and it didn't post...fail)

sorry man, it was just the link I got. I'm all for first poster credit and
respect, just sometimes same content can be generated from multiple links etc
and stuff gets messed up. Annoying but you know how it goes.

On the time of posting thing...I know someone created a site to determine the
optimal posting time for HN.... I have never used it tho! It's just naturally
there'll be hotspots in the day based on simply where the majority of HN
readers are from and the waves of social network activity.

Anyways, a good link indeed. A fun Friday afternoon share -- Great that the
FlightAware guys are watching this and contributing too.

~~~
ChrisArchitect
ah, the 'tool' for optimal HN Pickup. Still interesting when you look at it.
<http://hnpickup.appspot.com/>

Also, re: titles -- yeah, descriptive titles always -- I try to do that, since
I appreciate it when others do

------
bonzoesc
The test pilots are basically told what part of the world and for how long
they have to fly; when they turn in a plan like this basically for the sake of
cuteness, that's a lot of work picking waypoints.

This pleases me.

------
dpcx
There were some others:

[https://flightaware.com/live/flight/GLF17/history/20070206/1...](https://flightaware.com/live/flight/GLF17/history/20070206/1538Z/KATW/KATW)
[http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N750CX/history/20080307/1...](http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N750CX/history/20080307/1745Z/KICT/KICT)
[http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE523/history/20110802/1...](http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE523/history/20110802/1330Z/KPAE/KPAE)

------
cperciva
Question for people with more aviation knowledge than me: Don't games like
this make life hard for air traffic controllers? 35000' is right in the middle
of normal airspace; isn't it much easier if planes are flying along standard
routes between airports?

~~~
aaronpk
This flight got up to 42,000 feet if you look at the elevation graph. I didn't
know planes flew that high.

~~~
gvb
<[http://www.messybeast.com/dragonqueen/cockpit-
chatter.htm...](http://www.messybeast.com/dragonqueen/cockpit-chatter.htm>);
(Flight level is x10000, so FL600 is 60,000 feet)

SR-71 Blackbird was crossing the control-zone of London Control. Evidently the
controller didn't know the service ceiling of this aircraft is around 30,000
metres (yes metres, not feet!). There are so many variations on this item that
the original event has evidently become part of aviation folklore or joke-
lore.

Pilot: "Radar, Good Day, Airforce Blackbird, request FL 600(!)"

Controller (amused): "Sir, if you can reach, you are cleared FL 600"

Pilot: "US Air Force Blackbird, leaving FL 800, descending Level 600..."

~~~
jonah
So many good stories about that bird.

One of my favorites:

[https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/rec.aviat...](https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/rec.aviation.stories/ueI6JKeEomo)

"There were a lot of things we couldn't do in an SR-71, but we were the
fastest guys on the block and loved reminding our fellow aviators of this
fact. People often asked us if, because of this fact, it was fun to fly the
jet. Fun would not be the first word I would use to describe flying this
plane. Intense, maybe. Even cerebral. But there was one day in our Sled
experience when we would have to say that it was pure fun to be the fastest
guys out there, at least for a moment. ..."

------
shabble
Reminds me of the 'biggest drawing in the world' viral image that went around
a while back, which later turned out to be a hoax:
<http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/05/artist-says-he/>

Pretty cool that someone actually did it though!

------
blantonl
A 19 hour flight? How was this even possible without running out of fuel?

~~~
marklabedz
Newark - Singapore (Singapore Airlines Flight 20) is regularly scheduled for
18hrs and 50mins.

Wikipedia has a good list of long, regularly scheduled, non-stop flights:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
stop_flight#Currently_sched...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
stop_flight#Currently_scheduled_.28top_30.2C_by_distance.29)

EDIT: Flight is SQ21, not SQ20

~~~
davidw
19 hours on a plane must be quite a sufferfest. I do Europe->Oregon every year
or two and 12 hours is already agonizingly slow. About the time you're
thoroughly sick of the movies, reading, drinking or anything else, you realize
you still have another 4 hours to go.

~~~
ChuckMcM
When Quantas had a San Francisco -> Sydney non-stop it was 14+ hrs. It was the
longest flight I had been on up to that point. Fortunately I was in business
class and could stretch out, but I remember watching two movies, taking an 8hr
"nap", and then STILL having another 2hrs of flying to do. A looooooooooooong
way to go.

~~~
donw
Business class is a lifesaver for long-haul flights. I can't sleep unless I
can (mostly) lie down; noise and motion aren't a problem, but I need a seat
that reclines if the flight is going to cross more than four or so time zones.

Economy seats for most airlines have something like an incredibly generous 5"
of seat travel, which is why I've caught up on all the movies that I didn't
watch when I was younger.

Oh, and if I start reading (which includes hacking), I get motion sick. It's
hell.

I'm genuinely envious of people that can sit and work in economy. It would be
fantastic to be able to get some hacking in...

------
matdwyer
Can't wait for the green-team to have their arms up about wasting fuel to do
this (even though it's a scheduled test flight)

~~~
bovine
It's great to see them do something interesting while they're already in the
air burning time/fuel on the new engine testing. The test flight would have
occurred for the same duration regardless of the path. They needed a flight
that was about 19 hours long for extended operation certification purposes.

~~~
zrail
19 hours and _not over water_ which constrains them quite a bit. If they're
going to run laps around the continental United States, why not make it fun?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Even with multi-engine they can't run over water for the certification?

~~~
Sanddancer
It's a test flight, so you want to keep near some sort of airport in case
something goes wrong. So yeah, you could duck over the ocean, but you really
don't want to be flying in areas that could be problematic for too long in an
untested plane.

------
Shivetya
and here I was hoping they were stunt flying it.

------
rjurney
I can't wait to fly in one of these. The wings bow like crazy, can't wait to
see them out the huge windows.

------
sbanach
WTF? Completely unreadable.

------
joejohnson
This seems like a waste of fuel for a stupid publicity stunt. Airplanes dump
so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

~~~
Karunamon
They were going to be in the air for 19 hours as a test flight anyways. Who
cares what the path looks like?

There's being environmentally conscious, and then there's being a green freak.

~~~
joejohnson
That's true, I was being a "green freak."

