Comments: 40
airlux27 [2010-05-24 21:23:17 +0000 UTC]
I love this for it's originality...
I also love to be around those amazing flying machines!!!
Xd/James
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
airlux27 In reply to Undercheese101 [2010-05-27 21:53:15 +0000 UTC]
"Big" is a word that I use to describe you..., but uh..., I know what you mean!!!
Anyways..., Happy Memorial Day to ya...Xd/Airlux
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Undercheese101 In reply to Romeman85000 [2010-05-24 01:40:56 +0000 UTC]
ya I have to....It freaks me out flying in a ton of steel across the sky
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Romeman85000 In reply to Undercheese101 [2010-05-24 03:14:35 +0000 UTC]
dont forget about the several tons of gas thats flying with you!!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Romeman85000 In reply to Undercheese101 [2010-05-24 16:27:34 +0000 UTC]
yeah sorry for having that be my reply... i didn't think when i typed it and i realized what i said right after i sent it off to you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
focallength [2010-05-22 22:13:44 +0000 UTC]
Nice shot. At least you got a loud plane. Jagmoo, that is definitely a DC-10 or MD-11 (updated version of the DC-10).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
focallength In reply to Undercheese101 [2010-05-23 13:51:32 +0000 UTC]
It's definitely a DC-10. I've been reading up on planes since I was a kid. Flew on one back in 1972. FedEx uses them as freighters. Most jets are loud when landing or taking off. The older, low bypass ratio jets were even louder. It's a great shot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
focallength In reply to Undercheese101 [2010-05-24 02:20:01 +0000 UTC]
You're very welcome. I grew up (and still live) under the approach paths to Philadelphia International Airport.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
focallength In reply to Undercheese101 [2010-05-24 16:14:45 +0000 UTC]
It's not that bad nowadays with the quieter jets. Back in the '60s and '70s things could get a bit loud. You kind of tuned it out after a while and it became "oh, another jet".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
focallength In reply to Undercheese101 [2010-05-24 16:32:39 +0000 UTC]
Got one going over right now and I barely noticed it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Undercheese101 In reply to focallength [2010-05-24 16:41:26 +0000 UTC]
ya it just becomes backround noise after awhile im sure
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Jagmoo [2010-05-22 22:08:43 +0000 UTC]
Nice, looks like it could be a L-1011, but considering is FEDEX... id put my money on it being a DC-10.
Well timed pic anyway : )
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Greyhawkstudios In reply to Jagmoo [2010-05-22 23:52:51 +0000 UTC]
The L1011 would have had three engines on the tail section. John you should freak the pilots out and shoot a nude out there some time... Give people returning home that warm fuzzy feeling.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
4seasonAdventure In reply to Jagmoo [2010-07-07 09:21:41 +0000 UTC]
OK OK....might sound a bit snobish but i couldn't help jumping in on this one.
As a long time McDonnell Douglas Technician, have to set the record straight. This is a DC-10 -10 series, which was the first version of the DC-10 to be produced, It can be readily identified from this angle by the lack of a center landing gear, which was installed on both the -30 and -40 series and made it possible to have a much higher landing weight.
This particular model has nonetheless been converted into an MD-10, a conversion Fedex underwent to gain a bit of congruency among their DC-10/MD-11 fleet. The modification entails upgrading of the avionics package to a full glass flightdeck and changing from a 3 man crew (Pilot, Copilot, Flight Engineer) to a 2 man crew (Pilot, and Copilot)
Enough tech though.....great timing to get the shot....Was prolly in the range of about 140kts or 160mph at this stage of the landing process.....great image....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Jagmoo In reply to 4seasonAdventure [2010-07-10 22:54:35 +0000 UTC]
Thx for the info...
love the tech talk and information from someone who knows MD Aircraft..
my expertise is more along the lines of modern Airbus/Boeing/Bombardier and a bit of old Tupolev : )
👍: 0 ⏩: 0