99

The plane is probably taking off. The flaps are hard to see but they don't quite look to be extended enough for landing (Looks like flaps 20). On a 747 they extend to around 45 degrees (flaps 30, but they curve around more than that) for landing and have a huge, unmistakable profile. Further, we know it's KBFI and we know the plane is on 31L from the ...


46

Please skip to the edit after the picture to see my actual answer. I'm leaving my original answer intact though, since other answers have referenced it. I'm guessing that's it's taking off because: The wheels appear to be spinning (though the picture is kinda grainy so...) There isn't any smoke behind the tires, even though it would have just touched down....


26

This picture is most likely taken during landing. The flaps configuration is the best clue. Flaps are extended more for landing than they are for takeoff. Compare with other pictures of Air Force One: OP, brightness adjusted: Landing (original) Takeoff (source) The difference in flaps is a bit subtle but seems to match landing best. Other good clues for ...


20

Measured directly on the image, the angle between the cheatline and the runway is 5.5°; the true pitch angle of the plane will be slightly less than that, because of a little perspective foreshortening. According to this document from Boeing, a typical liftoff attitude for a 747-400 is 10°. (The VC-25 in the picture is a modified 747-200, but none of the ...


16

(Source) The comments and answers already say it's for noise reduction. What's more intriguing is the how: The blades are not coplanar (image). The tail-rotor of the Apache rotates clockwise (video) when viewed from the port side. The nearest blades (nearest plane) to the viewer are the leading blades of each group. A group is two close blades regardless of ...


13

Yeah good question. They need it to be out of the way of the spray, so high up, and they position it on top of something that looks like a vertical stabiliser, so why not use the vertical stabiliser, I presume is what you mean. Like this one, but then in a pusher comfiguration My answer would be that that would position the centre of gravity too far back. ...


12

The heaviest single item in an aircraft is the engine. If you were to move the engine to the tail and make no other changes to this design the aircraft's centre of gravity would move so far aft that the aircraft would be unflyable. For a stable configuration the centre of gravity needs to be close to the centre of lift. We could achieve that by moving the ...


11

Another way to possibly determine the answer to the question: check the photo's exif data to see time photo taken, then google where potus was going that day which will determine if this was origin or destination. Google that day's news for further clues on potus schedule and location, if necessary.


10

Why don't we actually analyze videos of Air Force One landing and taking off instead of just analyzing the pictures? Here is a video of it taking of at Boeing Field on 13R (the same runway, but opposite direction). Note that the B4 taxiway mark is clearly visible in the video. By counting the number of taxiway marks and comparing it to the airport chart: ...


9

Don't be fooled by the black line which looks like that the plane is on the ground. The runway is marked with a white line, so the plane is still 3+ m in the air. So I think it's landing.


8

Image source The tail rotor of the Apache consists of two 2-bladed teetering rotors, referred to as scissor rotors. This unusual configuration was first implemented by Hughes Helicopters in the late 1960s for reducing the noise of the OH-6 helicopter. The OH-6 had a single twin blade teetering tail rotor, which Hughes wanted to rotate slower for reducing ...


7

Several reasons. The tail's height above water depends on the pitch up or down of the aircraft but you don't want the propeller too close to the water(!). You also don't want water spray hitting the propeller (the very high tip speed can quickly be eroded by hitting water spray) so keeping it closer to the nose and higher prevents that. Putting it near the ...


6

The accident report says 2.4.2 Performance An energy analysis was performed based upon altitude and airspeed data from the DFDR. It should be realised that this method does not allow extrapolation of performance capabilities in other conditions then those encountered during this flight. Based on this analysis the following conclusions can be ...


5

Because the blade is moving in and out of the exhaust stream at high velocity, and the exhaust stream is perhaps 20% of the total exposure, the heat transfer to the blades is negligible from the standpoint of heating up aluminum enough to affect its heat treat, or heating epoxy to its transition temperature. Meanwhile there are the anti-icing benefits. ...


5

Airbus themselves give max passenger seating 440, and typical seating 3-class 300-350, for the A350-900. https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a350xwb-family/a350-900.html The undeveloped A350-800 is listed with 276 passengers. Maybe that's where you got your 250 number.


4

Depending on the aircraft, flaps can be set at one of several different settings anywhere from 5° to 40° (or more, from what I understand). All of these settings are considered "down". (The exact flap angle depends on the aircraft, current weight, air temp and other factors and more than one is "appropriate" for take off or landing depending on these ...


4

The absence of any smoke from the tires is reason #1 to suspect takeoff. The flaps definitely aren't fully extended, but they're extended more than the minimum for takeoff. This means that more analysis has to happen before taking the position of the flaps as definitive: If the runway is short, both takeoff and landing would have more flaps than if it ...


4

The plane is landing. the engines are running on low power setting, otherwise there would be considerable blurring visible below the rear fuselage because of the hot exhaust plumes. In this picture the blur behind the main gear is similar to that in front of the main gear, consisting of bokeh and motion blur. looking carefully you can actually see that the ...


4

At first sight, placing the propeller in the tail looks attractive, but there have been very few designs which put that into practice. The best known is probably the Trislander derivative of the venerable Britten-Norman Islander utility aircraft. Britten-Norman Trislander (picture source) Disadvantages of a tail-mounted propeller engine To place a heavy ...


3

I believe its to reduce the noise, here is a partial info http://theses.gla.ac.uk/619/ The complex flowfield which is associated with a rotor wake gives rise to the multitude of aerodynamic interactions that may occur during rotorcraft operation. These interactions may give rise to undesirable noise and lead to an unacceptable performance degradation,


3

I can conclusively say the nose of the plane was about 2920 feet from the end of the runway proper (not including the extended area). Notice the second door of the middle hangar lines up with the nose of the plane. To see where the next building starts just look at the roof line. Here's my line of sight from the photographer lined up with the doors of the ...


3

As far as in-cockpit controls, a canard has the same control setup as a conventional airplane. Stick or yoke, throttle(s), rudder pedals. All the differences are hidden in the linkages or hydraulics -- pulling the stick back lowers the elevator on the canard, instead of raising one on a rear stabilizer, but to the pilot it's the same. There are some minor ...


1

I suppose one could route an exhaust stack from the engine installation to a location away from the engine or propellers. But then again the benefits would have to outweigh the drawbacks of such a design. Adding additional exhaust routing would solve the problems of structural damage due to heating, But it’s also bulkier, heavier and imposes additional ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible