Back to Squawk list
  • 94

Boeing 747-8I flies over every state in the lower 48 in 18 hours

Boeing returns to their canvas again -- this time to fly over every state in the lower 48 United States in a single flight! ( और अधिक...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Gary Eaton 0
the same jet flew from Washington to Charleston, SC made a flyover of the airport and then flew back to Washington on Oct. 21st, 2011. Check out for some photos.
Mark Duell 0
Daniel Baker 0
Looks like WV was a planning mistake and they missed RI by cutting the corner.
Mark Duell 0
Also missed the landmass of PA
Ben Lillie 0
Barely got MS and AR either.
Kenneth Breiner 0
looks like they frogot to fly over west virginia or the lines were drawn incorrectly????
Michael Mainiero 0
Well, if Boeing had moved the route 50 miles, it would have crossed over W. Virginia...
sbirch 0
Including all the states looks like it may have not been the original plan, as the scheduled flight plan would have missed Nebraska and Wyoming. WV was an oversight, but then who remembers WV. Still pretty cool.
kenrpettyfan 0
Cannikin 0
What was the purpose of this flight?
Ian Smith 0
they also missed kentucky. fail.
Mark Duell 0
They flew across the western side of KY.
jon sloan 0
Looks like they missed WV.
Larry Schillig 0
Washington D.C. is not a state. It it's own world :)
Larry Schillig 0
Washington D.C. is not a state.
It's in it's own world :)
KC Hoover 0
David Marshall 0
I think that RI was clipped and also PA near Lake Erie. WV was defnitely missed. They weren't even close.
Dale Lewis 0
They flew over California at FL42 so no visual but if you have a Radar Box or SBS1 it can be tracked real time on your PC.
According to the chart, they missed West Virginia
Brian Alexander 0
Heading to KOA right now - sounds like a lot more fun than zigzagging the Mainland!
Michael Garrison 0
Michael Garrison 0
buck beneze 0
David Smith 0
Thet missed West Virginia.
Austin Deppe 0
Based on the above posts, I wonder if the 748 happened to miss West Virginia...?
Christopher Howse 0
My Guess would be so that, as an economy measure, they can sell it with the option of only running two engines on longer over water-or over anything. Given a light load on a long stage this has a real sales value.
indy2001 0
In Feb, 2005 a British Airways 747 took off from KLAX for a flight to EGLL with only 3 engines operating. (The incident report said BA had done 3-engine passenger ops 15 times in the 5 years previous to that incident, so it was nothing new to them.) So BA should be interested in shutting down the "extra" engine to save even more money with 2 engines running.
Christopher Howse 0
There are some reports here-in Wichita, Kansas-that Boeing has been tempted to produce a twin engine version of the 47. (probably the -400 model). Were that so, and they could hold the current flight characteristics, it would be a welcome entry to the long range twin. Of course they already have the 777 so it must be wondered if a twin 47 would have purpose other than to carry more passengers. Certainly in high density seating on certain routes, it should find favor. (Remember that JAL specifically had 47-200 models that held over 600 passengers on commuter routes within Japan.) Plus freight carriers would be intrigued by the internal volume. Even if only used on the trans-Atlantic routes or transcontinental ones, they would be a welcome addition. I have a friend at SPEA with whom I've not spoken in a while. Perhaps I should ring them and ask what's new....CKH
Ttchockey27 0
all 47**??? clearly missed WV
walker collins 0
I wonder why nobody metioned that they missed WV yet?? JOKE!! does nobody read before they post?
balazs varga 0
Chip Hermes 0
mark tufts 0
zennermd 0
Looks like they have to do it again.
Ben Pittsley 0
And with petrol prices and economic struggle across the globe, they do this why?
tim mitchell 0
because they can......because they can
Mark Duell 0
They need to do long flights anyway for certification (cold soak, NAMS testing), may as well have some fun with it.
Ricky Scott 0
ETOPS Certification flight. You want your airplanes to be safe dont you. We test them for a reason
Marc Olson 0
Why would a 747 need to do Extended Twin engine OPerationS certification?

I understand that it was a test flight, but I highly doubt it was for ETOPS.
Ricky Scott 1
Ok .. I guess you know more than I do. I only work Boeing.
Ricky Scott 0
From Flight Global (Since I cannot link from internal)

ETOPS rules were updated in 2007 to include four-engine aircraft starting in 2015, though Boeing opted to include it in the Intercontinental's certification ahead of the requirement.

Boeing clarified the status of ETOPS certification for the 747-8I, saying that because it was not required by the initial FAA requirements it was not completed as part of the certification trials that wrapped up on October 31. Continued flying of the test fleet will include completion of the ETOPS validation on the 747-8I in the coming days, says Boeing.

Because of overlapping certification efforts, the -8F will also be certified under ETOPS rules. The freighter did not undergo ETOPS testing because its customers did not require it for its shorter missions.
Austin Deppe 0
Ricky Scott just owned you.
john smith 0
Interesting that freighters don't fly long trips. Really Ricky?
James Polivka 0
The 747-8I isn't a freighter. But the freighters can fly long trips, if the operators choose. A ferry flight across the globe for the next load would be a good example.
Troy Raiteri 0
It went over MEM and I didn't even know about it.......
Jeffrey Babey 0
That's pretty cool! I would have loved to have been part of the crew on that flight! :)
Dubslow 0
Damn. According to the Google Earth file I dl'ed from FlightAware, it literally came within .98 miles of my house, laterally. Man, I wish I'd known, and I wish I wasn't in college yesterday.
Michael Yockey 0
They passed very near my hometown of Miamisburg, OH. I was going to see if the flight was above the horizon but suddenly course lines aren't rendering for me in IE8.
Andrew Bogart 0
I would hate to be the one that had to readback that clearance!
David Torrente 0
"Cleared as filed, Roger Being 440." ;-)
fpatkelly 0
Yes, they misses WV and DC. And they were sooooo close... Why?
john smith 0
Ask Ricky who works at Boeing.
He'll probably say that certification and testing standards didn't require a flight over West Virginia pursuant to 2015 amendments which Boeing voluntarily complies with on a case by case basis.
Right Ricky?
JetMech24 0
Too busy trying to figure out how to deliver all these planes all over KPAE like the land of orphaned airplanes to make sure they actually hit all 48 states.
Michael Fuquay -1
Missed WVA & D.C. - Didn't miss much ;)
kenrpettyfan 1
mikeNY 0
FL420, abv RVSM airspace, ... through 5 ARTCC's


क्या आपका कोई खाता नहीं है? अनुकूलित विशेषताओं, फ्लाइट अलर्टों,और अधिक के लिए अब(नि:शुल्क) रजिस्टर करें!
This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.