5 ms·

Wow, I would have never guessed that! That makes me think that it might be fun to buy a piece of land and live inside an old 747. I found this video where someo

Wow, I would have never guessed that! That makes me think that it might be fun to buy a piece of land and live inside an old 747. I found this video where someone is living inside a Boeing 727: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iat-WgSvGME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iat-WgSvGME Here's another person living in a 727: https://www.youtube.com/watch/?v=rKm5oF2p-II https://www.youtube.com/watch/?v=rKm5oF2p-II This one has a much nicer interior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdwLlI9abgU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdwLlI9abgU According to one of the comments on the first video, they spent 120k on the plane, and another 100k to move it to the forest. I would probably want to spend another ~300k for renovations and everything else (proper foundation, shower, kitchen, water and sewer lines, etc. etc.) It's not cheap, but that's a lot cheaper than I was expecting. Especially compared to the average house in an expensive city. I think it might also be a lot more fun than living in a "tiny house". I recently read this "Why We Don't Like Our Underground House" article that was posted on HN: https://dengarden.com/misc/The-Pitfalls-of-an-Underground-House https://dengarden.com/misc/The-Pitfalls-of-an-Underground-Ho... That was a reminder that doing something unconventional can be risky and cause lots of unexpected problems. So it would probably be a good idea to also spend a lot of money on architects and engineers to make sure that everything is done properly and there's no surprises.

redis_mlc 6y ago
> Wow, I would have never guessed that! Airliners are merely business tools - operators have no romance for any plane. If a 777 is even 2% more efficient than a 747, the 747 is grounded and chopped up. The related factors are that 4 engines is more maintenance than 2 engines, the classic 747 is no longer certified for passenger use in the USA (wiring and fuel-tank inerting ADs), and ETOPS allows twin-engine flight on almost all commercially-viable oceanic routes. (ETOPS makes me nervous af.) Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot.
- mjg59 6y ago
  > ETOPS makes me nervous af The only case I can think of where an ETOPS flight had both engines fail due to something other than fuel exhaustion was BA38, and it's hard to say a quad jet would have managed better there. I can understand the gut feeling that the safety factor has been reduced, but given several decades without horror stories is it really still something to be nervous about?
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    FYI: Actually several have diverted. You should study the ETOPS requirements to see how nervous the regulators are. Each ETOPS flight has special requirements for alternates that have lodging, food and reasonably nearby (timewise) maintenance. (Cold Bay is not a fun place to be stranded.) It's unlikely that an airliner can maintain altitude on one engine, so the risk is high that once a problem occurs, things can go bad fast. Ditching 300 passengers in the open ocean guarantees fatalities. I understand that non-pilots think "it's handled", but that's not really the case. That's why the old expression "it's a 4-engine ocean" came about. "Small Planes Over Big Oceans (ETOPS Explained)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSxSgbNQi-g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSxSgbNQi-g
    - snowwrestler 6y ago
      What does it mean to say that regulators are “nervous” about ETOPS? Regulators are always nervous; that is their job. If they permit something it is because they have determined it is safe enough. It’s really weird to imply that losing one engine is a ditch situation. Modern airliners can take off on one engine. ETOPS 330 certifies them for operation on one engine for 5.5 hours continuously. They may have to descend a bit from max altitude but there’s a big difference between that and ditching. More flights have experienced fatal crashes due to pilots flying a perfectly functional airplane into the terrain, than from both engines failing. On objective evidence, you should be more worried about the pilots than the engines. “It’s a 4-engine ocean” is indeed an old expression.
      - redis_mlc 6y ago
        Your comments are both superficial and unhelpful. > they have determined it is safe enough. This is a common misconception. Regulators believe ETOPS is safe enough based on engine reliability before an actual flight loses an engine. Then it's an emergency. The probability of the engine failure goes from almost 0.0 to 1.0. See the difference? > It’s really weird to imply that losing one engine is a ditch situation. I didn't say that was a certainty, but it is more likely to be a ditching situation for several reasons. The lower a jet flies, the more fuel it consumes. If there's also a pressurization problem, descending to 10,000 feet would rapidly burn fuel. Also, operating a jet engine at maximum power increases the likelihood of failure, and by itself is more risky. > Modern airliners can take off on one engine. You cannot plan a passenger flight for takeoff on one engine for safety reasons. Not all airplanes will successfully be able to clear obstacles on one engine. The only time it's allowed to takeoff on one engine with passengers is after V1. > “It’s a 4-engine ocean” is indeed an old expression. It's still true. ETOPS is for cost-minimization, not safety. It's always safer with 4 engines than 2. IOW, you don't know anything about the topic, like virtually all HN readers. Just because the risk of ETOPS has been normalized, it doesn't mean that it's as safe as 4 engines.
danieldk 6y ago
proper foundation I got quite nervous as the plane appears to be resting on a pile of wood pellets.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Wood cribbing can hold up ships. Unlike a house or conventional building the plane has enough strength to not fall apart when subject to uneven loading and the three point foundation is going to make it basically impossible to twist it apart if one piling sinks and the others don't. As long as it's level enough for the owner's satisfaction it should be fine.
AdrianB1 6y ago
The property tax may be extremely high if the property is evaluated at the price of a flying plane, not at purchasing price.
xienze 6y ago
> It's not cheap, but that's a lot cheaper than I was expecting. Seems like quite a bit to live in a 747 in the middle of nowhere. Why not just buy an already-built $500K house in the middle of nowhere? It would be bigger and save you a whole lot of hassle.
- freehunter 6y ago
  Why does anyone do anything that’s not strictly necessary? Because it’s cool.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
A better price break down is probably: $120k on the plane. $5k to move it into the forest. $95k fee for not having friends with heavy equipment. $200k for making somebody else do the renovating for you. $50k on materials. $50k on markup. Neither the weight nor size of the plane are astronomical. The square footage to renovate isn't that high either. The reason it costs so much is that it's odd and every time you pay someone else there's a huge cost associated with a one-off and everything about the project is one-off.
- nsonha 6y ago
  transporting a dead airplane should cost much more than 5k
  - loco5niner 6y ago
    That's where this comment comes in: > $95k fee for not having friends with heavy equipment.
briffle 6y ago
There is one by me that is on the roof of a water park. 6 water slides start from the fuselage. https://www.wingsandwaveswaterpark.com/ https://www.wingsandwaveswaterpark.com/ Of course, it's next door to, and both started by the guy who ran the now defunct evergreen aviation.
bleepblorp 6y ago
I suspect one of the largest problems with converting an airliner into a house would be getting the legal permission to do it. Obviously, the fact that it has been done means that it is legally possible in some jurisdictions, but it's likely to be an uphill battle--or completely impossible--elsewhere. Communities that require newly constructed buildings to match the character of the neighborhood likely would never grant permission for an airliner house. Jurisdictions that don't have this requirement would still require building code compliance, which could be extremely difficult to achieve as the technical standards used in aviation are not comparable to those used in conventional construction or mobile homes. At minimum, you'd have major issues with insulation requirements, fire resistance, and emergency egress. After all of this, you'd still need to find a bank willing to issue a construction loan/mortgage, and an insurer willing to cover the finished product. $300K might be a very low-end estimate of the costs involved to make everything physically and legally proper.

redis_mlc 6y ago

> Wow, I would have never guessed that! Airliners are merely business tools - operators have no romance for any plane. If a 777 is even 2% more efficient than a 747, the 747 is grounded and chopped up. The related factors are that 4 engines is more maintenance than 2 engines, the classic 747 is no longer certified for passenger use in the USA (wiring and fuel-tank inerting ADs), and ETOPS allows twin-engine flight on almost all commercially-viable oceanic routes. (ETOPS makes me nervous af.) Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot.

mjg59 6y ago
> ETOPS makes me nervous af The only case I can think of where an ETOPS flight had both engines fail due to something other than fuel exhaustion was BA38, and it's hard to say a quad jet would have managed better there. I can understand the gut feeling that the safety factor has been reduced, but given several decades without horror stories is it really still something to be nervous about?
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  FYI: Actually several have diverted. You should study the ETOPS requirements to see how nervous the regulators are. Each ETOPS flight has special requirements for alternates that have lodging, food and reasonably nearby (timewise) maintenance. (Cold Bay is not a fun place to be stranded.) It's unlikely that an airliner can maintain altitude on one engine, so the risk is high that once a problem occurs, things can go bad fast. Ditching 300 passengers in the open ocean guarantees fatalities. I understand that non-pilots think "it's handled", but that's not really the case. That's why the old expression "it's a 4-engine ocean" came about. "Small Planes Over Big Oceans (ETOPS Explained)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSxSgbNQi-g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSxSgbNQi-g
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    What does it mean to say that regulators are “nervous” about ETOPS? Regulators are always nervous; that is their job. If they permit something it is because they have determined it is safe enough. It’s really weird to imply that losing one engine is a ditch situation. Modern airliners can take off on one engine. ETOPS 330 certifies them for operation on one engine for 5.5 hours continuously. They may have to descend a bit from max altitude but there’s a big difference between that and ditching. More flights have experienced fatal crashes due to pilots flying a perfectly functional airplane into the terrain, than from both engines failing. On objective evidence, you should be more worried about the pilots than the engines. “It’s a 4-engine ocean” is indeed an old expression.
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      Your comments are both superficial and unhelpful. > they have determined it is safe enough. This is a common misconception. Regulators believe ETOPS is safe enough based on engine reliability before an actual flight loses an engine. Then it's an emergency. The probability of the engine failure goes from almost 0.0 to 1.0. See the difference? > It’s really weird to imply that losing one engine is a ditch situation. I didn't say that was a certainty, but it is more likely to be a ditching situation for several reasons. The lower a jet flies, the more fuel it consumes. If there's also a pressurization problem, descending to 10,000 feet would rapidly burn fuel. Also, operating a jet engine at maximum power increases the likelihood of failure, and by itself is more risky. > Modern airliners can take off on one engine. You cannot plan a passenger flight for takeoff on one engine for safety reasons. Not all airplanes will successfully be able to clear obstacles on one engine. The only time it's allowed to takeoff on one engine with passengers is after V1. > “It’s a 4-engine ocean” is indeed an old expression. It's still true. ETOPS is for cost-minimization, not safety. It's always safer with 4 engines than 2. IOW, you don't know anything about the topic, like virtually all HN readers. Just because the risk of ETOPS has been normalized, it doesn't mean that it's as safe as 4 engines.

danieldk 6y ago

proper foundation I got quite nervous as the plane appears to be resting on a pile of wood pellets.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Wood cribbing can hold up ships. Unlike a house or conventional building the plane has enough strength to not fall apart when subject to uneven loading and the three point foundation is going to make it basically impossible to twist it apart if one piling sinks and the others don't. As long as it's level enough for the owner's satisfaction it should be fine.

AdrianB1 6y ago

The property tax may be extremely high if the property is evaluated at the price of a flying plane, not at purchasing price.

xienze 6y ago

> It's not cheap, but that's a lot cheaper than I was expecting. Seems like quite a bit to live in a 747 in the middle of nowhere. Why not just buy an already-built $500K house in the middle of nowhere? It would be bigger and save you a whole lot of hassle.

freehunter 6y ago
Why does anyone do anything that’s not strictly necessary? Because it’s cool.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

A better price break down is probably: $120k on the plane. $5k to move it into the forest. $95k fee for not having friends with heavy equipment. $200k for making somebody else do the renovating for you. $50k on materials. $50k on markup. Neither the weight nor size of the plane are astronomical. The square footage to renovate isn't that high either. The reason it costs so much is that it's odd and every time you pay someone else there's a huge cost associated with a one-off and everything about the project is one-off.

nsonha 6y ago
transporting a dead airplane should cost much more than 5k
- loco5niner 6y ago
  That's where this comment comes in: > $95k fee for not having friends with heavy equipment.

briffle 6y ago

There is one by me that is on the roof of a water park. 6 water slides start from the fuselage. https://www.wingsandwaveswaterpark.com/ https://www.wingsandwaveswaterpark.com/ Of course, it's next door to, and both started by the guy who ran the now defunct evergreen aviation.

bleepblorp 6y ago

I suspect one of the largest problems with converting an airliner into a house would be getting the legal permission to do it. Obviously, the fact that it has been done means that it is legally possible in some jurisdictions, but it's likely to be an uphill battle--or completely impossible--elsewhere. Communities that require newly constructed buildings to match the character of the neighborhood likely would never grant permission for an airliner house. Jurisdictions that don't have this requirement would still require building code compliance, which could be extremely difficult to achieve as the technical standards used in aviation are not comparable to those used in conventional construction or mobile homes. At minimum, you'd have major issues with insulation requirements, fire resistance, and emergency egress. After all of this, you'd still need to find a bank willing to issue a construction loan/mortgage, and an insurer willing to cover the finished product. $300K might be a very low-end estimate of the costs involved to make everything physically and legally proper.