Fears rise as planes fly low over Loop

Chicago Tribune ^ | November 7, 2010 | Jon Hilkevitch

[Uncle Ike]

” That’s not a 747. That one has two engines near the tail. The 747 has four engines under the wings. “

Hey - at least they didn’t call it an AK47...

(be thankful for the small miracles... ;))

[ridesthemiles]

Maybe there is more sotry here:

The FAA said the FIRST plane was a 747, etc, etc, etc.

THIS plane is NOT a 747.

I sure would like to hope that the FAA knows the difference.!!!

Were there 2 planes ? More?

[dfwgator]

“That’s a negative, Ghost Rider, the pattern is full.”

[ProtectOurFreedom]

When did Boeing decide to take the four engines off the wing and put two on the rear? I must have missed that design change.

[Psycho_Bunny]

These folks should avoid Seattle. The Sea-tac and Boeing Field approaches from the north are ridiculously low over and next to the city.

[crosshairs]

Gee- I am just a girl & not a plane fanatic. Thanks for verifying me.

You fly like a girl. (snicker, snicker).

[Uncle Ike]

Albuquerque International Airport is much the same way - the north-south approach brings ‘em right over the city, and low enough to count rivets some 5 miles out...

Ya get used to it.... ;)

[Fresh Wind]

Well, at least this time it wasn’t Air Force One. We know they are in Asia somewhere, taking the King on another vacation jaunt at an obscene cost to the taxpayer.

[ConservativeStatement]

Here’s a link to a 747 landing. It has a copyright, I am not sure if it can shown.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/1252724/L/

[Lou L]

Hey - at least they didn’t call it an AK47...

It's couldn't be that...Chicago has outlawed all personal defense weapons, so no one would have one.

[mad_as_he$$]

Hate to break it to the FAA but that is an S80 not a 747.

[ArrogantBustard]

This image does not show a Boeing 747 of any sort. Anyone with even two functioning brain cells can determine that ...

[lurk]

It’s a 747 ghetto version; the equivalent of a low rider. If you look closely, you can see the pilot sitting really low in the cockpit with a blue bandanna on his head.

[naturalized]

Which is ironic, since he is using a lot more UAVs than President Bush ever did. But his media buddies don't want him to look like a “war mongerer,” so they downplay it. It the field, the terrorists know their butts are being handed to them, but they are winning the perception battle.

Tet all over again. Democrats don't know how to win a war because too much of their base thinks it is not justifiable under any circumstances.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Give yourself a tube of lipstick for stating the obvious.

The caption below the photo: Photo (November 4, 2010) doesn't identify the aircraft; which appears to be an MD-80 series, pictured. It simply states when the photo was taken. The excerpt from the article, in italics, describes a different aircraft. The article itself, which you obviously didn't read, describes a number of different aircraft; both narrow and wide body, flying over Willis Tower.

[Uncle Miltie]

Proudly Posting without reading the Article since 1998!

[A.A. Cunningham]

Well, AB, apparently your two brain cells; along with those of many others on this thread, aren't working this morning either. The caption of the photo: Photo (November 4, 2010), doesn't identify the aircraft. The excerpt, in italics, from the article, which describes a number of different aircraft, both narrow and widebody, flying over Willis Tower, describes one specific aircraft.

I'm surprised that you, along with many others, were so easily confused by the post and failed to read the article.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Is the plane in your photo claimed to be a 747?

No. The caption below the photo doesn't identify the aircraft pictured.

The excerpt, in italics, quite obviously describes a different aircraft.

[A.A. Cunningham]

THIS plane is NOT a 747.

The caption doesn't identify it as a 747.

Were there 2 planes ? More?

Read the article.

[A.A. Cunningham]

I must have missed that design change.

You've missed a lot on this thread.