From kls Tue Jan 5 00:24:05 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) Subject: The Len Morgan Collection X-Submission-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 20:52:37 CST Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9212310252.AA01630@rascal.ics.utexas.edu> Date: 05 Jan 93 00:24:05 PST I ran across an advert in the latest _Airliners_. Seems that Len Morgan's daughter is selling a whole bunch of aviation-related memorabilia. I sent off my SASE, and received the list today: well over 1000 book (non-fiction and fiction), all aviation-related, many out of print. Reasonable pricing on most. P&H is $2.50 for the first book, $1.50 for each additional book. She's also selling artifacts, such as Concorde travel kits, fighter sticks, and artwork: a bit more pricy. No "interesting" items, such as operations manuals, alas. To get a list, send a "long" SASE to: Kathy Morgan Criddle The Write Stuff 2729 Northridge East Clearwater, FL 34621 Their fax number is 813-789-6746. Stick $0.75 in postage on it: the lists are quite long (9 pages). For those who are unaware, Len Morgan writes a column in FLYING. He's also written a variety of books. He retired from Braniff as a 747 captain sometime in the late 70's or early 80's. He's one of the last of the real old-timers. Caveat: nuttin' to do with them. It's an impressive collection, though, a detailed literature history of aviation, starting with works from the 1930's. -- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd From kls Tue Jan 5 00:24:06 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) Subject: McDonnell Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices X-Submission-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 03:12:50 CST Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9212310912.AA02337@rascal.ics.utexas.edu> Date: 05 Jan 93 00:24:06 PST It'd be interesting to learn how MDC came to its very specific conclusion about the bank incident... :-) -- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd ---------- >From AIRLINE PILOT, December 1992, p. 40: "McDonnell Douglas Corporation has warned all operators of DC-8, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, and MD-80 aircraft about reported interference to avionics from passenger carry-on electronic equipment. The manufacturer further recommends that operators of its aircraft prohibit onboard use of 'any passenger-operated carry-on electronic radio transmitting device which intentionally radiates' electromagnetic energy. "The reason for the warning, said McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company, is that a DC-10 recently '...abruptly banked to the right twice during climb to a cruising altitude. The suspected cause of these incidents was... a passenger operating a small audio [compact disc] player.' "In 1983, at the request of airlines, the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics began investigating the effects that carry-on electrical and electronic devices can have on the operations of aircraft systems. "RTCA compiled and analyzed data on the emission characteristics of various carry-on electronic devices and the effectiveness of aircraft cabin shielding in protecting aircraft radio navigation and communication systems. "Douglas continues to support these RTCA conclusions and recommendations but warns that 'many advances in technology... have greatly increased the number and variety of portable electronic devices that passengers may wish to operate onboard an aircraft.' "These devices, says the company, 'include, but are not limited to,' citizen-band radios, cellular telephones, transmitters that remotely control devices such as toys, and portable compact disc players. "Douglas also recommends that 'non-transmitting carry-on electronic devices not be used during takeoff and landing, or whenever directed by a crewmember.' The manufacturer suggests that these devices may be used at other times, 'provided that the operator of the aircraft has given permission for their use.' "Examples of these nontransmitting devices are audio and video recorders and playback devices, electronic games, computers and peripheral devices, calculators, FM receivers, televisions, and electric shavers. "In light of rapidly changing technology, FAA has again asked RTCA to study and make recommendations concerning portable electronic devices. As a result, a new RTCA special committee will be formed." From kls Tue Jan 5 00:24:07 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) Subject: Re: Tire burn-out during landings X-Submission-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 20:30:05 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 05 Jan 93 00:24:07 PST In article , barnett@convex.com (Paul Barnett) writes: > In yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) writes: > > >In any case, the practicality of preventing tires from disintegrating > >depends on how fast tires presently disintegrate. How much matter really is > >there in that cloud of smoke? Perhaps a gram per cubic meter of smoke? And > >how much tire is left on the runway? Do they have to go out and scrape it > >off now and then? (I imagine not.) Seems to me the loss of tire material > >is negligible also. Compared, that is, with the other costs of running the > >airplane. Tires have to be replaced more often than I personally might have expected. My dad says that the Western Airlines record for most landings between changing sets of tires was 283, and was held by a DC-10. It would be interesting to know some statistics for mean replacement frequency and cost, which have doubtless changed some since he worked for Western. With tire pressures of 190 psi and loading on the order of tens of thousands of pounds per tire, not counting forces at touchdown, it figures that they won't be cheap. ------------------ Paul Raveling Raveling@Unify.com From kls Tue Jan 5 00:24:08 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) Subject: Re: Tire burn-out during landings X-Submission-Date: 2 Jan 1993 19:34:07 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1i4qnfINNeca@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> Date: 05 Jan 93 00:24:08 PST In article rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: >We need to consider three issues: (1), the means by which the tires get >"spinning," (2) the actual control benefits by having the tires spinning on >touch-down, and (3) the *additional* wear and tear on the brakes, as they >must absorb the spinning energy, in addition to performing their normal >task of slowing down the airplane. We could also add a (4), having the >wheel assemblies spinning at high speed for extended periods of flight >(outer marker to completion of roll-out), with the ramifications on the >wheel structure (for one thing, a balancer to stop in-air "wobbling" would >be needed). Regarding item (3), why would there be any additional wear and tear on the brakes? The brakes don't come into play until after the tires have made contact with the runway, by which time the wheels wouldn't be spinning any faster than they would've been *without* the spin-up system. Spinning up the wheels during approach would only lessen the disparity at the moment of contact between rubber and pavement, not afterward. Consider the sequence of events: the rotational speed of the tires at the instant after they touch the pavement is a function of the plane's ground- speed, not how fast the tires were turning at the instant before touchdown. As for item (4), I'd think that keeping the wheel/tire assemblies above some arbitrary threshold of dynamic balance would be trivial. This could be checked at some specified interval, say, once a week during an overnight maintenance period. It's not very time- or manpower-consuming to jack up one set of landing gear at a time and pull the wheels off, although I'm sure it would add up. (As an aside, I see a lot of references in various publications to coded maintenance periods such as "C" and "D" checks, but even in enthusiast magazines written for the layman, there's never any elaboration given. Could someone post a list of such inspections, along with a general rundown of their frequency and what they consist of? Are they standard across the industry, or peculiar to individual manufacturers and airlines?) >(3) seems the major disqualifier of the idea. With an inert tire, you'll >have *minor* control problems ("bump", and that's it), but the energy absorbed >by the tire in *spinning up*, on landing, in itself helps slow the airplane. Hmmm; I hadn't considered that. Still, I wonder how significant that energy really is, compared to the total energy that must be absorbed to slow an airplane down after landing. It sounds kinda like the amount of energy that's dissipated when a speeding locomotive runs through a sheet of Kleenex. :) >The current system is obviously cost-effective enough to be used. I don't >have stats on tires handy, but the airlines do get a lot of wear out of them. That's a fact. I don't recall the specifics, but I remember being surprised as an FE to learn just how much exposed cord the airlines allow before they consider a tire ready for replacement, compared to what I'd have downed a 130 for. I'd have expected the airline standards to be higher than those in the military, not more permissible. On the other hand, the military doesn't have to worry about making a profit... :) Geoff -- -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Menlo Park, California -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- From kls Tue Jan 5 00:24:09 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) Subject: Re: Economics of new vs. older planes X-Submission-Date: 2 Jan 1993 19:53:56 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1i4rskINNecs@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> Date: 05 Jan 93 00:24:09 PST In article drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: >For instance, lots of 727-200s parked at Davis-Monthan, and at Mojave. Just an aside, but when did they start storing civilian aircraft at Davis- Monthan? The only ones I'm aware of were the 707s acquired for their JT3Ds (for the KC-135E reengining program), and the odd propliner confiscated in drug busts. >Unfortunately for 727 owners, they are stage two noise compliant. This >means that they will no longer be allowed to operate in the domestic US >after 2000 or so. Europe is much the same. This short economic life must >be take into account before purchasing our hypothetical 727. Can't they be made Stage III compliant with hush kits? Even after adding on this expense, it seems to me that a 727-200 would still be a pretty good deal compared to the cost of a new or nearly-new airplane. Also, either UPS or FedEx are reengining their 727s with Rolls-Royce Tays, which are Stage III compliant and more fuel efficient than the JT8Ds to boot. The STC for this conversion might make relatively low-time 727s an even more attractive option. Geoff -- -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Menlo Park, California -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- From kls Tue Jan 5 00:24:10 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: Tire burn-out during landings X-Submission-Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 16:36:44 PST References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9301040036.AA00365@moclips.boeing.com> Date: 05 Jan 93 00:24:10 PST From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) Date: 29 Dec 92 12:39:16 PST I recall an old issue of AWST that described the certification flight test program for the first 747. The flight test budget included a 3 million $ line item for "Wheels, tires, and brakes". At least one of these tests was known to be destructive. The worst-case demonstration of a takeoff abort would seem to thoroughly cook all of the tires and brakes. I don't know if any of the wheels were savable. I don't know about FAA certification, but I have some flight test footage of a fully-loaded E-4 landing (or was it takeoff abort?) during Air Force testing (prior to delivery, I believe) where the tires and gear caught fire. Some of the tires exploded. As I recall (it's been a few years since I viewed the tape) at one point it appears that some shrapnel actually punches through the wing. I seem to recall that the crew made hasty exits by jumping from the main cabin door. The rescue trucks are also shown successfully (apparently) putting out the fires, although it took them at least a minute to reach the plane. Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud bcstec!bcsaic!stephen Boeing Computer Services Research and Technology Bellevue, Washington USA "I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks." From kls Tue Jan 5 00:24:11 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: Pete Mellor Subject: Things that cannot possibly go wrong X-Submission-Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 13:50:17 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <747.9301041350@csrsun8.cs.city.ac.uk> Date: 05 Jan 93 00:24:11 PST The following extract from Douglas Adams' latest book* contain a lesson for designers of complex systems, particularly computerised ones (e.g., fly-by-wire): ... all mechanical or electrical or quantum-mechanical or hydraulic or even wind, steam or piston-driven devices, are now required to have a certain legend emblazoned on them somewhere. It doesn't matter how small the object is, the designers of the object have got to find a way of squeezing the legend in somewhere, because it is their attention which is being drawn to it rather than necessarily that of the user's. The legend is this: `The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair' * "Mostly Harmless" (The fifth book in the increasingly inaccurately named "Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" trilogy) by Douglas Adams, Heinemann, London, 1992, ISBN 0434 00926 1 Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Sq., London EC1V 0HB, Tel: +44(0)71-477-8422, JANET: p.mellor@city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Jan 6 01:06:28 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg) Subject: Re: McDonnell Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices X-Submission-Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 13:13:49 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Omen Technology INC, Portland Rain Forest Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-ID: <1993Jan05.131349.7076@omen.UUCP> Date: 06 Jan 93 01:06:28 PST In article rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: >It'd be interesting to learn how MDC came to its very specific conclusion >about the bank incident... :-) > > >-- >Robert Dorsett >Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu >UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd > > >---------- > >>From AIRLINE PILOT, December 1992, p. 40: > > >"McDonnell Douglas Corporation has warned all operators of DC-8, DC-9, >DC-10, MD-11, and MD-80 aircraft about reported interference to >avionics from passenger carry-on electronic equipment. The >manufacturer further recommends that operators of its aircraft >prohibit onboard use of 'any passenger-operated carry-on electronic >radio transmitting device which intentionally radiates' electromagnetic >energy. > >"The reason for the warning, said McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company, >is that a DC-10 recently '...abruptly banked to the right twice during >climb to a cruising altitude. The suspected cause of these incidents >was... a passenger operating a small audio [compact disc] player.' Round up the usual suspects. Isn't this a bit early? April 1 is more like it. Obviously the passenger was playing a Killer CD. If the McDonnell jets are so sensitive to EMI that a CD player (!!!) can stand one on its ear, better not fly one within sight of FM or TV towers, satellite dishes, radar beams, CB antennas, taxicabs, let alone any source of lightning discharge. Confiscate all cellular phones in checked or carry-on luggage. If a CD Walkman can crash a DC-10, think of what a megawatt UHF TV station would do. And don't forget, digital watches use RF energy. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software" 17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 503-621-3406 From kls Wed Jan 6 01:06:29 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Everything you wanted to know about tires, and were afraid to ask... X-Submission-Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 10:33:58 CST Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9301051633.AA18453@rascal.ics.utexas.edu> Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jan 93 01:06:29 PST The following is from _Landing Gear Design Handbook_, by Norman S. Currey, January 1982, published by Lockheed-Georgia, Marietta, Georgia 30063. It's a highly readable book, covering every facet of landing gear design I can think of, at least (no great task :-)). No restriction on redistribution or duplication of the material is asserted in the cover sheet: quite the opposite, in fact, so here it is... --------------------------- Pp. 6-25-6-35: TIRE PRE-ROTATION ----------------- At first glance, it would seem logical to spin up the tires prior to touchdown to alleviate tire wear and spin-up loads. Several methods have been devised to do this, and some have been tested with various degrees of success. One methods uses an electric motor and antother uses fan-like blades on the wheel or tire. However, the cost/weight/maintainability penalty must be assessed and traded off aginst the advantages gained. First, tire wear at spin-up is minor. Most tire wear is caused by braking and turning. Secondly, spin-up loads do not usually design a great deal of the gear--usually parts of the torque links and piston. Experience has indicated that tire pre-rotation devices are just not worthwhile. For further reading on this subject, reference should be made to "Prerotation of Landing Gear Wheels," by H.F. Schippel, SAE Journal, Volume 52, No. 10, October 1944. TIRE ECONOMICS -------------- Tires represent a significant cost element in aircraft operation. Their initial cost is relatively low, but their life is short, and even with retreading the operating cost is of some consequence. Any attempts to increase tire life usually involve additional weight and/or initial cost. It is impossible to recommend any specific number of retreads that may be applied. It depends on the tire scrappage rate due to cuts and other abnormalities, and these depend to some extend upon the operating environment. A typical airline, however, could be expected to retread four or five times. [Refers to figures, showing a cost per airplane landing, in 1963 dollars, indexed by tire pressure: a 707-323C, with 180 PSIG of pressure, is listed at 25 dollars per landing). From SAE Journal, December 1963, "The Cost of Landing," by J.E. Davis and R.C. Curry. A more modern, separate illustration, which we can assume is near the date of publication of the book, lists a "new" cost of $346, $70 per retread. --rdd] HYDROPLANING ------------ When a tire is traversing a wet runway, there is a certain relationship of forward speed and inflation pressure at which the tire is essentially lifted above the water film. When this occurs, the tire is said to be hydroplaning. [...] As the leading edge of the tire encounters the water film, a hydrodynamic wedge is formed, lifting the leading edge and producing an inclined surface at the contact area. The upthrust on the tire is equal to the change in momentum of the water squeezed out beneath the tire, and the momentum change is dependent upon water depth, tread configuration, and tire forward speed. An approximate speed that has been used for many years to determine the minimum hydroplaning speed is: Vp = 9.0 * SQRT(P) where vp = minimum hydroplaning speed (mph), P = tire inflation pressure (psi). Of all the variants involved, tread configuration is the only one that we can do anything about--although it must be admitted that water depth is being reduced in some cases by runway grooving. It should be noted that some tests have indicated hydroplaning speeds 1.5 times greater than that predicted by the formula. To improve hydroplaning characteristics, tire treads have been modified to remove water from under the contact area. The approach taken on automobile tires has been described well in several papers [...], but the tread fragmentation used on those tires is not applicable to aircraft tires since the latter have far higher inflation pressures, and under such conditions the tread would distort badly and have more wear. Also, high aircraft braking loads would tend to tear the automobile tread patterns. Extensive research is being undertaken to improve aircraft tire treads, an example being Dunlop's Aquagrip in which the entire tread surface is covered with small holes. These act as reservoirs, and as such they collect the surface water as the contact area interfaces the runway, and then release it as the tire rolls forward. Thus, the water is not squeezed sideways, the hydroplaning wedge is minimized, and under tests it has proved to be remarkably effective. For instance, an aircraft with conventional tires stopped in 6350 feet on a wet surface. Using Aquagrip tires it was stopped in 4700 feet. All of the above refers to Dynamic Hydroplaning, where the water depth is more than the tire tread depth; i.e., more than about 0.40 inch. There is, however, viscuous hydroplaning and reverted rubber skidding, both of which are discussed in [Horne, Walter B., NASA Langley Research Center, "Skidding Accidents on Runways and Highways Can be Reduced," Astronautics & Aeronautics, August 1967]. Viscuous hydroplaning (due to a thin film of water acting as a lubricant) can occur even when the pavement is covered with a heavy dew, and is generally only a problem on very smooth runways. Tests have shown that a textured runway surfaces satisfactorily alleviates this condition, and the noted reference includes data to show the effects of moisture on the surface, both smooth and textured. It also lists numerous other sources of data on this subject. In general, there is really very little that can be done to the tire to alleviate viscuous hydroplaning. The solutions to the problem are to groove the surfaces, and to use the more sophisticated skid control systems which constantly monitor the available friction coefficient and thereby minimize the possibility of skid. The latter device is also the best protection against reverted rubber skidding. During a prolonged skid, the heat generated by the braking tire turns surface water into steam. Indications are that this steam is hot enough to melt the surface rubber. In any event, the tire effectively planes across the surface on a cushion of steam, leaving distinctive white streaks on the runway. The melted rubber fills the pores in the runway surface, making it extremely slick and therefore further compounding the problem. [ The author concludes the section by discussing the #1 preventive maintenance technique, namely correct pressure, and lists signs of tire damage--overall, a fascinating book!] -- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd From kls Wed Jan 6 01:06:30 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) Subject: Re: Tire burn-out during landings X-Submission-Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 20:31:04 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento) X-Submission-Message-Id: Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jan 93 01:06:30 PST In article , raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) writes: > > Tires have to be replaced more often than I personally might have > expected. My dad says that the Western Airlines record for most > landings between changing sets of tires was 283, and was held by > a DC-10. It would be interesting to know some statistics for > mean replacement frequency and cost, which have doubtless changed > some since he worked for Western. With tire pressures of 190 psi > and loading on the order of tens of thousands of pounds per tire, > not counting forces at touchdown, it figures that they won't be cheap. Something I found out since was that Western didn't own its tires, it leased them. I still haven't heard an actual cost, but billing was on a per-landing basis. Another footnote suggesting that tires are fairly expensive is that they were recapped as many as 10 times before being retired. ------------------ Paul Raveling Raveling@Unify.com From kls Wed Jan 6 01:06:30 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) Subject: Re: First Flights on airliners X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 01:04:59 CST Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9301060704.AA11070@couqusmungus.src.honeywell.co> Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jan 93 01:06:30 PST > I caught the tail-end of an episode of "First Flights," on the Arts & > Entertainment Network, which dealt with advanced-technology airliners, > Wednesday night. There were segments on the MD-12, the Fokker 100, and > the MD-80. I only saw about the last 8 minutes, so assume the A320 or A310, > and Boeing products, were featured in the first 20. I had set my VCR to record this while I was away over the Holidays. This episode was titled "Mass Transit in the Sky". It started by saying that just after commercial jet transport's infancy (707), the Europeans went for speed with the SST and the US went for size (principally the 747); and then the Europeans had to play catch up after making this mistake. It then discussed DC10, L1011, and A300 as wide bodies for airlines that couldn't use the 747 size. It then had a short discussion of the A320's envelope protection vs pilot control controversy. Immediately after that was MD11, which is the point at which you apparently tuned in. You didn't miss much. I also recorded the next week's episode, "By the Seat of Their Pants", about the pioneering (turn of the century) planes. From kls Wed Jan 6 01:06:31 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) Subject: Re: Aha! The three-man 767 rears its ugly head... X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:27:49 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central X-Submission-Message-Id: Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jan 93 01:06:31 PST KS> == Karl Swartz KS> They agreed that none of the United 767s have a three-person flight KS> deck, including the second 767 built (N601UA; the first is still with KS> Boeing) which one of the guys had been on recently. The aforementioned first 767 was last seen (by me anyway :) at Boeing Field, looking kinda lonely (it's been sitting there a fairly long time). Unfortunately I don't have anywhere near enough influence to get a look at the cockpit layout... Just for kicks, I looked it up in JP; here's the pertinent info. N767BA, Boeing 767-200 (that's right, 00, a reserved customer code), msn 22233, line number 1 (duh), built in '81, delivered 0981, uses a pair of PW JT9D-74RDs, configuration is listed as "prototype", and remarks are "Boeing Co./ US Army AOA program". The AOA (Airborne Optical Adjunct) program modifications include a "growth" along the top of the fuselage, with some sort of hatchway about where first class would have been. I'm not really familiar with the program and don't have a good back index of AvLeaks to look it up in... (Other notes on the 757/767: the 757 prototype, N757A, was sitting nearby; the AWACS version of the 767 is looking to be launched by Japan soon [see AWST 4 Jan 1993 pp 22-23]; UPS has launched the 767 cargo variant.) -- Christopher K. Davis | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or, EFF #14 | for the TV generation, Klingon) high command. System Administrator, EFF | Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.'' +1 617 864 0665 [CKD1] | --Peter da Silva From kls Wed Jan 6 04:26:38 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Aha! The three-man 767 rears its ugly head... X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:54:58 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-ID: <1993Jan6.105458.10801@ohare.Chicago.COM> Date: 06 Jan 93 04:26:38 PST In article ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes: >The aforementioned first 767 was last seen (by me anyway :) at Boeing >Field, looking kinda lonely (it's been sitting there a fairly long time). I'm surprised it's been that long -- I thought it had been involved with the AOA development fairly recently. >Unfortunately I don't have anywhere near enough influence to get a look at >the cockpit layout... Hmmm ... anyone else? >Just for kicks, I looked it up in JP; here's the pertinent info. >N767BA, Boeing 767-200 (that's right, 00, a reserved customer code) ... I thought that code interesting as well. The info I have says that 20 is supposed to be the code for Boeing itself, including prototypes. >Other notes on the 757/767: the 757 prototype, N757A, was sitting nearby It's supposed to become the flying testbed for the 777's fly-by-wire, er, fly-by-light system quite soon now. Were there any signs of activity? >the AWACS version of the 767 is looking to be launched by Japan soon I wonder if 767 #1 will be any sort of prototype for this program? >UPS has launched the 767 cargo variant. I wonder how different it will be? The 757-200 PF (Package Freight), also for UPS, is notable in being the highest MGTOW 757 (250,000 lbs. vs. 220,000 to 240,000 for the passenger variants) with correspondingly higher thrust engines. And FedEx's launch of the A300-600 cargo variant seemed to generate a surprising amount of attention ... -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Jan 6 04:26:40 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Martinair DC10 crash? X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:15:04 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-ID: <1993Jan6.111504.10951@ohare.Chicago.COM> Date: 06 Jan 93 04:26:40 PST In article van_heel@rz-berlin.mpg.de writes: >Martinair DC10 crash around 9.30 am in Portugal. > >According to a news broadcast which I heard at >10 o'clock this morning, a Martinair DC10 charter plane >had just crash-landed on a Portuguese airport with 322 passenger >aboard after being struck by lightning. The plane exploded >immediately after the unsuccesful crash-landing. Given the concerns when this newsgroup was formed over a flurry of crash-related speculation I'm surprised that there's been nothing further here regarding this crash. Maybe it's the holidays, or just not that interesting a crash. For those wondering, here's a bit of info, primarily from UPI (via ClariNet). The aircraft, a 15 year old DC-10-30(CF) due to be sold to the Dutch Air Force, broke in two after the left wing hit the ground just as or shortly after the main gear touched down at Faro Airport. The forward section remained largely intact but the aft section was destroyed by an explosion and fireball. Strong, gusting winds appear to be the most probable cause. Light- ning was not mentioned as a factor in any of the reports I read. Of 340 people on board (327 PAX and 13 crew) 54 were killed and over 260 were injured, 31 seriously. Identification of victims has been hampered by Martinair's incomplete passenger list. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Jan 6 04:26:41 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: brunnstein@rz.informatik.uni-hamburg.dbp.de Subject: A320 3-seaters X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 12:26:17 +0100 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <3293*/S=brunnstein/OU=rz/OU=informatik/PRMD=uni-hamburg/ADMD=dbp/C=de/@MHS> Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jan 93 04:26:41 PST Robert Dorsett recently requested information about the existence of some 3-seat A-310/-320's. I have contacted DASA (German Airbus) experts in North Germany. Here are details of the A-320 "3-seaters" (there have also been A-310 "3-seaters" but due to some misunderstanding, I have yet to get details). To clarify a possible misunderstanding, I interpret Robert's question as concerned with the *seats occupied by personnell* actively involved in flight management. Indeed, *every A-320 has at least 3 seats*, 2 for the pilot and a spare one (not used for active flight management personnel). But there a SEVERAL A-320 which are equipped with 4 sets, 3 of which are used by 2 pilots and one for a flight engineer (called OMN). Among others, the converted prototype (A-320 #2) and the machines A-320 #5,7,9 and 14 (and several others) in service for Air France have 4 seats and are controlled by 2 pilots and 1 OMM; this is due to requests of the French pilot's association. Such planes are equipped with special EFCS technology and have undergone a special registration procedure; but all of them can be converted to the normal 2-pilot version by replacing the EFCS (I hope to learn yet more about the difference). Besides Air France, Air India also flies such OMN-equipped A-320, which have also a different landing gear system. France's Air Inter and Lufthansa had also planned, due to similar requests of pilot unions, to fly such models but made last-minute arrangements with them and now fly 2-pilot versions. Information on A-310 will follow. I moreover try to learn more on the differen- ce between OMN-equipped and "normal" EFCS. Finally, one remark about my attempts to get Airbus experts involved in email discussion. First, French and German Airbus experts seem to use digital communi- cation "less" (if at all!) than there competitors in other parts of the world. Second, the "enterprise culture" is even less open than in other parts of this economic slot; when trying to get information about IT-related concepts and implementation, I often learned that "we are sure that our systems are safe but we can give you no details". Knowledge about basic EFCS concepts and problems seems restricted to French experts, and they seem to regard their knowledge as national wealth not sharable with non-French parts of there own enterprise!. Third, I understand that actually some organisational "re-arrangememts" are going on, which have also implications for availability of some experts. (But honestly, this may only be a "wrong assessment of a bloody outsider" -:) Nevertheless, I'll continue to make one expert available for international scientific information exchange via email. Klaus Brunnstein (January 6,1992) From kls Wed Jan 6 04:26:43 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Economics of new vs. older planes X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:33:22 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-ID: <1993Jan6.113322.11041@ohare.Chicago.COM> Date: 06 Jan 93 04:26:43 PST In article Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes: >In article drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: >>Unfortunately for 727 owners, they are stage two noise compliant. This >>means that they will no longer be allowed to operate in the domestic US >>after 2000 or so. Europe is much the same. This short economic life must >>be take into account before purchasing our hypothetical 727. >Can't they be made Stage III compliant with hush kits? Yes, but that adds a performance/fuel consumption penalty on top of that already paid for having a third engine as well as older and less efficient engines and wings. With fuel a major cost these days many airlines don't seem to find this all that attractive. >Also, either UPS or FedEx are reengining their 727s with Rolls-Royce Tays, >which are Stage III compliant and more fuel efficient than the JT8Ds to boot. UPS at least has them. The conversions are being done by Dee Howard and are fairly noticeable -- I saw one at San Antonio last summer. But as I recall the price-tag is in the $15 million range, nearly half the price of a brand-new replacement. When you figure that a typical 727 airframe has perhaps half of its economic life remaining this is starting to look like a dead heat. Now consider that three Tays are likely, though by no means certain, to use more fuel and require more maintenance expense. Another factor is crew -- all the potential 727 replacements have only two-person cockpits vs. three on the 727. I believe someone (perhaps Dee Howard) is offering a glass cockpit for the 727 in conjunction with a re-engining though this of course would add significantly to the cost, and so far I'm not aware of any having been so converted. Looking at the major passenger carriers, most seem to be voting for replacement and not upgrades. The only notable exception that comes to mind is that Delta recently ordered 15 hush kits for 727s used on the northeast shuttle service. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Jan 6 04:26:44 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Boeing link with Daimler-Benz on "jumbo jumbo?" X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:46:38 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-ID: <1993Jan6.114638.11137@ohare.Chicago.COM> Date: 06 Jan 93 04:26:44 PST Boeing said today (Tuesday) that it has held discussions with Daimler- Benz regarding development of a "jumbo jumbo" airliner that could carry as many as 800 passengers on long-range routes. Interesting to say the least since Daimler-Benz's aerospace subsidiary is Deutsche Airbus! Also mentioned were discussions about the aircraft with British Aerospace, also a member of the Airbus consortium. Seems like an interesting approach to dealing with Airbus' threat to build the plane if Boeing does too, despite there being insufficient market for two such aircraft (if indeed there's even an adequate market for one). Last time Boeing tried to play politics to defuse the Airbus threat (with the British and the 757) they didn't do too well, though. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Jan 6 14:37:16 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) Subject: Re: First Flights on airliners X-Submission-Date: 6 Jan 1993 13:27:11 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Western Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1iemnfINNdg4@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> Date: 06 Jan 93 14:37:16 PST driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) writes: >This episode was titled "Mass Transit in the Sky". It started by saying >that just after commercial jet transport's infancy (707), the Europeans >went for speed with the SST and the US went for size (principally the >747); and then the Europeans had to play catch up after making this mistake. Huh? The SST was a US project, and the Europeans started the Jet Race, it's the US that played catch-up, If Boeing would have been first they would have had the joy of discovering Metal fatigue and then De Havilland would have cleaned up the world marker...alas it was vice versa. From kls Wed Jan 6 14:37:17 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: dme5907@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (David M. Eklund) Subject: Re: Aha! The three-man 767 rears its ugly head... X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:22:04 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 06 Jan 93 14:37:17 PST In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >In article ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes: >>Other notes on the 757/767: the 757 prototype, N757A, was sitting nearby > >It's supposed to become the flying testbed for the 777's fly-by-wire, >er, fly-by-light system quite soon now. Were there any signs of >activity? Due to extensive modification from the YF-22 program on N757A the decision was made to take a 757 off the production line for a flying testbed of the 777's flight control laws. It successfully completed its tests a couple of months ago and will now be modified again and sold to its respective customer. -- David Eklund | In no way, shape, form, size, structure, System(no s) Engineer | magnitude, configuration, or conformation Boeing Commercial Airplane Group | is my opinion that of Boeing's From kls Wed Jan 6 14:37:18 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: gary@maestro.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga) Subject: Re: The Len Morgan Collection X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:04:05 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: gbisaga@mitre.org Organization: The Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan6.220405.15377@linus.mitre.org> Date: 06 Jan 93 14:37:18 PST In article , rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: |> I ran across an advert in the latest _Airliners_. Seems that Len Morgan's |> daughter is selling a whole bunch of aviation-related memorabilia. |> ... |> For those who are unaware, Len Morgan writes a column in FLYING. He's also |> written a variety of books. Pick up the, I believe, October edition of Flying, and read Morgan's column. He talks about how he and his family started their little writing/publishing/collecting/etc. business, with him writing the first book, a reference on the P-51. He then branched out to other WW2 fighters, then other military planes, then finally to alot of different types of planes. Interesting article, as his articles always are. -- Gary Bisaga (gbisaga@mitre.org) From kls Wed Jan 6 15:01:19 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Aha! The three-man 767 rears its ugly head... X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:42:42 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-ID: <1993Jan6.224242.12504@ohare.Chicago.COM> Date: 06 Jan 93 15:01:19 PST In article dme5907@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (David M. Eklund) writes: >Due to extensive modification from the YF-22 program on N757A the decision >was made to take a 757 off the production line for a flying testbed >of the 777's flight control laws. It successfully completed its tests >a couple of months ago and will now be modified again and sold to its >respective customer. Ah! Is there anything else in the works for N757A, then, or is it just parked until something new comes along? And, the $64,000 question, *which* production 757 was used for the tests? 8-) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Jan 6 15:01:21 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: First Flights on airliners X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:59:34 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-ID: <1993Jan6.225934.12649@ohare.Chicago.COM> Date: 06 Jan 93 15:01:21 PST In article gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes: >driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) writes: >>This episode was titled "Mass Transit in the Sky". It started by saying >>that just after commercial jet transport's infancy (707), the Europeans >>went for speed with the SST and the US went for size (principally the >>747); and then the Europeans had to play catch up after making this mistake. >Huh? The SST was a US project, and the Europeans started the Jet Race, it's the >US that played catch-up, If Boeing would have been first they would have had >the joy of discovering Metal fatigue and then De Havilland would have cleaned >up the world marker...alas it was vice versa. At the time I believe SST was a generic term for a super-sonic transport. Obviously the episode is referring to Concorde. As for the rest, I suspect most would agree that the 707 marked the real beginning of the jet transport's "infancy;" de Havilland's Comet was most assuredly a significant contributor but even before the metal fatigue problems came up was really more an "embryonic" stage, if you want to stick with the wording. Range and capacity limits kept it from really igniting the jet transport market. It's interesting to speculate what would have happened had Boeing gone first. Given the round windows of the Stratoliner Boeing might never have run into the fatigue problem. If they had, I suspect Douglas would have been in a far better position than de Havilland to jump in and clean up, assuming they hadn't jumped *too* quickly. Perhaps Lockheed as well, had they not spent their momentum from the Connie on a turboprop. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Jan 6 23:56:42 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: gary@maestro.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga) Subject: Re: Everything you wanted to know about tires, and were afraid to ask... X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:19:17 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: gbisaga@mitre.org Organization: The Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan6.221917.15933@linus.mitre.org> Date: 06 Jan 93 23:56:42 PST In article , rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: |> The following is from _Landing Gear Design Handbook_, by Norman S. |> Currey, January 1982 ... |> ... For further reading on |> this subject, reference should be made to "Prerotation of Landing |> Gear Wheels," by H.F. Schippel, SAE Journal, Volume 52, No. 10, |> October 1944 ... |> ... From SAE Journal, December 1963 ... Typical usenet discussion, eh? We go on for days while the answers were provided 10, 30, and 50 years ago. <:^) -- Gary Bisaga (gbisaga@mitre.org) From kls Wed Jan 6 23:56:44 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) Subject: Re: Aha! The three-man 767 rears its ugly head... X-Submission-Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:33:12 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 06 Jan 93 23:56:44 PST KS> == Karl Swartz ckd> The aforementioned first 767 was last seen (by me anyway :) at Boeing ckd> Field, looking kinda lonely (it's been sitting there a fairly long time). KS> I'm surprised it's been that long -- I thought it had been involved KS> with the AOA development fairly recently. Well, it's been there the last few times I've been up to BFI, going back to at least December 1990 (I remember because I was looking at it and fell on my rear end due to an icy parking lot at the Museum of Flight :). Of course, I just could have been there on the days it wasn't flying, but it never seemed to have moved at all. ckd> N767BA, Boeing 767-200 (that's right, 00, a reserved customer code) ... KS> I thought that code interesting as well. The info I have says that 20 KS> is supposed to be the code for Boeing itself, including prototypes. They've probably changed that since the 707 days, rightly (IMHO) deciding that it made more sense for the prototype to be the 7x7-x00. ckd> Other notes on the 757/767: the 757 prototype, N757A, was sitting nearby KS> It's supposed to become the flying testbed for the 777's fly-by-wire, KS> er, fly-by-light system quite soon now. Were there any signs of KS> activity? Nothing at the time, but the fact that it was there when it hadn't been before was a sign in and of itself. ckd> the AWACS version of the 767 is looking to be launched by Japan soon KS> I wonder if 767 #1 will be any sort of prototype for this program? AvLeak didn't say, but it didn't sound like there were any plans to prototype it; the first two airframes would presumably be used as "deliverable prototypes" much as the 747-400 test planes were. The planes will be pretty much stock, sent to Wichita for strengthening of the rear fuselage and other modifications, then returned to Seattle for the electronics. Of course, this all assumes that the procurement passes the Japanese Diet. (I don't remember which of the N books about Boeing I read this in, but during testing of the 767's wing strength, they never found out how strong it really was; at 117% (or so, don't remember the exact number) of rated strength, the fuselage gave way. I'll try to find where I read it.) -- Christopher K. Davis | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or, EFF #14 | for the TV generation, Klingon) high command. System Administrator, EFF | Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.'' +1 617 864 0665 [CKD1] | --Peter da Silva From kls Thu Jan 7 13:17:49 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: dseelema@zeus.UWaterloo.ca (Alek Seelemann) Subject: Re: First Flights on airliners X-Submission-Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:57:06 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Waterloo Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-ID: Date: 07 Jan 93 13:17:49 PST In sci.aeronautics.airliners article you wrote: > Huh? The SST was a US project, and the Europeans started the Jet Race, it's the > US that played catch-up, If Boeing would have been first they would have had > the joy of discovering Metal fatigue and then De Havilland would have cleaned > up the world marker...alas it was vice versa. DeHavilland was aware of metal fatigue. Why the heck they designed square windows (sharp corners == stress concentration == engineering no-no #1) is a mystery. Boeing cleaned up because the 707 was so over-designed it could (and did, once) perform barrel rolls. Very confidence inspiring! From kls Thu Jan 7 13:17:51 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: thumper@engin.umich.edu (Bob Topping) Subject: Re: Aha! The three-man 767 rears its ugly head... X-Submission-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 14:46:44 EST References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-ID: <8kd=xb_@engin.umich.edu> Date: 07 Jan 93 13:17:51 PST > >AvLeak didn't say, but it didn't sound like there were any plans to >prototype it; the first two airframes would presumably be used as >"deliverable prototypes" much as the 747-400 test planes were. The planes >will be pretty much stock, sent to Wichita for strengthening of the rear >fuselage and other modifications, then returned to Seattle for the >electronics. Of course, this all assumes that the procurement passes the >Japanese Diet. > >(I don't remember which of the N books about Boeing I read this in, but >during testing of the 767's wing strength, they never found out how strong >it really was; at 117% (or so, don't remember the exact number) of rated >strength, the fuselage gave way. I'll try to find where I read it.) > I think it may have been in _Legend & Legacy: The Story of Boeing and Its People_. It the most recent Boeing book I've read, and I remember that story fairly well. Even if its not, its still an excellent book to read. Take it along on your next flight! :) Just found the reference: Pg. 391, _L&L_ The 767 emerged from a tremendous amount of wind tunnel work; it was what [Dean] Thornton called a "clean paper" airplane--everything started from scratch. One of the de- sign's chief virtues was the potential growth built into the airplane; the wing, huge for the plane's overall size, was structurally so powerful that the static destruction test failed to break it. The wing went far beyond the 100 percent of design load limit, and it was not the wing that failed but the aft fuselage near the area of a rear cargo door. "We extrapolated from that test all the data we needed to assure us the airplane had tremendous growth potential," Ben Cosgrove remembered. "We never did find out how much it would take to break the wing--the static test ended when the rear fuselage broke, and we decided to use the wing for other test purposes." -- @ "Our lives are better left to chance; **** PLEASE! E-Mail to: @ @ I could have missed the pain, but **** bob.topping@um.cc.umich.edu @ @ I'd have had to miss the dance." **** phy_astrclub@emunix.emich.edu @ @ Garth Brooks, The Dance. @>-,'-- **** :::RETURN OUR HURON!::: @ From kls Thu Jan 7 13:17:52 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: dseelema@zeus.UWaterloo.ca (Alek Seelemann) Subject: Re: First Flights on airliners X-Submission-Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:57:06 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Waterloo Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-ID: Date: 07 Jan 93 13:17:52 PST In sci.aeronautics.airliners article you wrote: > Huh? The SST was a US project, and the Europeans started the Jet Race, it's the > US that played catch-up, If Boeing would have been first they would have had > the joy of discovering Metal fatigue and then De Havilland would have cleaned > up the world marker...alas it was vice versa. DeHavilland was aware of metal fatigue. Why the heck they designed square windows (sharp corners == stress concentration == engineering no-no #1) is a mystery. Boeing cleaned up because the 707 was so over-designed it could (and did, once) perform barrel rolls. Very confidence inspiring! From kls Thu Jan 7 13:17:54 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: thumper@engin.umich.edu (Bob Topping) Subject: Re: Aha! The three-man 767 rears its ugly head... X-Submission-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 14:46:44 EST References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-ID: <8kd=xb_@engin.umich.edu> Date: 07 Jan 93 13:17:54 PST > >AvLeak didn't say, but it didn't sound like there were any plans to >prototype it; the first two airframes would presumably be used as >"deliverable prototypes" much as the 747-400 test planes were. The planes >will be pretty much stock, sent to Wichita for strengthening of the rear >fuselage and other modifications, then returned to Seattle for the >electronics. Of course, this all assumes that the procurement passes the >Japanese Diet. > >(I don't remember which of the N books about Boeing I read this in, but >during testing of the 767's wing strength, they never found out how strong >it really was; at 117% (or so, don't remember the exact number) of rated >strength, the fuselage gave way. I'll try to find where I read it.) > I think it may have been in _Legend & Legacy: The Story of Boeing and Its People_. It the most recent Boeing book I've read, and I remember that story fairly well. Even if its not, its still an excellent book to read. Take it along on your next flight! :) Just found the reference: Pg. 391, _L&L_ The 767 emerged from a tremendous amount of wind tunnel work; it was what [Dean] Thornton called a "clean paper" airplane--everything started from scratch. One of the de- sign's chief virtues was the potential growth built into the airplane; the wing, huge for the plane's overall size, was structurally so powerful that the static destruction test failed to break it. The wing went far beyond the 100 percent of design load limit, and it was not the wing that failed but the aft fuselage near the area of a rear cargo door. "We extrapolated from that test all the data we needed to assure us the airplane had tremendous growth potential," Ben Cosgrove remembered. "We never did find out how much it would take to break the wing--the static test ended when the rear fuselage broke, and we decided to use the wing for other test purposes." -- @ "Our lives are better left to chance; **** PLEASE! E-Mail to: @ @ I could have missed the pain, but **** bob.topping@um.cc.umich.edu @ @ I'd have had to miss the dance." **** phy_astrclub@emunix.emich.edu @ @ Garth Brooks, The Dance. @>-,'-- **** :::RETURN OUR HURON!::: @ From kls Thu Jan 7 13:17:55 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: mikeh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (michael p.herlihy) Subject: Re: First Flights on airliners X-Submission-Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:23:12 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan7.162312.19970@cbfsb.cb.att.com> Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 93 13:17:55 PST In article gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes: >driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) writes: > >>This episode was titled "Mass Transit in the Sky". It started by saying >>that just after commercial jet transport's infancy (707), the Europeans >>went for speed with the SST and the US went for size (principally the >>747); and then the Europeans had to play catch up after making this mistake. > >Huh? The SST was a US project, and the Europeans started the Jet Race, it's the >US that played catch-up, If Boeing would have been first they would have had >the joy of discovering Metal fatigue and then De Havilland would have cleaned >up the world marker...alas it was vice versa. > I think Canada was the first to develop a commercial jet airliner... However, it was the project was killed off by the government... -- It (the telephone) will unmake our work. No greater instrument of counter- revolution and conspiracy can be imagined --- Josef Vissarvonovich Stalin From kls Thu Jan 7 13:17:57 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: First Flights on airliners References: -1 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 93 13:17:57 PST mikeh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (michael p.herlihy) writes: >I think Canada was the first to develop a commercial jet airliner... > >However, it was the project was killed off by the government... You're undoubtedly thinking of the A.V. Roe Canada Ltd (Avro) C102 Jetliner. It missed the honors of first jetliner by less than a month -- de Havilland's Comet first flew on July 27, 1949, while the Jetliner's maiden flight was August 10, 1949. The aircraft was designed for short- to medium-range routes, maybe a 0th generation DC-9 or 737, though I don't have any more detailed performance numbers. In any case, the Canadian government ordered Avro to cease work on the aircraft during the early fifties to concentrate on the CF-105 Arrow fighter for the Korean War, much to the chagrin of Howard Hughes, who wanted to buy Jetlines for TWA. There's an article on Hughes and the Jetliner in the Fall 1990 issue of Airliners, though it's more anecdotes about Hughes than about the aircraft. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Jan 7 22:03:35 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: dtl8v@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Heracleitus) Subject: Plessey Avionics X-Submission-Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:58:37 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Virginia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-ID: <1993Jan7.215837.23343@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Date: 07 Jan 93 22:03:35 PST Does anyone know the E-mail address, if any, or uucp address, of Plessey Avionics, Havant, Hampshire, UK? It is no relation to Plessey Telecom (gpt.co.uk), I've found, at least in mail terms. Any help would be appreciated. Doug Lamb University of Virginia dtl8v@Virginia.EDU From kls Thu Jan 7 22:03:38 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) Subject: Re: Aha! The three-man 767 rears its ugly head... X-Submission-Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:05:04 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan8.000504.13073@src.honeywell.com> Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 93 22:03:38 PST In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > >It's supposed to become the flying testbed for the 777's fly-by-wire, >er, fly-by-light system quite soon now. Unless something has change very recently, it is fly-by-wire. The only fiber optics (FO) on the 777 is the non-essential ARINC 636 OLAN (FDDI). The proposal for an FO prox system died. From kls Thu Jan 7 22:03:38 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) Subject: Re: Boeing link with Daimler-Benz on "jumbo jumbo?" X-Submission-Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:14:58 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan8.001458.13702@src.honeywell.com> Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 93 22:03:38 PST In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >Boeing said today (Tuesday) that it has held discussions with Daimler- >Benz regarding development of a "jumbo jumbo" airliner that could >carry as many as 800 passengers on long-range routes. Interesting to >say the least since Daimler-Benz's aerospace subsidiary is Deutsche >Airbus! The BBC World Service reported today that the head of Airbus says they have been talking to Boeing, appearenly independently from their Deutsche subsidiary. The BBC speculated that this might be a Boeing ploy "to drive a wedge between the partners". From kls Fri Jan 8 01:30:30 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) Subject: Re: McDonnell Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices X-Submission-Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:07:37 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan8.020737.21004@src.honeywell.com> Date: 08 Jan 93 01:30:30 PST In article rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: > >"The reason for the warning, said McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company, > ... >"These devices, says the company, 'include, but are not limited to,' >citizen-band radios, cellular telephones, transmitters that remotely >control devices such as toys, and portable compact disc players. > ... >"Examples of these nontransmitting devices are audio and video >recorders and playback devices, electronic games, computers and >peripheral devices, calculators, FM receivers, televisions, and >electric shavers. It is very strange that CD players are considered transmitters whereas devices with local IF stages are not. Do you suppose in their hunt for a scapegoat that all they could find was a CD player? Also, I bet there are some electric shavers that generate much more EMI than any of the other above mention devices. Current opinions vary about how much EMI an avionics system is protected against, but 200 v/m is a typical number. One would not expect the above devices to produce such levels. RF getting into the radio nav aids is another matter, but that wouldn't cause a transient change in aircraft attitude anyway. Unless there is more to this story, this looks like a case of the ignorant pulling a demon out of their hat. From kls Fri Jan 8 01:30:33 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) Subject: Re: First Flights on airliners X-Submission-Date: 8 Jan 1993 06:08:56 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1ij5poINN2un@bigboote.WPI.EDU> Date: 08 Jan 93 01:30:33 PST In article dseelema@zeus.UWaterloo.ca (Alek Seelemann) writes: >no-no #1) is a mystery. Boeing cleaned up because the 707 was so >over-designed it could (and did, once) perform barrel rolls. Very >confidence inspiring! OK, actually that was the prototype 367-80 that rolled on a demo flight, I believe the pilot was Tex Johnson.. Of course it seems impressive, but it is more pilot skill. A well designed, not necessarily over-designed, airframe can barrel roll. Propperly done it is a 1g manauever. It looks fantastic, but it isn't really that much of a demonstration. I've seen films of helicopters, I mean big cargo choppers, barrel rolling. It is more a measure of the pilot than the plane. Of course it is still a good selling point since most people don't know the physics... Now, an aerleron roll would be impressive... ############################################################################### # I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think! # #Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime# ############################################################################### From kls Fri Jan 8 12:59:12 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: barr@ash.mmm.ucar.EDU (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: McDonnel Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices X-Submission-Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 7:47:27 MST References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9301081447.AA22409@walnut.mmm.ucar.edu> Date: 08 Jan 93 12:59:12 PST In article Kevin Driscoll writes: > Current opinions vary about how much EMI an avionics system is protected > against, but 200 v/m is a typical number. One would not expect the > above devices to produce such levels. RF getting into the radio nav aids > is another matter, but that wouldn't cause a transient change in aircraft > attitude anyway. Unless there is more to this story, this looks like a > case of the ignorant pulling a demon out of their hat. Wouldn't there be a change in attitude if the autopilot was engaged, which it obviously was, and if the navigation equipment was disturbed by RF? For example, if you are flying a heading of 090 to hold the 270 degree radial to the station, and someone in back turns on their super-powered Sony Nav-Mess 1000 CD player, the nav equipment, may sense that the aircraft is now on the 280 degree radial, and the autopilot would command a turn to the right to correct the situation. I am not saying this is what happened, but it is possible. I don't remember how much bank was introduced, but I would think, however, that the amount of bank the autopilot is allowed would be limited to 30 degrees or so. _____________________________ _____ | Keith Barr \ \ K \__ _____ | barr@ncar.ucar.edu \___________\ \/_______\___\_____________ | Comm/AS&MEL/Inst/IGI / < /_/ ..................... `-. |_____________________________/ `-----------,----,--------------' When you think how well basic appliances work, it's _/____/ hard to believe anyone ever gets on an airplane.--Calvin From kls Fri Jan 8 12:59:15 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: Helen Trillian Rose Subject: Re: Boeing link with Daimler-Benz on "jumbo jumbo?" X-Submission-Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:12:42 -0500 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <199301081612.AA06390@rocza.eff.org> Date: 08 Jan 93 12:59:15 PST Kevin> == Kevin Driscoll Kevin> In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >Boeing said today (Tuesday) that it has held discussions with Daimler- >Benz regarding development of a "jumbo jumbo" airliner that could >carry as many as 800 passengers on long-range routes. Interesting to >say the least since Daimler-Benz's aerospace subsidiary is Deutsche >Airbus! Kevin> The BBC World Service reported today that the head of Airbus Kevin> says they have been talking to Boeing, appearenly independently Kevin> from their Deutsche subsidiary. The BBC speculated that this Kevin> might be a Boeing ploy "to drive a wedge between the partners". Actually, I heard (I think it was either on CNN-Headline News or read it on Clarinet) that Boeing had talked to both British Aerospace and Daimler-Benz/Deutsche Airbus, but *hadn't* talked to Aerospatiale (sp?, in any case, the French). Which countries have partnerships in Airbus? In any case, Germany, France, and England are the main partners (I believe). It's very interesting *which* two Boeing talked to. Perhaps it says something to where Boeing thinks the "blame" for the non-kosher business practices comes from. --Helen -- Helen Trillian Rose Electronic Frontier Foundation email eff@eff.org for EFF Info Kapor Enterprises, Inc. Flames to: Systems and Networks Administration women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org From kls Sat Jan 9 02:24:58 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) Subject: Stratocruiser (was: First Flights on airliners) X-Submission-Date: 9 Jan 1993 00:15:06 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Reply-To: Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1il5eaINNt6f@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> Date: 09 Jan 93 02:24:58 PST dseelema@zeus.UWaterloo.ca (Alek Seelemann) writes: >DeHavilland was aware of metal fatigue. Why the heck they designed >square windows (sharp corners == stress concentration == engineering >no-no #1) is a mystery. Speaking of round vs. square windows, I noticed that all versions of the Boeing Stratocruiser had circular windows except those operated by Northwest and United. Was there a technical reason for this? (I have the impression that these were later models than, say, the Pan Am and BOAC ships.) Or was the window shape changed because of customer preference, to give the passengers a better view on those long overwater trips? :) Geoff -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Menlo Park, California -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- From kls Sat Jan 9 02:25:00 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: Robert Dorsett Subject: Re: Boeing link with Daimler-Benz on "jumbo jumbo?" X-Submission-Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 23:11:21 CST Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 09 Jan 93 02:25:00 PST In Helen Trillian Rose wrote: >Actually, I heard (I think it was either on CNN-Headline News or read it >on Clarinet) that Boeing had talked to both British Aerospace and >Daimler-Benz/Deutsche Airbus, but *hadn't* talked to Aerospatiale (sp?, >in any case, the French). Another slant on this issue is they see how expensive this airplane can to be, how tenuous the market can be, and are extending feelers on a cooperative venture. Airbus can afford to risk $7 billion on an air- plane that won't turn a profit: Boeing can't. A cooperative measure would be in both companies' interests. >Which countries have partnerships in Airbus? >In any case, Germany, France, and England are the main partners (I >believe). The countries, their shares in the Consortium, and their major national players, are as follows: France: 37.9% share. Aerospatiale, state company. Germany: 37.9% share. Deutsche Airbus, owned by Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm. England: 20% share. British Aerospace, 48.43% owned by the British government. Spain: 4.2%. CASA, state company. Netherlands: associate partner, Fokker. Belgium: associate partner, Belairbus. All this is just the tip of the corporate iceberg, though: Airbus as a corporate entity is more a holding company than anything else: work is done by the principal contractors, who in turn have a massive web of sub- contractors. Approval of projects, as well as funding, is secured at the governmental level, not the corporate level. -- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd From kls Sat Jan 9 13:27:18 1993 Xref: ohare news.announce.newgroups:544 news.groups:8211 sci.aeronautics:1611 sci.aeronautics.airliners:250 sci.military:9 sci.physics:355 rec.aviation.misc:1224 rec.models.rc:36 Path: ditka!unixhub!linac!uwm.edu!caen!uunet!bounce-back From: Robert Dorsett Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.military,sci.engr.control,sci.engr.mech,sci.physics,rec.aviation.misc,rec.models.rc Subject: RFD: sci.aeronautics moderation Followup-To: news.groups Date: 9 Jan 1993 13:27:18 -0500 Organization: ics.utexas.edu Lines: 159 Sender: tale@rodan.UU.NET Approved: tale@uunet.uu.net Message-ID: <1in5e6INN1qq@rodan.UU.NET> NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net This is a proposal to change the status of sci.aeronautics to that of a moderated group. History ------- Sci.aeronautics was created in mid-1989. It was chartered to serve as a discussion-group on aerodynamics, structures, propulsion, and human factors. The term "aeronautics," which is somewhat archaic, was explicity chosen to give it a broad, "technological" feel, rather than a specific disciplinary one. It was created before the sci.engr hierarchy was established. Sci.aeronautics was created with sci.military in mind. Sci.military was one of the first "high-quality," non-comp groups. With the detailed professional and amateur knowledge there, and the discussions, which often went into much more detail on fighter aerodynamics than ever existed on rec.aviation, it was reasonable to assume that the time was ripe for a dedicated aero group. There was concern during that RFD that the group should be moderated, in order to control noise. After much debate, the group was offered as unmoderated. During the first year and a half sci.aeronautics worked out very well. The Problem ----------- During the original RFD, Eugene Miya made a comment that he'd support the group, but that it would be a failure, for the simple reason that few professional aero types would post in public. There are many reasons for this, ranging from fears of giving other countries or companies the slightest edge, to fears of professional embarassment. But the point is, by and large, he's been RIGHT: only a few, particularly outspoken people comment in public. The rest are "lurkers." Despite this handicap, in the first year, the group did well. Since late 1990, however, the group has become increasingly "noisy." Threads such as a 50-post burst this year, on whether George Bush actually rode in an SR-71 during the 1980 Presidential campaign, exemplify this. Posts and questions have tended to be less specific, and more "trivia-based." All of this has been alienating long-time users, including many aero professionals and students, who had early on been frequent contributors. During the discussion period for the rec.aviation re-organization and the airliners sub-group, I received many comments from people who said they had unsubscribed from sci.aero, because it had simply become unreadable: a waste of their time. Even in public, people occasionally post messages asking legitimate questions or seeking to discuss issues, but prefacing their posts with apologies if such posts are *inappropriate*, since so much of the regular traffic is off-base. In a sci group, I think we expect a certain standard. "Naive" questions have an honored place in the group, but when the entire group becomes an "oracle," a Q&A session, which presupposes enough people will be out there to play "oracle," (and I suspect there aren't), something is lost. It becomes a so-so information resource, rather than a discussion-group, which was what it was originally intended to be. We don't need to be "professionals" to discuss this stuff seriously: but a certain "ambience" must be maintained, so as not to *discourage* people from taking the group seriously. It was the lack of this "ambience," I believe, which induced Geoff Peck to offer his *rec* theory group, during the rec.aviation re-organization, this summer. Possible Solutions ------------------ How do we "fix" the problem? Several options: 1. The most simple, straightforward way is to get people to post more seriously, try to get discussions started. Very difficult to get this to work. 2. Issue "netiquette" style posts, including the group's charter, on a frequent basis. This could work, but these tend to rub people (including myself) the wrong way: too dictatorial. 3. Create a "theory" group within sci.aeronautics, which would be moderated, and a "regular" group, which wouldn't. The main problem I have with this is charters: the current charter for sci.aero is quite "theoretical" as it is, and it's difficult to envision a "misc" category, "none of the above." In my opinion, sub-groups should be case studies (e.g., airliners), or specialties (CFD, GPS), based on the charter. 4. Do nothing. Hope the recent "unevenness" is a temporary thing, and go on with life. The problem is, I (and others) have been waiting for things to straighten out since at least the summer of 1991, and they haven't. The situation has gotten much worse since the Bush thread this summer. 5. Change the main group to a moderated status. This is probably the "best" way to deal with the problem: it ensures that completely inappropriate posts get redirected to where they belong (e.g., fighter-tactics on sci.military, airliners on sci.aeronautics.airliners, general aviation flying questions to rec.aviation). More importantly, though, it would cut down on repetition, and, hopefully, ensure that message-thread "morphism" be reflected by more appropriate Subject: headers. Would moderation tend to eliminate all "naive" posts? I don't think so, with sci.aeronautics.airliners as a good example: Karl Swartz has been rejecting about 20-25% of submissions, but the resulting group has been a good balance of discussion, theory, and "nice to know" traffic. The key here is to maintain the relevance of all accepted posts, and to help maintain a high signal by eliminating repetitiousness or polemic. Is moderation desirable in sci.aero's case? I think it is. The purpose of this RFD is to discuss whether to create a theory group, or attempt to remove the main group, and replace it with a new, moderated group. I'm open to suggestions. But I would like to make clear that I'm not necessarily seeking to create a "scholarly" group. My intent is to return it to at least its early form, where both "amateurs" and "pros" alike seemed to take it a bit more seriously. I would also emphasize that it remains a popular group with many people, and that the changes are not intended to alienate them: merely to involve more qualified people in the group, which will be for the benefit of all concerned. The airliners group is a good example of what is possible: consider the explosion of relevant, informal posts from people with industry exper- ience at Boeing and Honeywell: many of these were lurkers on sci.aero, but never participated. There is a wealth of human experience out there: with the right forum, I believe people are more likely to participate. Mary Shafer has agreed to serve as moderator. My role would be to serve as an "administrative" moderator; I could also serve as a backup moderator, if needed. If additional moderators should be necessary, to cope with traffic load, personal vacations, burn-out, machine problems, etc., they could be added as needed. If, within 30 days, it is still felt that there is a need to change the group, and there's a consensus on which changes are necessary, I will issue a call-for-votes. To minimize "procedural" bickering, this proposal will take the form of the complete new newsgroup voting process, including a standard-length RFD and CFV, and will be subject to the rules in David Lawrence's guidelines (November 30th revision). There are no univerally accepted rules on changing a newsgroup's status, so this seems the best way to proceed. Please direct ALL follow-ups to news.groups, as per creation guidelines. -- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd From kls Mon Jan 11 01:38:41 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: weiss@ada.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) Subject: Re: McDonnell Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices X-Submission-Date: 11 Jan 93 03:50:23 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9058@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> Date: 11 Jan 93 01:38:41 PST In article driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) writes: >>"These devices, says the company, 'include, but are not limited to,' >>citizen-band radios, cellular telephones, transmitters that remotely >>control devices such as toys, and portable compact disc players. > >Current opinions vary about how much EMI an avionics system is protected >against, but 200 v/m is a typical number. One would not expect the >above devices to produce such levels. Well, I just got back from Boston on a B757 (the first narrow-body aircraft I have flown in that had an in-flight movie!), and this obnoxious ~9-year-old kid was running his remote-control car down the aisles until a flight attendant told him to put it away. I wonder if it caused any interference in the cabin. Certainly there was no attitude adjustment (and the kid sure could have used one...), so it doesn't appear that it affects the controls. -- \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | / - Michael weiss@seas.ucla.edu | School of Engineering & Applied Science - - Weiss izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu | University of California, Los Angeles - / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \ From kls Mon Jan 11 16:09:55 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: morse@mprgate.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse) Subject: Do DC-9s exhibit a nose-down attitude under power? X-Submission-Date: 11 Jan 93 13:50:54 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, BC, Canada. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 11 Jan 93 16:09:55 PST I have been told (by someone who had a lengthy career maintaining large military transport aircraft) that the DC-9 family of airliners exhibit a nose-down attitude under power. This supposed behaviour is attributed to the angle at which the engines are (or appear to be) canted. At the outset, I have to admit that I find it somewhat improbable that an aircraft would have that characteristic built in, at least if it is pronounced. The inlets do appear to be somewhat higher than the outlets, but at the same time, the outlets appear to be aimed parallel to the fuselage. Is that just an appearance or is it a result of the nacelle or the engine actually being canted upward at the inlet? Was that done to place the inlets in less turbulent airflow? Does all of this result in a tendency to nose-down under power? If so: Is it a pronounced behaviour? Have any "mishaps" ever been attributed to this behaviour? Why was the aircraft designed in that manner? If not, then disregard above questions. Thanks. -- Daryl Morse | Voice : (604) 293-5476 MPR Teltech Ltd. | Fax : (604) 293-5787 8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC | E-Mail : morse@mpr.ca Canada, V5A 4B5 | : mprgate.mpr.ca!morse@uunet.uu.net From kls Mon Jan 11 16:09:58 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) Subject: Re: McDonnel Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices X-Submission-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 20:40:30 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <3ova28u@Unify.Com> Date: 11 Jan 93 16:09:58 PST In article , barr@ash.mmm.ucar.EDU (Keith Barr) writes: > In article Kevin Driscoll writes: > > Wouldn't there be a change in attitude if the autopilot was engaged, > which it obviously was, and if the navigation equipment was disturbed by RF? > For example, if you are flying a heading of 090 to hold the 270 degree > radial to the station, and someone in back turns on their super-powered > Sony Nav-Mess 1000 CD player, the nav equipment, may sense that the > aircraft is now on the 280 degree radial, and the autopilot would command > a turn to the right to correct the situation. This is almost exactly the circumstance that I'd expect to cause an unexpected bank. The only difference is that I'd suspect a high probability that the erroneous radial indication would be a fair bit more than 10 degrees off. Does anyone have research results near their fingertips for tests of various electronic devices in airliner cabins? ------------------ Paul Raveling Raveling@Unify.com From kls Wed Jan 13 01:30:19 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: morse@mprgate.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse) Subject: Re: Do DC-9s exhibit a nose-down attitude under power? X-Submission-Date: 12 Jan 93 09:44:14 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, BC, Canada. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 13 Jan 93 01:30:19 PST I received the following email reply to my post and the author asked me to post it... Daryl Morse | Voice : (604) 293-5476 MPR Teltech Ltd. | Fax : (604) 293-5787 8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC | E-Mail : morse@mpr.ca Canada, V5A 4B5 | : mprgate.mpr.ca!morse@uunet.uu.net Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 11:56:08 -0500 From: sharpes@c-17igp.wpafb.af.mil (Civ Daniel G. Sharpes) Return-Path: To: morse@mprgate.mpr.ca Subject: Re: Do DC-9s exhibit a nose-down attitude under power? Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners References: In sci.aeronautics.airliners you write: >I have been told (by someone who had a lengthy career maintaining >large military transport aircraft) that the DC-9 family of airliners >exhibit a nose-down attitude under power. This supposed behaviour is >attributed to the angle at which the engines are (or appear to be) >canted. I have flown on many DC-9s and have not noticed the nose-down attitude you describe. I question the engine cant angle causing it. In steady, level flight, the pitch attitude equals the angle of attack. If an aircraft was flying nose-down, it's because the wing would generate too much lift for level (constant altitude) flight at nose-level or -up attitudes. An example of this would be putting out the flaps near the max flap speed limit. In that case, I would expect to fly nose-down. The B-52 on takeoff and approach is a good example of flying nose-down (although I don't mean to imply B-52s are near their max flap speeds during those manuevers!). > At the outset, I have to admit that I find it somewhat improbable >that an aircraft would have that characteristic built in, at least if >it is pronounced. One reason the engines might be canted could be to minimize trim drag. This is a bit far fetched, though, because there are so many other factors that influence trim drag that thrust angle is, IMHO, a secondary consideration. (I'm only applying this to high-speed cruise conditions.) >to the fuselage. Is that just an appearance or is it a result of the >nacelle or the engine actually being canted upward at the inlet? Was >that done to place the inlets in less turbulent airflow? The nacelle inlets were most likely canted upward to optimize inlet performance. Designers want the air going into the nacelle to be turned as little as possible. The more the air flow is turned, the more likely it is to separate. This is just as true for inlet lips as it is for wing leading edges. Since the inlets are located about 1.5 diameters behind the trailing edge of the wing root, the air flow will have been turned by the wing - downwash. If I had to guess, I'd say the inlets are optimized for cruise downwash conditions with the landing/takeoff downwash falling within the design tolerances. BTW, if you look closely at the transports with engines under their wings, you'll see the engines are canted inward (by about 2 - 4 degrees). This accounts for the effect the fuselage and sweptback wing has on the upwash flow. >-- >Daryl Morse Dan Sharpes p.s. - my server won't let me post due to a bug in the initialization software. If you'd like to post this to the net for others, I'd be grateful. -- Daryl Morse | Voice : (604) 293-5476 MPR Teltech Ltd. | Fax : (604) 293-5787 8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC | E-Mail : morse@mpr.ca Canada, V5A 4B5 | : mprgate.mpr.ca!morse@uunet.uu.net From kls Wed Jan 13 01:30:22 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: alaw@elaine29.stanford.edu (Alvin Law) Subject: Re: McDonnell Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices X-Submission-Date: 12 Jan 93 11:25:08 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: alaw@leland.stanford.edu Organization: DSO, Stanford University X-Submission-Message-ID: Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jan 93 01:30:22 PST In article driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) writes: >>"These devices, says the company, 'include, but are not limited to,' >>citizen-band radios, cellular telephones, transmitters that remotely >>control devices such as toys, and portable compact disc players. > >Current opinions vary about how much EMI an avionics system is protected >against, but 200 v/m is a typical number. One would not expect the >above devices to produce such levels. If a CD-player can cause problems, how about laptop/notebook computers? I flew back from Hong Kong on a 747-400 two months ago and saw at least 10 people working/playing on their laptops, and there seems to be no problem. At least the plane didn't round up in Russian airspace. -- -------------------------- alaw@leland.stanford.edu ------------------------- Some assembly required. Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or implied.As seen on TV. Avoid contact with skin. Keep away from fire or flame. No Canadian coins. Driver does not carry cash. Apply only to affected area. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Jan 13 01:30:24 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: Helen Trillian Rose Subject: United's new livery X-Submission-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:05:01 -0500 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <199301130105.AA07890@rocza.eff.org> Date: 13 Jan 93 01:30:24 PST I got an issue of Time this week (18 January) because (ObPlug) EFF's Staff Counsel Mike Godwin is quoted in it. I was paging through and on pages 6 and 7 there is this beautiful gorgeous 747-400 (N7471U -- but I don't have my JP with me :) The ad reads: We now embrace the colors of the world as the new colors of United Airlines. In celebration of a new style of service at home and abroad, we are proud to unveil the new colors of the friendly skies. They are the colors of the world we have come to serve. A word of 318 United cities across the Univted States, Asia, the South Pacific, Europe and Latin America. And as we have grown, so too has our dedication to offering you the finest service in the world. A dedication reaffirmed by the recent introductions of our newly designed First and Connoisseur Class service. Our new colors now herald an era of even greater commitment to all who fly the friendly skies of United. Come fly the airline that's uniting the world. Come fly the friendly skies. The new livery has the same basic colors (White, Blue, Orange) but adds a new grey. The tail has the old United logo on it (alot smaller than the old one) and is also striped in a two-tone blue. United is one of the last of the "old school" of airlines who were using an "older" livery. Delta has changed (some), Northwest has changed (to the new spiffy grey & red that they debuted the 747-400 with), Continental, etc. Southwest has stayed the same, but, that's not a surprise. :-) I think the only thing they could have done to make it better was put little United logos on the winglets, just like Northwest does. :-) Is this livery flying yet, or is it just "something to come"? --Helen -- Helen Trillian Rose Electronic Frontier Foundation email eff@eff.org for EFF Info Kapor Enterprises, Inc. Flames to: Systems and Networks Administration women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org From kls Wed Jan 13 01:30:25 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: United's new livery X-Submission-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 09:28:15 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works X-Submission-Message-ID: <1993Jan13.092815.4846@ohare.Chicago.COM> Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jan 93 01:30:25 PST Helen Trillian Rose writes: >I was paging through and on pages 6 and 7 there is this beautiful >gorgeous 747-400 (N7471U -- but I don't have my JP with me :) I just got something from United in today's mail with that is likely the same picture, and thought I'd have the scoop! Oh well. As for gorgeous, I suppose that is in the eye of the beholder. BTW, don't bother with the JP. It's a painting, not a photograph, and United's 747-400s are registered N171UA and up. Closest you'll find is N47xxU which are the 747-122s. >The new livery has the same basic colors (White, Blue, Orange) but adds >a new grey. The tail has the old United logo on it (alot smaller than >the old one) and is also striped in a two-tone blue. Well, sort of, but the only white is lettering and the borders of the logos, and I had to look again to notice the old red and orange, which are little more than a pinstripe below the windows. Below that is a dark blue, and above is a medium grey. You apparently like Northwest's new colors so it's not surprising that you like this; I find both of them dark, dreary, and depressing. The "old" colors were pleasing, if not the best in the world. (Honors which went to Eastern before they switch to polished aluminum -- the early Eastern Tri-Stars were truly beautiful, IMO!) Come to think of it, one of the nicer schemes, IMO, is British Airways and perhaps not coincidently United's new one reminds me a bit of that. The big difference, I think is that the BA grey is much lighter, more like an off-white than battleship grey. >United is one of the last of the "old school" of airlines who were using >an "older" livery. Delta has changed (some), Northwest has changed (to >the new spiffy grey & red that they debuted the 747-400 with), >Continental, etc. Southwest has stayed the same, but, that's not a >surprise. :-) It's not *that* old -- it was introduced in 1974, comparable to the current TWA, with a lowering of the stripes and increase in size of the name c. 1988 - 1989, and addition of the U.S. flag for domestic aircraft in 1992. Delta has changed since the early sixties but you have to have a sharp eye to see it. And of course there's American. They switched to the big AA logo from the eagle when, about 1904? :-) And then there's their *big* change -- to silverish grey paint from polished aluminum for those aircraft where the manufacturer insisted on paint. Oh boy! :-) >Is this livery flying yet, or is it just "something to come"? >From the brochure I received: "Right now, in the skies throughout the world, you should begin seeing this bold new look on United aircraft." I'll be up at SFO on Friday and will look around -- with as many as five or six new Boeings arriving every week, and with United's only maintenance base there, they will probably be there if anywhere. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Jan 13 16:21:48 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) Subject: Re: United's new livery X-Submission-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 16:23:27 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan13.162327.10499@athena.mit.edu> Date: 13 Jan 93 16:21:48 PST I was kinda upset with the color change, I always thought of United being a very traditional kinda guy. Continental needed a revamping because IMHO the old colors really stunk. But I really like the new colors on United. The only thing is, with the ad in Newsweek (Jan 18, P32-34) It looks kinda sinister. Maybe its the overcast sky imaging, but it gives me the image of a soph. bomber or something. Suprised they are still called the friendly skies :) Anyone else agree? Derek ------------------------------------------------------------------- "He lived a life of going-to-do, and died with nothing done" -J. Albery In other words---JUST DO IT! From kls Wed Jan 13 16:21:50 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) Subject: Re: United's new livery X-Submission-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 16:57:14 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan13.165714.21561@src.honeywell.com> Date: 13 Jan 93 16:21:50 PST In article Helen Trillian Rose writes: > >Is this livery flying yet, or is it just "something to come"? An article I saw said that some airplanes had already been painted. Since commercial airplanes don't spend much time on the ground, I assume the new colors are flying somewhere. From kls Wed Jan 13 16:21:50 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) Subject: Re: McDonnel Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices X-Submission-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 17:14:08 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan13.171408.22776@src.honeywell.com> Date: 13 Jan 93 16:21:50 PST In article barr@ash.mmm.ucar.EDU (Keith Barr) writes: > >Wouldn't there be a change in attitude if the autopilot was engaged, >which it obviously was, and if the navigation equipment was disturbed by RF? I was thinking that transient jumps in the radio nav would be rejected when compared to the INS. But, since the DC-10 is an old analog system, maybe there is no comparison or filtering of the radio nav and INS as they go into the autopilot. There might be just a simple switch that selects INS for over water and radio nav for land. In this case, it is possible (but highly improbable) that a CD player could effect the radio nav (which is forward and under the cockpit). From kls Wed Jan 13 16:21:52 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) Subject: SUMMARY: 6 dof, C*, basic texts... X-Submission-Date: 13 Jan 1993 12:13:35 -0600 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 13 Jan 93 16:21:52 PST A few days ago, I posted a message asking for references on 6dof flight models and C*. Several people replied with suggestions; a couple replied with questions. This is an attempt to summarize all the responses, and to answer a couple of the questions. "What is a 6 dof flight model?": A 6 degree of freedom flight model provides for a fairly accurate modelling of the motion and flying characteristics of an airplane. It is generally used when the airplane is to be modelled as a "rigid body." It considers both rotational (yaw, pitch, and roll) and translational motion, both centered around the center of gravity. Since there are three axes to consider in each case, this is referred to as a six- degree-of-freedom model. This model actually considers twelve variables, since both the instantaneous rate of change *and* position have to be considered. These are referred to as the state variables, which are applied to varying matrices of coefficients to get the desired fidelity. Other models exist: 4 dof and 3 dof models are in use, depending upon the type of airplane it is desired to simulate. Personal computer flight simulator publishers tend to ignore these models altogether, instead relying on point-space "performance" based models. On C*: Two respondents contributed an old Boeing report: "New Short Period Handling Quality Criterion for Fighter Aircraft," September 1965, by Malcom & Tobie, Report D6-17841 T/N. This seems to be a "first instance," and is widely quoted by other sources. Dan Sharpes also noted that "The C* time history boundaries were developed from the data on page 63 of the Mil F 8785B Background Information and Users Guide (BIUG). Page 64 of the 8785C BIUG gives the definition of C* and talks about its history and early applications. Neal, Smith, and Brulle found C* was lacking when correlating it with pilot opinion ratings." A fourth person noted that C* is also summarized in the Stevens book (see below). On 6 dof models: Several people recommended "Aircraft Control and Simulation," by Frank L. Lewis and Brian L. Stevens (Wiley Interscience, 1992, ISBN 0-471-61397-5). It is a comprehensive work, using an F-16 model as a case-study example. It includes FORTRAN code. A couple of people recommended NASA CR-1756, "The simulation of a large jet transport aircraft volume I: mathematical model," by C. Rodney Hanke, March 1971. This deals with the simulation of a Boeing 747. I've found the second half, containing the aerodynamic data, is all but impossible to find, however. One of the more accessible references is J. M. Rolfe's _Flight Simulation_, a survey of the art. It has a bottom-line description of a 6 dof flight model, adapted from the Hanke paper. It is more useful for its insights into other aspects of system and flight simulation. One respondent suggested "A review of flight simulation techniques," by Max Baarspul, in _Progress in Aerospace Science_, Vol. 27, 1990. This is a comprehensive monograph (120 pages), detailing the art of simulation. Portions are reminiscent of Rolfe, but he develops a flight model for a DHC-2 "Beaver" in much more detail. Dan Sharpes dug up the following two: _Aircraft Dynamics and Automatic Control_, by McRuer, Ashkenas, and Graham, (Princeton University Press, 1973, ISBN 0691080836), which apparently has a detailed DC-8 model at the end. _Flight Stability and Automatic Control_, by Robert C. Nelson (McGraw Hill, 1989, ISBN 0070462186). Dan transcribed the following derivatives for a 747-100 or -200, on page 260: Longitudinal Mach Alt CL CD CLa CDa Cma CLadot CLq .25 SL 1.11 0.102 5.70 0.66 -1.26 6.7 5.4 .90 40k 0.5 0.042 5.5 0.47 -1.6 0.006 6.58 Mach CMq CLM CDM CmM CL-De CM-De .25 -20.8 -0.81 0.0 0.27 0.338 -1.34 .90 -25.0 0.2 0.25 -0.10 0.3 -1.2 Lateral Mach Alt CyB ClB CnB Clp Cnp Clr Cnr .25 SL -0.96 -0.221 0.150 -0.45 -0.121 0.101 -0.30 .90 40k -0.85 -0.10 0.20 -0.30 0.20 0.20 -0.325 Mach Cl-Da Cn-Da Cy-Dr Cl-Dr Cn-Dr .25 0.0461 0.0064 0.175 0.007 -0.109 .90 0.014 0.003 0.075 0.005 -0.09 W = 636,600 lb CG @ 25%MAC S = 5500 ft sq b = 195.68 ft sq c-bar = 27.31 ft Ix 18.2 E6 slug-ft sq Iy 33.1 E6 slug-ft sq Iz 49.7 E6 slug-ft sq Ixz 0.97 E6 slug-ft sq All derivatives are per radian. A description of DATCOM, again from Dan Sharpes: The Datcom is the short-hand title for the "USAF Stability and Control DATCOM." It contains methodologies for determining the S & C derivatives for just about any type of configuration. It does NOT contain the S & C derivatives of aircraft (popular misconception!). Here's what the Guide to Datcom says: "Fundamentally, the purpose of the Datcom (Data Compendium) {OK, I was wrong. Flame me!} is to provide a systematic summary of methods for estimating basic stability antd control derivatives. ... For any given flight condition and configuration the complete set of derivatives can be determined without resort to outside information. The book is intended to be used for preliminary design purposes before the acquisition of test data. ... there are many cases where the Datcom can be used to advantage in conjunction with test data. For instance, if the lift-curve slope of a wing-body combination is desired, the Datcom recommends that the lift-curve slopes of the isolated wing and body, respectively, be estimated by methods presented and that appropriate wing-body interference factors (also presented) be applied. If wing-alone test data are available, it is obvious that these test data should be substituted in place of the estimated wing-alone characteristics ..." The Datcom has nine sections: 1) Guide to Datcom and Methods Summary 2) General Information (notation, parameters of wing, body, section, and planform) 3) Effects of External Stores 4) Characteristics at Angle of Attack (static derivatives in alpha) 5) Characteristics in Sideslip (static derivatives in beta) 6) Characteristics of High-Lift and Control Devices (section and wing forces and moments, including hinge moments) 7) Dynamic Derivatives (in p, q, r, alpha-dot, and beta-dot) 8) Mass and Inertia 9) Characteristics of VTOL-STOL Aircraft (thrust characteristics) The methods are a mixture of theoretical and emperical equations. Each section starts with a description of the aerodynamics that contribute to the derivative as appropriate to the configuration. The methods are then discussed with sample problems following. Next are the references, the tables showing accuracy of the methods, and finally, the charts. You'll probably recognize these - several authors use them liberally in their texts. Where to get DATCOM: It's $175. It's distributed in four binders, is 3,200 pages, and can be ordered from: Global Engineering 7730 Carondelet Ave. #407 Clayton, Missouri 3105 800-854-7179 Lastly: on learning how to use all this: Berndard Etkin's books on flight control were highly recommended; _Dynamics of Flight_ was re-published in 1982, and is an update of the 1959 edition. Also, _Dynamics of Atmospheric Flight_ (Wiley, 1972, ISBN 0-471-24620-4). _Airplane performance stability and control_, by Courtland D. Perkins and Robert E. Hage (Wiley, 1949). _Modern Aircraft Flight Control_, by M. Vukobratovic and R. Stojic, in _Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences #109 (Springer-Verlag, 1988). A monograph: very readable, and of likely interest to those approaching the problem from a more traditional CS perspective. Many thanks to Dan Sharpes, Bruce Jackson, Mary Shafer, Michael Jones, and anyone else I've missed, for their contributions and suggestions. -- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd From kls Wed Jan 13 16:21:52 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: Tony Heatwole Subject: Jet Engine Mounting Angle X-Submission-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 16:00 EST Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 13 Jan 93 16:21:52 PST Daryl Morse brought up the question of jet engine mounting angle in a previous article. This is something I've often wondered about myself. Most tail-mounted jet engines on commercial airliners *appear* to slant downward toward the rear. This is particularly noticable on the tail-mounted engines of DC-10s and MD-11s. Here, presumably, downwash from the wings isn't a mounting factor. What are the design tradeoffs in setting the mounting angle for tail-mounted engines? How do the effects of engine loss and changes in engine thrust figure in this tradeoff? Tony Heatwole Gaithersburg MD heatwole@hns.com From kls Thu Jan 14 22:57:26 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) Subject: Re: United's new livery X-Submission-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 16:23:27 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan13.162327.10499@athena.mit.edu> Date: 14 Jan 93 22:57:26 PST I was kinda upset with the color change, I always thought of United being a very traditional kinda guy. Continental needed a revamping because IMHO the old colors really stunk. But I really like the new colors on United. The only thing is, with the ad in Newsweek (Jan 18, P32-34) It looks kinda sinister. Maybe its the overcast sky imaging, but it gives me the image of a soph. bomber or something. Suprised they are still called the friendly skies :) Anyone else agree? Derek ------------------------------------------------------------------- "He lived a life of going-to-do, and died with nothing done" -J. Albery In other words---JUST DO IT! From kls Thu Jan 14 22:57:29 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) Subject: Re: United's new livery X-Submission-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 16:57:14 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan13.165714.21561@src.honeywell.com> Date: 14 Jan 93 22:57:29 PST In article Helen Trillian Rose writes: > >Is this livery flying yet, or is it just "something to come"? An article I saw said that some airplanes had already been painted. Since commercial airplanes don't spend much time on the ground, I assume the new colors are flying somewhere. From kls Thu Jan 14 22:57:30 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) Subject: Re: McDonnel Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices X-Submission-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 17:14:08 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan13.171408.22776@src.honeywell.com> Date: 14 Jan 93 22:57:30 PST In article barr@ash.mmm.ucar.EDU (Keith Barr) writes: > >Wouldn't there be a change in attitude if the autopilot was engaged, >which it obviously was, and if the navigation equipment was disturbed by RF? I was thinking that transient jumps in the radio nav would be rejected when compared to the INS. But, since the DC-10 is an old analog system, maybe there is no comparison or filtering of the radio nav and INS as they go into the autopilot. There might be just a simple switch that selects INS for over water and radio nav for land. In this case, it is possible (but highly improbable) that a CD player could effect the radio nav (which is forward and under the cockpit). From kls Thu Jan 14 22:57:31 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) Subject: SUMMARY: 6 dof, C*, basic texts... X-Submission-Date: 13 Jan 1993 12:13:35 -0600 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 14 Jan 93 22:57:31 PST A few days ago, I posted a message asking for references on 6dof flight models and C*. Several people replied with suggestions; a couple replied with questions. This is an attempt to summarize all the responses, and to answer a couple of the questions. "What is a 6 dof flight model?": A 6 degree of freedom flight model provides for a fairly accurate modelling of the motion and flying characteristics of an airplane. It is generally used when the airplane is to be modelled as a "rigid body." It considers both rotational (yaw, pitch, and roll) and translational motion, both centered around the center of gravity. Since there are three axes to consider in each case, this is referred to as a six- degree-of-freedom model. This model actually considers twelve variables, since both the instantaneous rate of change *and* position have to be considered. These are referred to as the state variables, which are applied to varying matrices of coefficients to get the desired fidelity. Other models exist: 4 dof and 3 dof models are in use, depending upon the type of airplane it is desired to simulate. Personal computer flight simulator publishers tend to ignore these models altogether, instead relying on point-space "performance" based models. On C*: Two respondents contributed an old Boeing report: "New Short Period Handling Quality Criterion for Fighter Aircraft," September 1965, by Malcom & Tobie, Report D6-17841 T/N. This seems to be a "first instance," and is widely quoted by other sources. Dan Sharpes also noted that "The C* time history boundaries were developed from the data on page 63 of the Mil F 8785B Background Information and Users Guide (BIUG). Page 64 of the 8785C BIUG gives the definition of C* and talks about its history and early applications. Neal, Smith, and Brulle found C* was lacking when correlating it with pilot opinion ratings." A fourth person noted that C* is also summarized in the Stevens book (see below). On 6 dof models: Several people recommended "Aircraft Control and Simulation," by Frank L. Lewis and Brian L. Stevens (Wiley Interscience, 1992, ISBN 0-471-61397-5). It is a comprehensive work, using an F-16 model as a case-study example. It includes FORTRAN code. A couple of people recommended NASA CR-1756, "The simulation of a large jet transport aircraft volume I: mathematical model," by C. Rodney Hanke, March 1971. This deals with the simulation of a Boeing 747. I've found the second half, containing the aerodynamic data, is all but impossible to find, however. One of the more accessible references is J. M. Rolfe's _Flight Simulation_, a survey of the art. It has a bottom-line description of a 6 dof flight model, adapted from the Hanke paper. It is more useful for its insights into other aspects of system and flight simulation. One respondent suggested "A review of flight simulation techniques," by Max Baarspul, in _Progress in Aerospace Science_, Vol. 27, 1990. This is a comprehensive monograph (120 pages), detailing the art of simulation. Portions are reminiscent of Rolfe, but he develops a flight model for a DHC-2 "Beaver" in much more detail. Dan Sharpes dug up the following two: _Aircraft Dynamics and Automatic Control_, by McRuer, Ashkenas, and Graham, (Princeton University Press, 1973, ISBN 0691080836), which apparently has a detailed DC-8 model at the end. _Flight Stability and Automatic Control_, by Robert C. Nelson (McGraw Hill, 1989, ISBN 0070462186). Dan transcribed the following derivatives for a 747-100 or -200, on page 260: Longitudinal Mach Alt CL CD CLa CDa Cma CLadot CLq .25 SL 1.11 0.102 5.70 0.66 -1.26 6.7 5.4 .90 40k 0.5 0.042 5.5 0.47 -1.6 0.006 6.58 Mach CMq CLM CDM CmM CL-De CM-De .25 -20.8 -0.81 0.0 0.27 0.338 -1.34 .90 -25.0 0.2 0.25 -0.10 0.3 -1.2 Lateral Mach Alt CyB ClB CnB Clp Cnp Clr Cnr .25 SL -0.96 -0.221 0.150 -0.45 -0.121 0.101 -0.30 .90 40k -0.85 -0.10 0.20 -0.30 0.20 0.20 -0.325 Mach Cl-Da Cn-Da Cy-Dr Cl-Dr Cn-Dr .25 0.0461 0.0064 0.175 0.007 -0.109 .90 0.014 0.003 0.075 0.005 -0.09 W = 636,600 lb CG @ 25%MAC S = 5500 ft sq b = 195.68 ft sq c-bar = 27.31 ft Ix 18.2 E6 slug-ft sq Iy 33.1 E6 slug-ft sq Iz 49.7 E6 slug-ft sq Ixz 0.97 E6 slug-ft sq All derivatives are per radian. A description of DATCOM, again from Dan Sharpes: The Datcom is the short-hand title for the "USAF Stability and Control DATCOM." It contains methodologies for determining the S & C derivatives for just about any type of configuration. It does NOT contain the S & C derivatives of aircraft (popular misconception!). Here's what the Guide to Datcom says: "Fundamentally, the purpose of the Datcom (Data Compendium) {OK, I was wrong. Flame me!} is to provide a systematic summary of methods for estimating basic stability antd control derivatives. ... For any given flight condition and configuration the complete set of derivatives can be determined without resort to outside information. The book is intended to be used for preliminary design purposes before the acquisition of test data. ... there are many cases where the Datcom can be used to advantage in conjunction with test data. For instance, if the lift-curve slope of a wing-body combination is desired, the Datcom recommends that the lift-curve slopes of the isolated wing and body, respectively, be estimated by methods presented and that appropriate wing-body interference factors (also presented) be applied. If wing-alone test data are available, it is obvious that these test data should be substituted in place of the estimated wing-alone characteristics ..." The Datcom has nine sections: 1) Guide to Datcom and Methods Summary 2) General Information (notation, parameters of wing, body, section, and planform) 3) Effects of External Stores 4) Characteristics at Angle of Attack (static derivatives in alpha) 5) Characteristics in Sideslip (static derivatives in beta) 6) Characteristics of High-Lift and Control Devices (section and wing forces and moments, including hinge moments) 7) Dynamic Derivatives (in p, q, r, alpha-dot, and beta-dot) 8) Mass and Inertia 9) Characteristics of VTOL-STOL Aircraft (thrust characteristics) The methods are a mixture of theoretical and emperical equations. Each section starts with a description of the aerodynamics that contribute to the derivative as appropriate to the configuration. The methods are then discussed with sample problems following. Next are the references, the tables showing accuracy of the methods, and finally, the charts. You'll probably recognize these - several authors use them liberally in their texts. Where to get DATCOM: It's $175. It's distributed in four binders, is 3,200 pages, and can be ordered from: Global Engineering 7730 Carondelet Ave. #407 Clayton, Missouri 3105 800-854-7179 Lastly: on learning how to use all this: Berndard Etkin's books on flight control were highly recommended; _Dynamics of Flight_ was re-published in 1982, and is an update of the 1959 edition. Also, _Dynamics of Atmospheric Flight_ (Wiley, 1972, ISBN 0-471-24620-4). _Airplane performance stability and control_, by Courtland D. Perkins and Robert E. Hage (Wiley, 1949). _Modern Aircraft Flight Control_, by M. Vukobratovic and R. Stojic, in _Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences #109 (Springer-Verlag, 1988). A monograph: very readable, and of likely interest to those approaching the problem from a more traditional CS perspective. Many thanks to Dan Sharpes, Bruce Jackson, Mary Shafer, Michael Jones, and anyone else I've missed, for their contributions and suggestions. -- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd From kls Thu Jan 14 22:57:33 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: Tony Heatwole Subject: Jet Engine Mounting Angle X-Submission-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 16:00 EST Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 14 Jan 93 22:57:33 PST Daryl Morse brought up the question of jet engine mounting angle in a previous article. This is something I've often wondered about myself. Most tail-mounted jet engines on commercial airliners *appear* to slant downward toward the rear. This is particularly noticable on the tail-mounted engines of DC-10s and MD-11s. Here, presumably, downwash from the wings isn't a mounting factor. What are the design tradeoffs in setting the mounting angle for tail-mounted engines? How do the effects of engine loss and changes in engine thrust figure in this tradeoff? Tony Heatwole Gaithersburg MD heatwole@hns.com From kls Thu Jan 14 22:57:34 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu (David W Levy) Subject: Re: SUMMARY: 6 dof, C*, basic texts... X-Submission-Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 09:00:07 EST References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Michigan Aerospace Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI X-Submission-Message-ID: <7Wh=Ml-@engin.umich.edu> Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Jan 93 22:57:34 PST I would also recommend "Airplane Flight Dynamics," Part I by Jan Roskam of the University of Kansas. It contains models for several airplanes in the appendix. These include a Cessna 172, Beech M99, McD F4, and Boeing 747. From kls Thu Jan 14 22:57:35 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu (David W Levy) Subject: Re: Jet Engine Mounting Angle X-Submission-Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 09:18:34 EST References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Michigan Aerospace Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI X-Submission-Message-ID: Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Jan 93 22:57:35 PST In article , Tony Heatwole writes: > Daryl Morse brought up the question of jet engine mounting > angle in a previous article. This is something I've often > wondered about myself. Most tail-mounted jet engines on > commercial airliners *appear* to slant downward toward the > rear. This is particularly noticable on the tail-mounted > engines of DC-10s and MD-11s. Here, presumably, downwash > from the wings isn't a mounting factor. > > What are the design tradeoffs in setting the mounting angle > for tail-mounted engines? How do the effects of engine loss > and changes in engine thrust figure in this tradeoff? > The main reason for setting the engine nacelles at an angle is to align the engine inlet with the local flow angle so as to achieve the maximum inlet efficiency. An improvement of just a few tenths of a percent in cruise flight can mean the savings of thousands of gallons of jet fuel over the lifetime of the aircraft. Rear mounted engines tend to be canted upward, as already observed. Engines mounted on swept wings tend to be toed-in a degree or two to align with the spanwise flow component. If you resolve the components of the thrust vector into components along and normal to the direction of flight, you find FX = Fcos(A)cos(B) FY = Fsin(A)cos(B) FZ = Fcos(A)sin(B) where A is the toe-out angle and B is the pitch angle. Since the angles are only a degree or two, the X component is only slightly below the total thrust. The cosine of two degrees 0.9994. Since the magnitude increases as inlet efficiency increases, the X component may even be larger than if A and B were zero. The Y and Z components of thrust can affect engine-out handling. For rear mounted engines, the nose down pitching moment due to thrust will increase as the upward cant angle is increased. From kls Thu Jan 14 22:57:36 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) Subject: Re: United's new livery X-Submission-Date: 15 Jan 1993 01:56:19 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Reply-To: Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1j55k3INNidp@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> Date: 14 Jan 93 22:57:36 PST Karl Swartz writes: >The "old" [Northwest Orient] colors were pleasing, if not the best in >the world. I liked them myself, although I always felt that the "unfinished" black stripe along the side looked rather strange because of the way it ended at an arbitrary point on the fuselage. The parallelogram-in-a-circle logo was neat, though. >Honors which went to Eastern before they switch to polished aluminum -- >the early Eastern Tri-Stars were truly beautiful, IMO! Defintely! Speaking of Eastern, I have a photograph at home in one of my magazines (probably an old issue of Airliners) showing a Super Connie in this modern Eastern livery. It's gorgeous; not at all anachronistic, IMHO. I also think the Connie looks great in the TWA paint scheme prior to the current one, with the tapered red stripe widening toward the tail and the double-globe "TWA" trademark. A museum in the UK has a 749 painted like that. Speaking of old planes with newer paint schemes, I was looking through a book about Braniff at the library the other day, and ran across a picture of a just-retired DC-6 that was used to test the Flying Colors idea back about 1966 or thereabouts. It was painted solid green with the windows outlined in white and "BI" on the tail. It looked nice. >It's [United's] not *that* old -- it was introduced in 1974, comparable >to the current TWA, with a lowering of the stripes and increase in size >of the name c. 1988 - 1989, and addition of the U.S. flag for domestic >aircraft in 1992. I like United's current livery, and I liked the 1960s paint also, with the narrow gold stripe between the white and the bare aluminum. (It looked really nice on the Caravelle, particularly.) I was never too fond of the tarted-up early-Seventies version of this, though, with the word "United" in serifs, between stars, and the aforementioned stripe changed from narrow gold to wider red. It was a change for the sake of change, and it looked like not very much thought went into it. I'm eager to see this brand-new paint job. >And of course there's American. They switched to the big AA logo from >the eagle when, about 1904? :-) Nineteen-seventy, actually. I remember seeing a picture of the first plane pained in the new scheme (a 727-200) in AvLeak at the time. I still have some bars of soap with the old A-eagle-A logo on the wrappers that my dad gave me when I was a kid. (Along with a TWA Constellation swizzle stick, which I really ought to put in a safe-deposit box. :-) >And then there's their *big* change -- to silverish grey paint from >polished aluminum for those aircraft where the manufacturer insisted >on paint. Those are just the Airbuses, aren't they? Which Airbus models does American operate? Geoff -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Menlo Park, California -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- From kls Fri Jan 15 04:59:00 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: ole-d@hsr.no (Ole Petter Dahl) Subject: Douglas DC-3 Dakota X-Submission-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 08:06:27 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rogaland University Centre Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan13.080627.5966@hsr.no> Date: 15 Jan 93 04:59:00 PST Hy! I don't know if this is the right group to post this article in, but anyway, I saw an Air Atlantic Douglas DC-3 yesterday. It landed on Sola International Airport. I observed it when I was working at Sola Heliport, Stavanger. Now the questions: - When was the first Daktota built ? - How many was built ? - When did the production end ? - How many are still flying today ? Info about Air Atlantic wanted. PS. I'm working in Braathens Helikopter (BRH). We've got 7 Eurocopter (Aerospatiale) AS-332L1 "Super Pumas", also known as the Tiger. All of them are equipped with Bristow Helicopters' IHUMS system. That is quite impressing, BRH is the only heli-operator in the world wich has IHUMS on all its aircrafts. Rds. --------------- Ole Petter Dahl Avionics Engineering Rogaland University Center Stavanger, Norway E- mail adress: ole-d@hsr.no ---------------------------- From kls Fri Jan 15 04:59:08 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: morse@mprgate.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse) Subject: Re: Do DC-9s exhibit a nose-down attitude under power? X-Submission-Date: 13 Jan 93 10:10:28 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, BC, Canada. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 15 Jan 93 04:59:08 PST Note: This reply is actually to the response posted by: Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 11:56:08 -0500 From: sharpes@c-17igp.wpafb.af.mil (Civ Daniel G. Sharpes) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners References: > In sci.aeronautics.airliners you write: > >I have been told (by someone who had a lengthy career maintaining > >large military transport aircraft) that the DC-9 family of airliners > >exhibit a nose-down attitude under power. This supposed behaviour is > >attributed to the angle at which the engines are (or appear to be) > >canted. > I have flown on many DC-9s and have not noticed the nose-down attitude > you describe. Yes, I've flown on many DC-9s as well and never noticed it either. However, flying *on* a DC-9 isn't quite the same thing as flying a DC-9. Granted the plane doesn't give a nose down sensation to the passengers. However, did the pilot have to apply back-pressure on the yoke for that to happen? (Note that I'm not claiming pilots have to apply back-pressure, or even that the aircraft exhibit nose-down under power. I'm questioning whether that is true based on what someone that I respect claims to be true.) [stuff deleted...] > BTW, if you look closely at the transports with engines under their > wings, you'll see the engines are canted inward (by about 2 - 4 > degrees). This accounts for the effect the fuselage and sweptback wing > has on the upwash flow. I've heard this, but never recalled it when I was strategically positioned such that I would be able to notice it. Are you talking about commercial airliners or military transports or both? Do you mean inward at the front or the back? Presumably, the former. -- Daryl Morse | Voice : (604) 293-5476 MPR Teltech Ltd. | Fax : (604) 293-5787 8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC | E-Mail : morse@mpr.ca Canada, V5A 4B5 | : mprgate.mpr.ca!morse@uunet.uu.net From kls Fri Jan 15 04:59:10 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: administrivia -- anonymous posts, duplicate posts X-Submission-Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 12:53:47 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works X-Submission-Message-ID: <1993Jan15.125347.13090@ohare.Chicago.COM> Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jan 93 04:59:10 PST An anonymous post arrived in the submissions box today from someone at mac-80-48.src.honeywell.com. While the Mac in the name, as well as the content, leads me to suspect this is just a case of mis-configured software, I'm still not willing to accept anonymous posts. Of course I make my share of errors too, as the duplicate posting of several batches of articles in the part several days attests. Sorry about that. I'll try to keep in under control in the future, but screwups do heppen. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Sun Jan 17 17:57:54 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: swc@dresden.uk.Sun.COM (Steve Cumming - Sun UK) Subject: American Airlines Airbuses X-Submission-Date: 15 Jan 1993 11:16:02 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: swc@dresden.uk.Sun.COM Organization: Sun Microsystems Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1j66diINN61b@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> Date: 17 Jan 93 17:57:54 PST > Which Airbus models does American operate? A300-600R's --- Steve Cumming. Sun Microsystems. U.K. Answer Centre. Phone: +44 276 691974 From kls Sun Jan 17 17:57:55 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) Subject: why paint on airliners? X-Submission-Date: 15 Jan 1993 14:12:57 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1j6gp9INN71a@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Date: 17 Jan 93 17:57:55 PST In a previous article, Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) says: > >Karl Swartz writes: > >>And then there's their *big* change -- to silverish grey paint from >>polished aluminum for those aircraft where the manufacturer insisted >>on paint. > >Those are just the Airbuses, aren't they? Which Airbus models does >American operate? > Why would a manufacturer insist on paint? Is it because of corrosion? If so, does the quality of the metal differ from aircraft that may be left bare? -- Pete Babic - pab@po.cwru.edu /// LIVE TO PARTY, SKI TO DIE!!! /// /\ Member of ACE \\\ /// /--\MIGA (American Coaster Enthusiasts) \\\/// MS-DOS or a Mac? What's that? From kls Sun Jan 17 17:57:56 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) Subject: Re: Douglas DC-3 Dakota X-Submission-Date: 15 Jan 1993 15:04:59 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1j6jqrINNm6m@bigboote.WPI.EDU> Date: 17 Jan 93 17:57:56 PST In article ole-d@hsr.no (Ole Petter Dahl) writes: > - When was the first Daktota built ? First DC-3 flight was December 17, 1935... 32 years to the day after the Wright Bros. flight. > - How many was built ? It is estimated that between 12,000 and 13,000 DC-3 were built in all versions including license production by Japan and the Soviet Union preceeding WWII. > - When did the production end ? ??? Not sure on this... > - How many are still flying today ? It is estimated that roughly 700 DC-3s remain in civilian and military service today. The DC-3 was THE transport of WWII, one of the reasons for the high numbers built. That and it was just a damn good design. Today DC-3s are being fitted with PT-6 turboprops to stretch their lives, including a trimotor conversion with a PT-6 in a new nose. DC-3s have been flying for over 57 years now... *I* find that amazing, but I'll only be 65 for the 100th anniversary. I wonder how many will still be flying. I say quite a few... ############################################################################### # I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think! # #Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime# ############################################################################### From kls Sun Jan 17 17:57:57 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) Subject: Re: McDonnel Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices X-Submission-Date: 15 Jan 93 20:07:03 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <8281@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> Date: 17 Jan 93 17:57:57 PST In article driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) writes: >In article barr@ash.mmm.ucar.EDU (Keith Barr) writes: >> >>Wouldn't there be a change in attitude if the autopilot was engaged, >>which it obviously was, and if the navigation equipment was disturbed by RF? > >In this case, it is >possible (but highly improbable) that a CD player could effect the radio >nav (which is forward and under the cockpit). I guess I can't swallow the idea that a passenger's CD player is going to find its way into nav or other avionics gear. If the manufacturer really said this, I interpret it as straw-grasping in the absence of other explanations. The most powerful components of a CD player are presumably the motor drive and audio output. Not much there. I would think that if the aircraft systems were so exquisitely sensitive and even if by some fault the system wiring in the cabin area were effectively unshielded, the resulting problems would be frequent to continuous, and emerge from many other sources than CD players. We all live in an environment of electrical noise from multitudes of man-made and even natural sources. Some of these are of much greater magnitude than anything that could be supplied by the batteries in the CD player. The normal operations of the aircraft itself emit electromagnetic energy of considerable power. The cabin audio/video system is itself of much higher power than the CD player, although the manufacturer does control its installation and engineering. I am sure that during development and manufacture, an expensive set of quite sensitive measurements establish the electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) of the aircraft with itself and both known and arbitrary outside sources. I believe that if the various and powerful internal and external sources over a broad band were ever to start talking to the sensitive systems, we are going to have much more to worry about than CD players. From kls Sun Jan 17 17:57:58 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Subject: Ghost Comet? X-Submission-Date: 16 Jan 1993 17:01:26 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1j9f16INN7hr@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Date: 17 Jan 93 17:57:58 PST About 1976, when I visited O'hare tower, I saw a very shabby and bedraggled Comet parked near the tower! Does anyone know what happened to that plane? -- An arch-conservative who is an atheist and believes in free choice? Sure! From kls Sun Jan 17 17:57:58 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: United Livery X-Submission-Date: Sat, 16 Jan 93 20:03:36 -0500 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9301170103.AA26603@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Date: 17 Jan 93 17:57:58 PST No one has mentioned that United changed their livery slightly in about 1988, making titles and stripes larger. I thought that was a definite change for the better. This new livery looks too much like British Airways' and Canadian's for my tastes. BTW, if this livery change is like others which have occured recently, it will take a few years. USAir and Continental are changing colors only as aircraft come in for major maintenance and I've seen a USAir 737 in old colors as recently as three months ago. IMO, the TriStar, 757, and MD-80 (and perhaps the A330) are the best looking commercial jets, especially in flight. Eastern's grey TriStars were magnificent and I have a special place in my heart for Lufthansa's old colors, too. Speaking of liveries, the trend nowadays seems to be for interesting tail designs and white fuselages. What a waste! Any ideas as to why Lufthansa paints its aircrafts' wings white? Karl...Boeing's 777 FBW test aircraft was N35153, leased from AWAS in 1991. Only the co-pilot's seat was re-rigged and the aircraft was all-silver. By now, it should have been delivered to Ansett. China Airlines sold its two 767-209s which now operate in New Zealand. United is returning its original batch of -222s to Boeing as 777s are delivered. Apart from these and the TWA aircraft, the aircraft are with their original operators. Anyone at Douglas read this??? Will the workers actually try to take over as a recent AvWeek suggested? Are you delivering many white-tails? The MD-80 orderbook is pretty slim right now and the MD-90 is at least a year away.... Toby (the Commercial Aviation nut) From kls Sun Jan 17 17:57:59 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: United Livery References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jan 93 17:57:59 PST Tobias Henry Lutterodt writes: >No one has mentioned that United changed their livery slightly in >about 1988, making titles and stripes larger. Some has -- I did, in my first article on the subject. >This new livery looks too much like British Airways' and Canadian's >for my tastes. I was at SFO Friday night and happened to ask a couple of United folks about the new scheme. One of them noted that you could go over to the international terminal and look at a Canadian jet to see what it looks like. They said it was quite dark, and made the same comment about it looking like a military aircraft that someone noted here. Anyway, if anyone is desparate to continue the asethetic discussion let's either take it into e-mail or propose a sci.aero.airliners.fashion subgroup. ;-) >BTW, if this livery change is like others which have occured >recently, it will take a few years. The United folks at SFO said that to their knowledge only one aircraft had been painted in the new scheme to date, a 747. Most likely this was a new 747-422, perhaps N188UA which was due in December. Do any of the Boeing folks know for sure? They also mentioned that there would be no rush to repaint aircraft into the new scheme, though with United receiving a steady stream of 737-522s, 747-422s, 757-222s, and 767-322(ER)s, with A320-231s due to start arriving late this year, the new scheme will probably show up quite rapidly. There've been some times lates when United has taken delivery a new Boeing every day of the week! Along with this, there are an increasing number of retirements which should quicken the thinning of the ranks of the older scheme -- few if any 727-22s are left, the 737-222s started going a few months ago, and they've just started unloading the 727-222s (though not the -222 Advanced models). Several reports have indicated that the ten 747SP-21s may be retired as a group very soon, too. >United is returning its original batch of -222s to Boeing as 777s are >delivered. Where did you hear that? I've seen no mention of it, and given that the oldest will be only 13 years old it seems a bit surprising. And the 777 is replacing the DC-10 more than the 767. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Sun Jan 17 17:58:00 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Ghost Comet? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jan 93 17:58:00 PST John Dill writes: > About 1976, when I visited O'hare tower, I saw a very shabby and >bedraggled Comet parked near the tower! > Does anyone know what happened to that plane? This same question came up in rec.aviation early last year. Following are some excerpts from an article I posted then. I'm not certain but I believe it's still there, partly disassembled -- last I heard they were having some problems funding the effort. (following from rec.aviation article posted March 25, 1992) Last year, Chuck Downey of the O'Hare Rotary Club invited Chicago's Public Broadcasting System (PBS) TV station, WTTW, to do a program about this plane. The result was a very well researched half-hour show entitled The First Jetliner. I dug out my tape of this program to dredge up some answers for you. Mexicana purchased two Comet 4Cs, possibly new. One of these is now resplendent in BOAC colors and is used for aviation tech training at a Seattle-area community college, ironically just a few miles from where the 707 prototype will end up. The other Mexicana Comet 4C, built c. 1964 and registered as XA-NAS, was flown to O'Hare in 1976 pending a sale to a nudist colony. The sale fell through and apparently the plane was abandoned. Around 1988 the O'Hare Rotary Club decided that the old bird deserved a better end than decaying into the O'Hare tarmac and volunteered to disassemble it and ship it to the Smithsonian. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Sun Jan 17 17:58:00 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Boeing 777 news Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jan 93 17:58:00 PST The latest issue of Airliners Monthly News contains the following on the 777: United is reported as having been the instigator for a 777 'A+' which will be able to fly nonstop from Chicago to London or Buenos Aires. According to local Seattle newspapers, United had threatened Boeing that it would reduceits order for 777s from 11 to five if the version was not developed. I found this rather surprising on a number of counts. First, United ordered 34 777s, with 34 more on option. These were all domestic (A-market) versions, though with MGTOW upgraded slightly to 525,000 lbs. in order to give them the range to fly a full load to Hawaii from Chicago. What is this about an order for 11? Also, where did this international stuff come from? United planned to use the 777 to replace the DC-10 on *domestic* routes, with the 747-400 and 767 (both -200 and -300) used for long international routes. This is the first reference I've seen to any desire to use them for long international work, though they would certainly be a logical replacement for United's aging fleet of 18 747-100s. Was there a second order that I missed? Finally, could someone elaborate on the current details of the A vs. B vs. C market offerings? I assume higher thrust engines, heavier MGTOW, and of course ETOPS ratings are the main points, most all of which is driven by engine improvements. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Mon Jan 18 08:20:22 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: yarvin@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) Subject: Re: McDonnel Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices X-Submission-Date: 17 Jan 1993 23:37:04 -0500 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Yale Computer Science Department Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1jdc5gINNb18@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> Date: 18 Jan 93 08:20:22 PST drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) writes: >I guess I can't swallow the idea that a passenger's CD player is going to >find its way into nav or other avionics gear. If the manufacturer really >said this, I interpret it as straw-grasping in the absence of other >explanations. > >The most powerful components of a CD player are presumably the motor drive >and audio output. A CD player is a digital device. Thus it generates the sort of RFI a computer generates. Digital devices have voltages which transition sharply, generating relatively strong radio frequency pulses relative to analog devices, where changes in voltage are much slower. Computers often have some sort of shielding, whereas the average CD player probably only has as much shielding as is necessary to protect the analog components from the RFI emanated by the digital components. This is just a guess of mine, based on the thinking that CD players are cheap mass-market devices whose generation of RFI is not generally perceived as a concern. It seems to me that if any small non-radio appliance is plausible as a cause of RFI, a CD player is. -- Norman Yarvin yarvin@cs.yale.edu From kls Mon Jan 18 08:20:24 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: arnaud@mvuxd.att.com Subject: Book Review: Wide-Body X-Submission-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 09:11:11 EST Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 18 Jan 93 08:20:24 PST While browsing in a Boston bookstore, I found a book "Wide-body, the triumph of the 747" by Clive Irving, Investigative reporter, London Sunday Times. William Morrow and Company, 1993, ISBN 0-688-09902-5. >From a quick perusal, the book seems to be fairly specific in technical details, with description of the development of the swept wing, the XB-47, the B52, Dash-80 (707) and 727. There are a few photographs, mainly of XB-47, B52s, 707 and of Boeing engineers and executives. Here's what is printed on the inside flap of the cover: In the 20th century, a handful of American companies have-with the introduction of a single product or product line- literally transformed the lives of millions. Among them are Xerox, IBM and AT&T. But only one company -Boeing- undertook the single massive speculative leap, a billion-dollar gamble, of the kind that resulted in the 747 and ultimately transformed the world's transportation habits. Today, little more than 20 years after the first 747 rolled off the line, the Boeing Jumbo is probably the most recognizable artifact of American technological achievement in the world. Yet behind-the-scenes story of its birth is largely unknown. In Wide-Body, Clive Irving shows how the creation of the 747 transformed the destiny of the Boeing Company and, at the same time, how such a "bet the company" decision was very much of a piece with Boeing's history, going right back to its roots and remoteness in the Pacific Northwest. The story of the 747 is an aviation adventure of the first order. The odissey of the plane is studded with heroism under pressure, technological wizardry, and a tradition of test pilots deeply imbued with the right suff. Equally fascinating is the story of the business culture behind the plane: a culture shaped by a generation of brilliant young engineers who made Boeing the world leader in commercial aviation. Often in dispute, always innovative, they were led by a lawyer, reluctant to accept the job, who became steely nerved in the face of gigantic risks. To win primacy, Boeing had to outperform its two most-feared rivals, Douglas and Lockheed. Several times the outcome was in the balance. There were agile deals with generals, often frustrated by double dealing politicians. The company's fate culminates in a secretive deal between two magnates determined to dominate their respective industries. There has never seemd a better time to be reminded of this triumphant and uniquely American business story. ----- Alan Arnaud arnaud@mvuxd.att.com From kls Mon Jan 18 20:07:03 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) Subject: Re: Ghost Comet? X-Submission-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 09:32:25 -0800 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: Summary: Reply-To: reb@Ingres.COM Organization: E 4th St Home For The Overeducated Underemployed - New Jersey Div. Expires: Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <199301181732.AA08068@pony.ingres.com> Date: 18 Jan 93 20:07:03 PST In article ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) writes: > About 1976, when I visited O'hare tower, I saw a very shabby and >bedraggled Comet parked near the tower! > Does anyone know what happened to that plane? [See another message on this subject for all the details] As of a few weeks ago it was still there. reb From kls Mon Jan 18 20:07:04 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: 767 Freighter X-Submission-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 11:30:31 PST Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9301181930.AA09459@moclips.boeing.com> Date: 18 Jan 93 20:07:04 PST 1-15-93 UPS LAUNCHES 767 FREIGHTER WITH ORDER FOR UP TO 60 United Parcel Service launched the 767 Freighter program today with an order for up to 60 of the twinjets. The order is for 30 firm aircraft and 30 options. Detailed design engineering is beginning immediately. The design will be complete, and production will begin in the second quarter of 1994. The first airplane will roll off Everett's production line and enter flight testing in the second quarter of 1995, with certification and delivery scheduled in October 1995. UPS has not selected engines for the airplane, which is based on the 767-300 extended-range airframe. The 767 Freighter will be capable of carrying 56 tons of maximum revenue payload 3,000 nautical miles, or 45 tons as far as 4,000 nautical miles. The package-delivery firm will use the airplanes on international, transoceanic and domestic flights. The purchase is the largest order for all-cargo aircraft ever received by Boeing. Dick Oehme, UPS Airlines president and chief operating officer, said, "Our announcement today demonstrates UPS's long-term commitment to provide reliable, on-time, worldwide service for our customers." The Atlanta-based firm delivers 3 billion packages a year, operates 130,000 delivery vehicles, and operates and has on firm order 197 airplanes. From kls Mon Jan 18 20:07:06 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: ted@flair.ssl.berkeley.edu (Ted Rodriguez-Bell) Subject: Re: why paint on airliners? X-Submission-Date: 18 Jan 1993 21:37:45 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UC Berkeley Space Sciences Lab Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1jf7v9$igd@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 18 Jan 93 20:07:06 PST In article pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) writes: > ... >Why would a manufacturer insist on paint? Is it because of corrosion? If so, >does the quality of the metal differ from aircraft that may be left bare? > In Airbus's case, it's so their planes will look better. In a story that appeared when American placed the A300 order, _Aviation_Week_ explained that aluminum fuselage panels tend to come in slightly different colors. If you want your new plane to wear as little paint as possible, you tell Douglas or Boeing and they make sure all the fuselage panels for your plane match. Airbus didn't want to do this, so American agreed to take the planes painted. Curiously, the color used was ``Boeing Gray''. -- Ted Rodriguez-Bell ted@ssl.berkeley.edu From kls Mon Jan 18 20:07:07 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: lls2n@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (Leon Shieh) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 news X-Submission-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 22:21:18 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Virginia X-Submission-Message-ID: <1993Jan18.222118.18039@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Jan 93 20:07:07 PST >From the Nov. 10, 1992 Aviation Daily, Boeing refused to defer delivery to United of 6 of the 11 777s scheduled for 1995 delivery since United is the launch customer. United then decided to use the 777s on international routes instead of as a replacement for its DC-10s, allowing them to defer 747-400 deliveries until 1996 and beyond. The 777s now will have around 300 seats in 3 classes instead of 363 seats in a 2-class configuration originally specified, and they will be the "A+" version instead of the "A" version. The A+ version has a MGTOW of 535,000 pounds vs. 506,000 for the A version, and range of 5600 miles vs. 4660 miles. Karl indicated to me that United originally specified A version had a higher MGTOW of 515,000 pounds. Karl and I both noticed that the 92/93 JP lists only 6 777s as scheduled for delivery to United in 1995, does anyone know if they accelerated them somewhere along the way or is one of these publications is wrong? Leon leon@virginia.edu From kls Wed Jan 20 02:39:30 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: United 767s X-Submission-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 18:26:07 -0500 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9301182326.AA16659@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Date: 20 Jan 93 02:39:30 PST With reference to the United 767-222s, I am not sure where I read that they were to be traded in, but I remember it distictly. Picture this...Boeing is trying to launch its new baby against fierce competition from Airbus (It was very close, I've heard). To clinch the deal Boeing decides to take back and remarket 19 identical, well-maintained aircraft. Now, United is getting 757s which are almost the size of these 767s but more efficient for domestic routes as well as 767-322s which are more efficient for international routes. The 767-222s (even the ones modified for ER) are now ugly ducklings. It makes sense...I can't guarantee it's going to happen. Any comments about the UPS deal? I would have thought that the 767 would not have been able to fit UPS igloos 2-abreast. Will they have to go to a new container for this aircraft (not compatible with that of the 757)? Any news about the engine choice? -Toby (The Commerical Aviation Nut) From kls Wed Jan 20 02:39:35 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Airspeed warning systems X-Submission-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 93 08:04:16 CST Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9301191404.AA03094@rascal.ics.utexas.edu> Date: 20 Jan 93 02:39:35 PST The following may be useful to those interested in maximum operating airspeeds of civil airliners. The data is derived from published straight-line performance graphs for the 727-200, and follows the form: V = mh + b where V = Velocity-maximum operating, VMO, in indicated airspeed. h = indicated pressure altitude, b = translational offset. The airspeed warning system has two considerations: airspeed and structural limitations. The airspeed warning system has two user-selectable modes, A and B, to handle the structural limitation. Mode B is used when the airplane weighs more than 172,000 lbs, or has a zero-fuel weight of more than 136,000 lbs. Mode A is used, otherwise. In both cases, structural speed limits are significantly less than airspeed limits. The 727's airspeed limitations are defined by mach, at 0.88 to 0.90, depending on configuration. Airspeed limitations become the limiting factor for Mode B over 25,000'. For Mode A, 20,000'. When the airplane exceeds VMO, a clacker sounds, until speed is reduced under VMO again. Granted, this is just arcane knowledge, but those of you with programmable calculators might have some fun with it. For Mode A: h =[0,10000) m = 0.0016 b = 380 h = [10000,21000) m = 0.0012727 b = 383.273 h = [21000,41000] m = -0.00675 b = 538.75 For Mode B: h = [0,25000) m = 0.0008 b = 350.0 h = [25000,41000] m = -0.00675 b = 538.75 -- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd From kls Wed Jan 20 02:39:36 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: kreckman@cbmvax.commodore.com (Steve Kreckman) Subject: Wrecks at SFO X-Submission-Date: 19 Jan 93 15:37:06 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: kreckman@cbmvax.commodore.com (Steve Kreckman) Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <38648@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 20 Jan 93 02:39:36 PST Landing at San Francisco I've noticed a couple wrecks parked on the far side of the runway. One is on its belly with the gear up and the other has the top part of the fuselage in the front burned off. The livery was hard to make out on them but they're pretty sizable and in plain view of the terminal (a bit disconcerting for a few passengers I'm sure). Anyone know about their history and why they're still parked there? -- | Steve Kreckman | kreckman@cbmvax.commodore.com | | | {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!kreckman | | | Tel: 215-431-9108 | | | Fax: 215-431-2805 | From kls Wed Jan 20 02:39:37 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Criminal justice and air crashes... X-Submission-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 93 11:33:47 CST Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9301191733.AA04411@rascal.ics.utexas.edu> Date: 20 Jan 93 02:39:37 PST Peter Ladkin's comment RE the charging in relation to the Air Inter crash reminded me of another incident. Many countries establish kangaroo courts in response to air disasters, to satisfy an immediate blood-lust on the part of the families and the local community. Civilized countries, of course, prefer to punish everyone involved via drawn out, expensive civil suits. :-) (although I will note that a hysterical prosecutor in New York was awfully quick to talk about criminal charges against a USAir crew after one of their runway overruns at La Guardia :-)). The following is adapted from _Human factors in managing aviation safety: proceedings of the 37th annual international air safety seminar, held October 29-November 1, 1984, in Zurich, Switzerland_. Sponsored by the Flight Safety Foundation. This is based on an "open letter" by Captain Max Venet, of Swissair. He was ordered to investigate the crash of a Swissair DC-8 at Athens on October 7, 1979. They were charged with manslaughter. A trial was held April 25-27, 1983; the captain and first officer were sentenced to five years imprisonment. Prior to the verdict, Swissair offered to post a 20 million drachma bail ($266,000), to allow the crew to skip town. The captain refused, wanting to make this a test-case, since both the circumstances of the crash and the behavior of the authorities are not unique to Greece: I am not sure how it all worked out. The last I heard of it (1985), IFALPA was trying to organize a pilot boycott of Greece. The reader not familiar with runway variability should be aware that runways come in all shape, sizes, and lengths. Runway markings can range from nonexistent to excellent: conditions can range from heavily grooved, high-quality baking surfaces to flat, rubber-coated skidding ranges. The actual composition of runways is also not guaranteed: Karachi, for many years, had a reputation as one of the worst in the world, being comprised of large cement blocks, none of which were at the same elevation as the ones adjoining, and many of which had wide gaps between them, as they settled. Pilots flying into Karachi often likened it to a controlled crash. All runways also have a slope (they aren't level), and all long ones have definite *differences* in slope from one end to another, such that it often isn't possible to see more than a few thousand feet down. At any rate, original text follows. My comments are in brackets []. [ Acronymns: ATC: Air traffic control IAS: Indicated airspeed. ICAO: International Civil Aeronautics Organization. IFALPA: International Federation of Airline Pilot Associations. TDZ: Touchdown Zone VOR: VHF Omni Range, a navaid. ] FOREWARD [...] ACCIDENT SUMMARY On the evening of October 7, 1979, a Swissair DC-8-62 started his approach for a landing at Athens-Hellinikon Airport coming from Geneva, bound for Bombay and Peking. Due to fuel availability constraints in Athens, the airplane carried 16 tons of extra fuel, according to company instructions, and was at maximum landing weight, with 154 persons on board, including 10 crewmembers. After passing Didmon VOR at FL 210 at 19:51 local time, the aircraft was cleared for a radar vector to ILS 33 to be followed by a visual circling approach to the landing on runway 15L. Wind reports issued by the controllers indicated 090/18 knots, during the initial approach, and 090/12 kts. in short final. Suspecting a wet runway, while in downwind leg for runway 15L, the crew asked the tower about the braking action. A Greek B-707, which had just landed, reported a "medium to poor" braking action, and this was acknowledged by the Swiss crew. Owing to terrain obstacle in the flight path, the landing threshold of runway 15L is displaced 920 meters, and the DC-8 followed the prescribed curved visual approach procedure, lining up with runway centerline at 450 feet on the normal approach slope angle. During this phase of the approach, a windshear was encountered, momentarily increasing IAS from 145 kts. to 160, and a power correction was applied to reduce airspeed, together with the adoption of a 1000/1500 ft/min rate of descent to stay on the proper slope angle despite the tailwind effect. At 300 ft., the airspeed was stabilized around 150 kts., and the rate of descent adjusted to normal value. The DC-8 touched down approximately 400 to 500 meters after the displaced threshold 15L on runway centerline, with almost no flare. The first officer, who was at the controls, initiated the normal thrust-reversing sequence prescribed by Swissair according to Douglas specification: idle reverse thrust on all four engines, then full reverse thrust on the two inboard engines, whilst spoilers were deployed automatically. He then tested the wheel brakes and applied brake pressure progressively according to procedures. At this stage, owing to the profile of the runway, the pilots could not see the end of runway and thereby assess remaining distance. Deceleration appearing slow, the Captain increased reverse thrust on all four engines and increased pressure on the brakes at no avail, whilst the antiskid devices were in action in "release" mode on what appeared a very slippery portion of the runway [rubber deposits along 1200 m TDZ 33R]. When sighting the red lights of runway centerline's last 190 meters (non ICAO standard, not published in IAP), and preceding immediately a 30% abrupt downward terrain slope and a rough terrain depression cut at 90 degrees by a road bluff), the crew was caught by surprise and, despite heavy braking and full reverse power, was unable to stop the DC-8, which ended its course 30 meters past the runway concrete. A desperate last second alteration of heading to the left enabled the crew to avoid the heavy metallic poles of approach lights 33R. During this phase, the landing gear collapsed and the tail cone hit the edge of concrete runway extremity, while the aircraft stopped against the road. Fire broke out from dismantled fuel tanks spilling their contents onto hot engine debris, and the center aft section of fuselage was seriously damaged during impact. The crew did their best to help the passengers out of the aircraft through the front and aft left exits. Inflatable evacuation ramps were quickly damaged by spreading ignited fuel, and several passengers were injured during evacuation. Fourteen passengers died trapped in the center aft section of fuselage and could not be rescued in the raging fire. Fire-fighting trucks arrived within 3 or 4 minutes from the US Air Force base and from the airport emergency facilities but were unable to master the fire immediately: their trucks being unable to move down the 30% terrain slope, the fire was initially fought from the concrete runway extremity, some 40 meters away from the fire source. Some vehicles finally managed to reach the road on which the DC-8 had come to rest, but for this, had to use a complicated pattern of peripheral roads to gain access to the wreck. Even then, only one side of the aircraft could be reached, the DC-8 sitting on the road and the vehicles being unable to reach the other side. INVESTIGATION. [ Author notes that certain conclusions in the Greek accident report were impossible to sustain, given the five-parameter flight data recorder] TRIAL This trial was held in a scandalous manner, according to all the people who attended it (Airline officials, lawyers, press correspondents, pilots and cabin crew): the tribunal room was a noisy caravanserail where a constant flow of turbulent visitors came in and out to take photographs of the accused pilots and tape record the proceedings. The first morning session started at 9:30 AM with cases dealing with prostitution, thefts, swindling and other misdemeanors. Without transition, the same court called the witnesses for the Swissair pilots case and started their cross-examination and testimonies. The two eminent Greek attorneys selected by Swissair to defend its two pilots did a great job and deserve admiration for the quality of their assistance. The Court was composed of three judges, one state prosecutor and one secretary. The hearings were stopped at 2PM and started again at 6PM the same day till 3AM the next day without interruption. The last day session started again at 6PM and the verdict rendered at 1:30 AM. Most of the time, the main judge could be seen asleep, while the secretary was drawing instead of taking the minutes. Finnair DC-8 captain and several Olympic Airways captains who had landed in Athens within a few minutes before the accident or shortly after testified at the very poor water drainage and the very slippery status of this runway, especially on the portion of 1200 meters corresponding to the heavily utilized (80% of the time) touch down zone of runway 33R contaminated by thick rudder deposits, oil and kerosene mixed with undrained rainwater. US expert specialists of runway friction analysis testified under oath that such a combination of elements, together with the absence of accurate wind measurement (wind was measured at threshold of runway 33 while the landing runway was 15), had undoubtedly been the main causal factor of this accident. After the prudent and short, rather neutral declarations of ATC controllers and of some airport employees, the head of the Greek Civil Aviation Authority came to deny all responsibilities on behalf of his Services: according to him, everything was in conformity with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (I), and, if the foreign airlines were not happy about Athens Airport, nobody compelled them to operate on this airport. The two Swissair pilots stood for hours listening with perfect dignity and finally testified for almost two hours again before the State prosecutor started to announce his accusation, taking no account of the arguments brought forward by the witnesses and by the defenders. This marathon went for three hours with the two attorneys presenting the defence plea. The judge then suddenly seemed to wake up, withdrew with his two assessors, the State prosecutor and the secretary. Everybody was confident that, after such a pbrilliant defence and bearing in mind that Swissair had financially settled all the claims of the families of the victims, the accusation would be abandoned. "After a ten minute recess, the Court came back. The judge was smiling and left it to the State Prosecutor to start where the "whereas." He then announced the sentence: "FIVE YEARS and TWO MONTH of IMPRISONMENT for each pilot, "TWENTY MILLION RACHMAS bail offer ($266,000), "POSSIBILITY FOR APPEAL." The two pilots were convicted of MANSLAUGHTER, CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE AND INTERRUPTION OF AIR TRAFFIC. [emphasis in original] [ RECOMMENDATIONS to IFALPA omitted ] -- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd From kls Wed Jan 20 02:39:39 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: weiss@turing.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) Subject: Re: Do DC-9s exhibit a nose-down attitude under power? X-Submission-Date: 19 Jan 93 19:21:06 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9166@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> Date: 20 Jan 93 02:39:39 PST In article morse@mprgate.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse) writes: >If I had to guess, I'd say the inlets are optimized >for cruise downwash conditions with the landing/takeoff downwash falling >within the design tolerances. It should also be noted that the fuselage during taxi (and the takeoff/landing rolls) actually is pitched down, and the engines themselves are close to horizontal. This seems to match the desire to not turn the air in the inlet, and still manages to handle this under nearly every condition. As an aside, it is often desireable to have a force pushing the nose down in an aircraft, as this prevents pitch instability. Pitch instability is the condition where there is a natural tendency to pitch up, which causes a natural inclination to stall the wings...bad idea. Hence the desire to prevent that from happening unless the pilot specifically "instructs" the aircraft to do it. It is unlikely, however, that this is the reason for the particular engine orientation on the DC-9. -- \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | / - Michael weiss@seas.ucla.edu | School of Engineering & Applied Science - - Weiss izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu | University of California, Los Angeles - / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \ From kls Wed Jan 20 02:39:40 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: weiss@turing.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) Subject: Re: United's new livery X-Submission-Date: 19 Jan 93 19:32:32 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9167@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> Date: 20 Jan 93 02:39:40 PST In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >And of course there's American. >They switched to the big AA logo from the eagle when, about 1904? :-) >And then there's their *big* change -- to silverish grey paint from >polished aluminum for those aircraft where the manufacturer insisted >on paint. Oh boy! :-) Actually, it appears that the "silverish grey paint" appears only on fiberglass components, where the color certainly wouldn't match that of the aluminum. Granted, it's not perfect, but it's closer than that pale beige of unpainted fiberglass. The most obvious places to see the painted fiberglass are on the tailcones of MD-80s (which all were replaced sometime in the mid-80s, when tailcones were disappearing in midflight), and on 757s, 767s, newer 737s and 747s, and the MD-11s all over the fuselage. One thing I noticed when flying on a 757 is that leading-edge surfaces (such as the nacelle of the engines, and the leading-edge slats) are all aluminum, but an awful lot of the rest is fiberglass. Oh, and one more disclaimer. I'm not at all certain that the composite in question actually is fiberglass. In fact, I would not be surprised in the least to find that it is some sort of carbon fiber composite. -- \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | / - Michael weiss@seas.ucla.edu | School of Engineering & Applied Science - - Weiss izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu | University of California, Los Angeles - / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \ From kls Wed Jan 20 02:39:40 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: powell@syd.dwt.CSIRO.AU (Powell Heuer) Subject: Re: why paint on airliners? X-Submission-Date: 20 Jan 1993 02:25:50 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: P.Heuer@syd.dwt.CSIRO.AU Organization: CSIRO Div. of Wool Technology, Ryde, Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1jid7eINNr8h@ringer.syd.dwt.CSIRO.AU> Date: 20 Jan 93 02:39:40 PST In article , pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) writes: .... |>Why would a manufacturer insist on paint? Is it because of corrosion? |>If so, |>does the quality of the metal differ from aircraft that may be left |>bare? The argument I've heard (I don't know how relevant to commercial airliners) goes thus: 1. Aluminium is a good visible reflector so doesn't absorb much solar radiation (heat) which has its peak power in the visible. 2. However, as a metal it is also "shiny" in the thermal infra-red and so doesn't easily radiate the heat that it does absorb. 3. White paint is almost as good a reflector in the visible but is fairly black in the thermal infra-red and so radiates well the heat that it does absorb (or is generated internally). 4. A white painted aluminium surface will therefore be cooler in the sun than an unpainted, polished one. This may be significant in terms of the air-conditioning load for an aircraft sitting on the ground in bright sun. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Powell Heuer E-Mail: P.Heuer@syd.dwt.csiro.au CSIRO Division of Wool Technology PO Box 7 Ryde NSW 2112 AUSTRALIA From kls Wed Jan 20 14:01:45 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: gary@maestro.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga) Subject: Re: McDonnel Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices X-Submission-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 17:35:44 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: gbisaga@mitre.org Organization: The Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan20.173544.11562@linus.mitre.org> Date: 20 Jan 93 14:01:45 PST In article , yarvin@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) writes: |> drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) writes: |> >The most powerful components of a CD player are presumably the motor drive |> >and audio output. |> Computers often have some sort of shielding, whereas the average CD player |> probably only has as much shielding as is necessary to protect the analog |> components from the RFI emanated by the digital components. Except for the fact that both CD players and computers must be certified to the (dredge memory banks for numbers and letters ...) FCC part 15J EMC rules. In fact, there are two parts to the rules: - class A devices, which are built for home use - class B devices, which are built for "commercial" use The rules for class B devices, which often include computer equipment (check the back of your monitor), allow a higher level of emitted EM energy than class A devices, which would probably include CD players, the thinking being that a device for home use is more likely to interfere with cheap analog devices such as TV sets and radio so must have lower EM emissions. In any case I'd have a hard time believing that, even subject to the same EMC rules, a CD player would emit as much as a computer. -- Gary Bisaga (gbisaga@mitre.org) From kls Wed Jan 20 14:01:46 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) Subject: Re: Wrecks at SFO X-Submission-Date: 20 Jan 1993 17:45:32 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Reply-To: Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1jk33sINN55m@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> Date: 20 Jan 93 14:01:46 PST kreckman@cbmvax.commodore.com (Steve Kreckman) writes: Anyone know about their history and why they're still parked there? They're hulks used for fire training. One is a Convair 880 or 990 and the other is a 707 or 720. I don't know anything about their history, or how long they've been there. I only noticed them for the first time a few months ago, oddly enough. Geoff -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Menlo Park, California -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- From kls Wed Jan 20 14:01:48 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) Subject: DC-8 nose-down attitude on the ground (was: Do DC-9s exhibit a nose-down X-Submission-Date: 20 Jan 1993 17:52:09 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Reply-To: Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1jk3g9INN55m@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> Date: 20 Jan 93 14:01:48 PST weiss@turing.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) writes: >It should also be noted that the fuselage during taxi (and the takeoff/landing >rolls) actually is pitched down, and the engines themselves are close to >horizontal. The fuselage of the DC-8 has a pronounced nose-down attitude on the ground, which is especially noticeable with the stretched Super 60 and -70 models. Does anyone know the reason for this? It occurs to me that the designers might have had the possibility of a fuselage stretch in mind, even when the original version was under development. (As an aside, I read someplace that a similiar stretch of the 707 was deemed unfeasible due to the lack of extra clearance during rotation for takeoff.) Geoff -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Menlo Park, California -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- From kls Thu Jan 21 01:53:47 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: ditka!sgiblab!enuucp.eas.asu.edu!mcdphx!fredch (Fred Christiansen) Subject: Re: Do DC-9s exhibit a nose-down attitude under power? X-Submission-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 16:07:57 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Motorola Computer Group, RT Software Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan18.160757.27012@phx.mcd.mot.com> Date: 21 Jan 93 01:53:47 PST Related to DC-9's and nose-up attitude, what about DC-10's? I recall reading that DC-10 engines (well, maybe just the one in the tail) are pitched. Wasn't there the case maybe 10 years ago of a DC-10 (Florida area? Delta?) whose surfaces froze in some manner making it pitch in one direction, so they applied more power to the tail engine to compensate? Had to get enough nose-down to land. -- Fred Christiansen, Motorola, 2900 S Diablo Way, Tempe, AZ 85282 "Canajun, eh?" fredch@phx.mcd.mot.com || uunet!phx.mcd.mot.com!fredch || +1 602-438-3464 ".. I have set before you Life and Death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose Life, that both you and your children may live" Deut 30:19 From kls Thu Jan 21 01:53:50 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: weiss@edison.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) Subject: Domestic Aircraft X-Submission-Date: 21 Jan 93 04:44:20 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9184@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> Date: 21 Jan 93 01:53:50 PST In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >Also, where did this international stuff come from? United planned >to use the 777 to replace the DC-10 on *domestic* routes, with the >747-400 and 767 (both -200 and -300) used for long international >routes. This had me wondering something. Clearly, aircraft with long ranges (such as the 767, 747, DC-10, etc., etc.) can be flown directly from the US to any nation, so delivery is no more complicated than flying to the appropriate country. What about the shorter-range aircraft, like the 727 and 737? How do they get from the US to, say, the middle east? Are their ranges just long enough to make it from New York to London? -- \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | / - Michael weiss@seas.ucla.edu | School of Engineering & Applied Science - - Weiss izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu | University of California, Los Angeles - / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \ From kls Thu Jan 21 12:32:02 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) Subject: Re: Domestic Aircraft X-Submission-Date: 21 Jan 1993 15:32:05 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM Organization: SunSelect Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1jmfllINN4d5@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> Date: 21 Jan 93 12:32:02 PST In article 89@ohare.Chicago.COM, weiss@edison.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) writes: ##This had me wondering something. Clearly, aircraft with long ranges (such as ##the 767, 747, DC-10, etc., etc.) can be flown directly from the US to any ##nation, so delivery is no more complicated than flying to the appropriate ##country. What about the shorter-range aircraft, like the 727 and 737? How ##do they get from the US to, say, the middle east? Are their ranges just long ##enough to make it from New York to London? That's what Iceland is for! (Apologies to my many Icelandic friends....) --- Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM) From kls Thu Jan 21 12:32:06 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose) Subject: Re: Domestic Aircraft X-Submission-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:07:54 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Evil Fascist IRC Admins From Hell, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 21 Jan 93 12:32:06 PST Michael> == Michael Weiss Michael> In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >Also, where did this international stuff come from? United planned >to use the 777 to replace the DC-10 on *domestic* routes, with the >747-400 and 767 (both -200 and -300) used for long international >routes. Michael> This had me wondering something. Clearly, aircraft with long Michael> ranges (such as the 767, 747, DC-10, etc., etc.) can be flown Michael> directly from the US to any nation, so delivery is no more Michael> complicated than flying to the appropriate country. What Michael> about the shorter-range aircraft, like the 727 and 737? How Michael> do they get from the US to, say, the middle east? Are their Michael> ranges just long enough to make it from New York to London? There are several answers to this. The first is that trips to Europe are usually hopped through Gander, (Newfoundland? -- in any case, Northeastern Canada) which is alot closer to Europe than any of USA. The second, which can be combined with the first is the use of fuel bladders. Rip out the seats (or even not) and put a whole lot of fuel. Makes up for the lack of passengers and their luggage, and gives a whoooooole lot of range. Another (slightly sillier) option that British Airways used once between a flight from LHR (London-Heathrow) to SYD (Sydney, Australia) was to only allow 50 people on board, and ship their luggage on another flight. It went non-stop, though. :-) Once the aircraft get to, say, Europe, it can make as many stops as it needs to get to the middle east or former Soviet Union (who recently certified the 737 for operation inside its borders by its member countries) because it's (mostly) over land! --Helen -- Helen Trillian Rose Kapor Enterprises, Inc. email eff@eff.org for EFF Info Electronic Frontier Foundation Flames to: Systems and Networks Administration women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org From kls Fri Jan 22 02:59:45 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: morse@mprgate.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse) Subject: Re: DC-8 nose-down attitude on the ground (was: Do DC-9s exhibit a nose-down X-Submission-Date: 21 Jan 93 15:38:42 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, BC, Canada. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 22 Jan 93 02:59:45 PST In article Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes: > The fuselage of the DC-8 has a pronounced nose-down attitude on the ground, > which is especially noticeable with the stretched Super 60 and -70 models. > Does anyone know the reason for this? It occurs to me that the designers > might have had the possibility of a fuselage stretch in mind, even when the > original version was under development. (As an aside, I read someplace that > a similiar stretch of the 707 was deemed unfeasible due to the lack of extra > clearance during rotation for takeoff.) A recent article in Aviation Week and Space Technology on the A340 described how the front landing gear had to be redesigned because it was 10 inches too short. This resulted in a noticeable nose down / tail up attitude. Interestingly enough, the nose down attitude wasn't the reason for the change. Supposedly the tail up attitude placed the rear doors up to 16 inches too high for the lifts on the trucks. My question is this: How could the designers goof by 10 inches? -- Daryl Morse | Voice : (604) 293-5476 MPR Teltech Ltd. | Fax : (604) 293-5787 8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC | E-Mail : morse@mpr.ca Canada, V5A 4B5 | : mprgate.mpr.ca!morse@uunet.uu.net From kls Fri Jan 22 02:59:46 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Domestic Aircraft X-Submission-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 10:01:31 CST References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9301211601.AA16235@cactus.org> Date: 22 Jan 93 02:59:46 PST In article Michael Weiss writes: > >In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>Also, where did this international stuff come from? United planned >>to use the 777 to replace the DC-10 on *domestic* routes, with the >>747-400 and 767 (both -200 and -300) used for long international >>routes. > >This had me wondering something. Clearly, aircraft with long ranges (such as >the 767, 747, DC-10, etc., etc.) can be flown directly from the US to any >nation, so delivery is no more complicated than flying to the appropriate >country. What about the shorter-range aircraft, like the 727 and 737? How >do they get from the US to, say, the middle east? Are their ranges just long >enough to make it from New York to London? Every class and model of airplane has specific operational guidelines. EROPS (extended-range operations) is an acronym that describes the regulatory en- vironment. These apply to any airplane, in varying degrees of severity, regardless of whether it's a 737-500 or a 747-400. For a twin, for instance, the major issue is the reliability of the engines: for a trijet or four- engined jet, a major issue can become the ability of the airplane to withstand a cargo fire. The objective is to establish a functional, statistical "equivalency" of safety among all types operating a given route structure. Note also that EROPS isn't necessarily concerned with over-water operations: there are large areas of Asia, for instance, which would not satisfy legal requirements for an alternate airport, with even a 120 minute alternate envelope: runway length, quality of instrument approach, weather reporting, and emergency services must all be considered. Four-engined airplanes tend to set the "gold standard," for perceived reliability reasons. Thus, airplanes like the 747 may fly anywhere within their legal operational envelope (i.e., source->destination + alternate) without special aircrew or airplane certification. Three-engined aircraft have slightly tighter limitations, but may similarly be flown without special operational requirements. Two-engine airplanes have the tightest restrictions of all, requiring very high, demonstrated engine reliability, and a high degree of systems redun- dancy, to bring them up to a demonstrated equivalency of established wide- body aircraft. Special aircrew and operations-department training is also required for this type of flying. Extended-range twin operations is often referred to as "ETOPS." Ferry operations, which you refer to, are simply a subset of a generic EROPS class, minus the unique particulars which might qualify an airplane for max. range. Obviously, this changes from airplane to airplane, but, yes, for long-range delivery flights, there is no alternative but to stage it in short hops, the length of which is contingent upon the capabilities of the particular airplane and the crew available to make the flight. There are plenty of short-hop alternates between Europe and the United States. Even light singles can be safely ferried, but extra attention must be paid to survival equipment, avionics (communications), and weather. The latter has been discussed extensively on rec.aviation over the past couple of years, where a couple of pilots have actually done this. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Fri Jan 22 02:59:47 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose) Subject: news on the Boeing 777 X-Submission-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:54:30 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Evil Fascist IRC Admins From Hell, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 22 Jan 93 02:59:47 PST Copyright 1993 by UPI Reposted with permission from the ClariNet Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.news.aviation. For more info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS. From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI) Newsgroups: clari.news.aviation,clari.biz.products,clari.biz.top Subject: Boeing begins major assembly for 777 SEATTLE (UPI) -- Boeing Co. said Thursday it has started major assembly of its first new aircraft in more than a decade -- the 777 jetliner, which is slated for delivery in a little more than two years. Boeing said employees began work on the first 777 airplane wing at the 777 Division near Everett, Wash., by installing about 5,100 fasteners on a 105-foot-long structure that will become the front spar in the plane's left wing. ``This marks the start of one of an airplane's major stages -- the wing assembly,'' said Dale Hougardy, vice president. ``Meeting this program milestone is a significant step in helping us deliver a quality airplane on schedule to our airline customers.'' The spars act as major supports to strengthen the whole wing structure, with each wing containing two tapered aluminum spars. The 777 is wide-body airliner midway in size between the 747 jumbo jet and the mid-range 767, with seating for 305 to 440 passengers. Final assembly of the first airplane will begin in late 1993, with rollout in March 1994. First delivery to United Airlines will take place in May 1995. Boeing said it has received 118 firm orders and 95 options for the plane, which is believed to have a price tag of about $120 million per craft. The 777 is expected to cost Boeing at least $4 billion in development and initial-production costs. Boeing also admitted earlier this month that it had talked with German manufacturer Daimler Benz about building a ``super jumbo jet'' with capacity for 600 to 800 passengers. Analysts believe that project would cost $10 billion to get off the ground. For the first nine months of last year, Boeing earned $1.29 billion, or $3.69 a share, compared with $1.16 billion, or $3.39 a share, in the year-ago period. Nine-month revenues were $22.69 billion, compared with $21.56 billion. ======= OK, so how many of *you* are going to be out in Seattle for the B777 rollout next March? Anyone out at Boeing Commercial Airplanes able to get some passes to this thing? :-) --Helen -- Helen Trillian Rose Kapor Enterprises, Inc. email eff@eff.org for EFF Info Electronic Frontier Foundation Flames to: Systems and Networks Administration women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org From kls Fri Jan 22 02:59:48 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) Subject: Delivery flights X-Submission-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:26:17 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 22 Jan 93 02:59:48 PST MW> == Michael Weiss MW> Clearly, aircraft with long ranges (such as the 767, 747, DC-10, etc., MW> etc.) can be flown directly from the US to any nation, so delivery is MW> no more complicated than flying to the appropriate country. What MW> about the shorter-range aircraft, like the 727 and 737? How do they MW> get from the US to, say, the middle east? Are their ranges just long MW> enough to make it from New York to London? It's my understanding that, at least in some cases, auxiliary fuel bladders are used to up the range for delivery flights (and in any case, the lack of passenger, luggage, and/or cargo weight increases the amount of fuel that can be carried). Also, for trans-Atlantic delivery flights, routing through Gander or Goose Bay is often used. -- * Christopher Davis * * * [CKD1] * MIME * RIPEM * From kls Fri Jan 22 02:59:49 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: naylor@research.canon.oz.au (William Naylor) Subject: airliners in low earth orbit X-Submission-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:58:41 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 22 Jan 93 02:59:49 PST I have heard it suggested that long distance air travel could eventually be done by airliners which fly in low earth orbit. Flying in low earth orbit could reduce travel time and reduce fuel consumption. I know almost nothing about this and I was hoping some of you could enlighten me. Particularly, I would like to know: 1) What are the difficulties and advantages of flying in low earth orbit? 2) How much research has been done/is being done? 3) What is the status of the research? Please e-mail replies to me; I'll post a summary. Thanks. -- Will Naylor net: naylor@research.canon.oz.au mail: Canon Information Systems Research Australia phone: (61-2) 805-2921 P.O. Box 313 North Ryde, NSW 2113 fax: (61-2) 805-2929 Australia From kls Fri Jan 22 02:59:50 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: warn@newton.emba.uvm.edu (Patrick D Warn) Subject: Re: Domestic Aircraft X-Submission-Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 04:35:31 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 22 Jan 93 02:59:50 PST In geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) writes: >In article 89@ohare.Chicago.COM, weiss@edison.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) writes: >## What about the shorter-range aircraft, like the 727 and 737? How >##do they get from the US to, say, the middle east? Are their ranges just long >##enough to make it from New York to London? >That's what Iceland is for! (Apologies to my many Icelandic friends....) Actually, a large part of an airplanes fuel is spent getting off the ground and up to crusing altitude. With an empty plane the crusing range goes up considerablely. When I worked for Boeing I took a aircraft familarization class and I think I remember the instructor saying that a fully loaded 747 flying from Seattle to Japan burned almost half its fuel taking off. -- Wondering what it all means, Pat From kls Fri Jan 22 02:59:50 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Subject: Terror at 41,000' X-Submission-Date: 22 Jan 1993 05:24:43 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1jo0erINN325@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Date: 22 Jan 93 02:59:50 PST I'm new to this forum, so I'll introduce myself first before I relate this story. I'm an air traffic controller at the Cleveland ARTCC in Oberlin, Ohio. I've been a controller for 22 years and have quite a few avaition related stories I can tell. I'm also a commercial pilot, though have not been very active the last few years. My memory is a bit fuzzy with the dates and names (names will be changed anyway to protect the guilty) but I think most of what I'm abou to tell is the truth. A Boeing 727 was enroute to JFK at an altitude of 41,000' on this day about 1976. The pilot (we'll call him "Slim") and the co-pilot were discussing the latest rumor about the so called "step", as in boating, but relating to the increase in speed and reduction in fuel consumption possible at high mach numbers and altitutes possible with the 727. The so called "step" could apparently be reached by extending the flaps by 1 or 2 degrees, while at the same time pulling the circuit breakers for the leading edge slats (which automaticlly deploy when flaps are lowered). After discussing the procedure, they decide try it. The flight engineer had left the cockpit to attend to "personal matters" so the Captain reached behind his seat and pulled the breakers for the slats, and then the co-pilot pulled the flap handle out of the detent until he noticed a slight movement of the flap indicator (the flaps themselves are not visible from the cockpit). Satisfied that they had improved the aerodynamics of the 727, the crew was in the process of noting mach no. and fuel flow, when the engineer returned to his seat. Being a professional and concientious fellow, he scaned the panels around his station, and low and behold discovered two circuit breakers that popped. Well, you guessed it...he pushed them in, the slats deployed, and the 727 now became very aerodynamicly unstable. It rolled to the left and nosed over, despite the crews application of oppisite control movement. The next part is part conjecture (the crew wisely erased the flight data recorder after surviving), but it is known that the 727 went supersonic in it's dive from 41 grand. I think the Captain may have been the hero, as he had the presence of mind to lower the gear and not tear the wings off trying to regain control. When the crew finally did get the 727 under some control, they called us at Clevland and requested an immediate landing at Detriot. The damage to the 727 included missing or bent gear doors, missing slats (on one side) and damaged on the other. Of course, the cabin was a shambles, with food carts and debris scattered everywhere. A few pax sustained injuries...can't remember how serious now. A long legal battle took place between ALPA and the airline (Global Air?) and the F.A.A. In the end, I think the pilots were exonerated..and if you ask me....they saved the day! John -- Don't blame me.....I voted for Bush! From kls Fri Jan 22 02:59:51 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Subject: Al Haynes X-Submission-Date: 22 Jan 1993 06:05:25 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1jo2rhINN3rp@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Date: 22 Jan 93 02:59:51 PST Anyone in the Clevland area may want to go see Capt. Al Haynes (pilot of the UAL DC-10 that had a complete hydraulic failure and landed (crashed?) at Sioux City) give his presentation. Place: The Stocker Center Lorain Comunity College Abbey Rd. Elyria, Ohio Time: Feb 17, 19:30 (thats 7:30 p.m. for you private pilots) :) I've seen his presentation and it is not only an amazing story, but an entertaining evening. He is quite a guy! John -- Don't blame me.....I voted for Bush! From kls Fri Jan 22 02:59:52 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Domestic Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jan 93 02:59:52 PST Michael Weiss asks: >This had me wondering something. Clearly, aircraft with long ranges (such as >the 767, 747, DC-10, etc., etc.) can be flown directly from the US to any >nation, so delivery is no more complicated than flying to the appropriate >country. What about the shorter-range aircraft, like the 727 and 737? How >do they get from the US to, say, the middle east? And Robert Dorsett replies: [interesting stuff about EROPS deleted] As a note to any other readers who had to read this a few times to really follow it, Robert is talking about extended range operations in a fairly general sense, not the more familiar and controversial specific topic of flying twin-engine aircraft on trans-oceanic flights. One example of the issues involved beyond overwater ops is the recent cancellation of United's Round-the-World offerings, which was the result of the pilots refusing to fly the leg between Hong Kong and Delhi. United chose to operate this segment with a 767 using a route that would pass over the Himalayas; the pilots objected because of the 767's inability to maintain sufficient altitude over the mountains with one engine out. (Why exactly the route went over the Himalayas is not entirely clear to me, since it would be quite easy to go slightly south and avoid them, but that is another topic.) >Extended-range twin operations is often referred to as "ETOPS." My favorite interpretation of that acronym is "Engines Turn or Passengers Swim," which I've heard is popular amongst pilots. :-) >Ferry operations, which you refer to, are simply a subset of a generic EROPS >class, minus the unique particulars which might qualify an airplane for max. >range. By "unique particulars ... for max. range" are you referring to extra fuel tanks? As has been mentioned elsewhere the standard tankage can be extended with fuel bladders, and often is for long ferry flights, so the basic aircraft may indeed not be equipped with sufficient fuel tankage for a long delivery flight. Other equipment, though, such as additional redundancy required for a twin to fly regular ETOPS wouldn't necessarily be on the aircraft. I doubt they'd add that stuff just so they could deliver it! >for long-range delivery flights, there is no alternative but to stage >it in short hops This simply isn't true, unless you consider "short hops" something approaching transcontinental range, where I'm rather ethnocentrically referring to the North American continent. Consider Hawaii. The closest major airport is San Francisco, nearly 2,400 air miles away. Yet Aloha operates 737s and Hawaiian has DC-9s; Aloha Commuter even has De Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otters! I'll bet the jets flew there from the U.S. That's an awful stretch for the Twin Otters. They may have come from the other direction -- Midway Island is the closest place with an airport, I believe, but even with that route and several additional island hops from Asia there are 1,400 mile legs which are probably at the limits of, if not beyond, the normal range of a Twin Otter. Of course that's turning into a rather expensive delivery odyssey for an aircraft made in Canada! The alternative is to add fuel bladders and carry a maximum load of fuel, with as little else as you can get away with. Perhaps in some cases it may even be necessary to go to the extreme of stripping out the interior to eliminate unnecessary weight. While it's reaching beyond the topic of airliners a bit, there is of course yet another option for small aircraft -- go over aboard a boat or fly inside a bigger aircraft. (The Air Force ferried F-117A Stealth fighters to Europe and back inside C-5B cargo jets, though this was before their existance had been acknowledged and may well have been more for secrecy reasons than range limitations.) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Jan 22 14:34:45 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: swc@dresden.uk.Sun.COM (Steve Cumming - Sun UK) Subject: Re: Domestic Aircraft X-Submission-Date: 22 Jan 1993 11:00:48 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: swc@dresden.uk.Sun.COM Organization: Sun Microsystems Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1jok50INN3b6@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> Date: 22 Jan 93 14:34:45 PST > Another (slightly sillier) option that British > Airways used once between a flight from LHR (London-Heathrow) to SYD >(Sydney, Australia) was to only allow 50 people on board, and ship their >luggage on another flight. It went non-stop, though. :-) This sounds more likely to be the record flight made by a Quantas 747-400 a few years ago. It was a delivery flight from London Heathrow non-stop to Sydney. They used a non-standard fuel and the aircraft was towed to the holding point of runway 27L before starting it's RB-211s. --- Steve Cumming. Sun Microsystems. U.K. Answer Centre. Phone: +44 276 691974 From kls Sat Jan 23 02:06:54 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: hoyme@src.honeywell.com (Ken Hoyme) Subject: Re: Terror at 41,000' X-Submission-Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:25:34 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Mpls. MN, USA. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 23 Jan 93 02:06:54 PST In article ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) writes: > The next part is part conjecture (the crew wisely erased the flight data ^^^^^^criminally?? > A long legal battle took place between ALPA and the airline (Global Air?) > and the F.A.A. In the end, I think the pilots were exonerated..and if you > ask me....they saved the day! Presuming that the first part of this "urban"-legend is true (the breaker flip and all), I take great objections to the implication that the pilots were heroes and that it was smart for them to "erase" the flight data (actually, leave the engines on until the tape loop wrote over the incident information). This is tantamount to saying that a person who shoots another, but then gives them first-aid and saves their life is a 'hero'. Airplanes are designed and certificated to operate in a specific manner. *If* there is a way to improve fuel efficiency, the appropriate approach is to analyze the theory using models, then validate it in research aircraft with skilled test pilots and *no revenue paying passengers*. Then the improvement can be certified and upgraded into the fleet as mandated by FAA rules. All paying passengers have the right to expect that the crew operates the plane as designed and does not use them as unwilling guinea pigs for ill-designed experiments. If it is true that the crew of this plane decided to experiment with the airplane dynamics on a revenue flight then they are criminals -- no different from the reactor control operators at Chernobyl who decided to 'experiment' with the reactor systems leading to that catastrophe. To paint them as 'heroes' is a twisted view of their role. It also drives me nuts when unions go to bat for their people when they are so clearly in the wrong. I think it does a great dis-service to their credibility, and taints all members, the vast majority of which are trying to do a good job. (ALPA went to bat for the NWA pilots who were FWI from Fargo to Minneapolis a few years back, too.) Major disclaimer: My heated response is based on the assumption that the legend about the flap-extension incident is true. Of course, the pilots (I believe) denied this, blaming it on the airplane. And the lack of flight data for the incident period made it difficult to prove. If the real facts of the case were that it was a failure of the airplane, and nothing the crew did precipitated this incident, then I would heartily argue that the crew were heroes, and ALPA had every justified right to go to bat for them. Ken -- Ken Hoyme Honeywell Systems and Research Center (612)951-7354 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 Internet: hoyme@src.honeywell.com From kls Sat Jan 23 02:06:55 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Subject: The Rush to ORD...... X-Submission-Date: 23 Jan 1993 04:13:44 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1jqgloINN7fa@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Date: 23 Jan 93 02:06:55 PST One of the sectors I work as a controller at Cleveland Center is a high (24,000' to 60,000') altitude sector over southern Michigan. This sector works a ton of inbound traffic to ORD, most of it from the east coast and New England areas. Our biggest task is to space two constant streams of a/c into one line before we hand them off to Chicago Center. This involves many speed adjustments and lots of vectors...though the patient controllers have found that speed changes are easier for both flight crews and con- trollers. The differing cruise speeds of our modern jet fleet require alot of conjoling and pleading with the pilots. In an American Airlines rush into ORD we have to space DC10's and B747's from JFK and Europe, with MD80's and Fokker 100's from New York State and New England. At any rate, I thouhgt you folks might be interested in the various cruise speeds of the different aircraft. (If given a choice, take the faster one, and put your wife on the slower one, so you can have a beer at the airport bar while awaiting her flight). B747, DC10, L1011, MD11....mach 83 to mach 85 B727, B767, A300, A320,....mach 80 to mach 82 DC9........................mach 78 to mach 80 MD80, B737.................mach 73 to mach 76 FK100....(get a life!).....mach 71 to mach 74 These speeds are of course up to the flight crew...I've had B737 pilots in a hurry go mach 80...but they burn fuel like mad. Our job is to get the fast guys to slow down and the slow ones to speed up...or suffer a vector off course for spacing. The one I'd pick is not on the list and doesn't fly into ORD anyway, but if you take the Concorde you'll be DRUNK when she gets there. John Dill -- Don't blame me.....I voted for Bush! From kls Sun Jan 24 01:17:21 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Subject: Crew Negligence? X-Submission-Date: 23 Jan 1993 15:04:51 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1jrmqjINNm81@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Date: 24 Jan 93 01:17:21 PST In relating my story about the incident over Detroit I perhaps gave the wrong (editorial) impression of my feelings about the crew's actions. I too agree that any intentional act by a flight crew that places the passsengers in harm's way should not be condoned. My comment about the crew "saving the day" had more to do with the quick thinking they exhibited while in a supersonic dive from 41,000' in a Boeing 727. I also wish to make clear that erasing flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder is illegal and I don't condone either action. John Dill -- Don't blame me.....I voted for Bush! From kls Tue Jan 26 23:47:02 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: weiss@hougen.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) Subject: Trijet engine mounts X-Submission-Date: 24 Jan 93 22:25:18 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9219@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> Date: 26 Jan 93 23:47:02 PST In article writes: >Related to DC-9's and nose-up attitude, what about DC-10's? I recall >reading that DC-10 engines (well, maybe just the one in the tail) are >pitched. The tail engine on the DC-10 (and MD-11) is also pitched, quite likely for the same reason(s) as the DC-9. That has me wondering about the L-1011; the engine is mounted inside the fuselage, so it is difficult to tell if it is pitched from horizontal. Does anyone know if it is? And, if it isn't, why would the L-1011 NOT have the pitched rear engine while the DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, and 727 all have it? And, speaking of the 727, does anyone know if its center engine is pitched? -- \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | / - Michael weiss@seas.ucla.edu | School of Engineering & Applied Science - - Weiss izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu | University of California, Los Angeles - / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \ From kls Tue Jan 26 23:47:04 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Trijet engine mounts X-Submission-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 20:23:21 CST References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9301260223.AA21358@cactus.org> Date: 26 Jan 93 23:47:04 PST Michael Weiss wrote: > That has me wondering about the L-1011; the engine > is mounted inside the fuselage, so it is difficult to tell if it is pitched > from horizontal. Does anyone know if it is? It is pitched up relative to the longitudinal axis of the airplane [1] > And, speaking of the 727, does anyone know if its center engine > is pitched? The 727 #2 engine axis is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the airplane, so no, it is not pitched up. [2] Sources: [1] Wild, Thomas, _Transport Category Aircraft Systems_, IAP, 1990, p. 26. ISBN 0-89100-363-0. [2] _Case Study in Aircraft Design: The Boeing 727_, AIAA Professional Study Series, 1978, p. 28, p. 33. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Tue Jan 26 23:47:04 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Subject: On a Less Serious Subject..... X-Submission-Date: 23 Jan 1993 15:16:56 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1jrnh9INNmol@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Date: 26 Jan 93 23:47:04 PST As controllers, we are required to issue traffic to converging aircraft while using mimimum seperation: (enroute, it's 5 miles lateral, and 1,000' vertical, except above 29,000, where it becomes 2,000' vertical). The other day is issued traffic to a hip pilot enroute to MSP from LGA as follows: "Global (not!) Air 244, traffic 1 o'clock, ten miles, southbound, flight level two eight zero, a Fokker". His response nearly broke me up! "Cleveland, I've been waiting years to be able to say this...I got that Fokker in sight". John -- Don't blame me.....I voted for Bush! From kls Tue Jan 26 23:47:05 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: howp@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Terror at 41,000' X-Submission-Date: 25 JAN 93 23:18:19 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Saskatchewan Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <25JAN93.23181952@skyfox> Date: 26 Jan 93 23:47:05 PST ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) writes: >I'm new to this forum, so I'll introduce myself first before I relate >this story. I'm an air traffic controller at the Cleveland ARTCC in >Oberlin, Ohio. I've been a controller for 22 years and have quite a few >avaition related stories I can tell. I'm also a commercial pilot, though >have not been very active the last few years. > My memory is a bit fuzzy with the dates and names (names will be changed >anyway to protect the guilty) but I think most of what I'm abou to tell >is the truth. > A Boeing 727 was enroute to JFK at an altitude of 41,000' on this day >about 1976. The pilot (we'll call him "Slim") and the co-pilot were >discussing the latest rumor about the so called "step", as in boating, >but relating to the increase in speed and reduction in fuel consumption >possible at high mach numbers and altitutes possible with the 727. [...the stuff about a 727 falling out of the air and landing successfully has been deleted...] > A long legal battle took place between ALPA and the airline (Global Air?) >and the F.A.A. In the end, I think the pilots were exonerated..and if you >ask me....they saved the day! >John I think that this is the famous case with Captain 'Hoot' Gibson. 60 Minutes on CBS had a recent epsiode (in the 1990's) about this incident. From what I remember about the show, the impression I was given was that none of this incident was Gibson's fault and that the whole circuit breaker story was a fabrication of both the FAA and Boeing (at least, that's what was implied). The ostensible reason for such conspiracy was sited as being due to the importance of the 727 (and Boeing) exports. If there was something wrong with the 727 that Capt. Gibson flew, imagine the cost with having to ground all of the 727s in the world! The landing was made at a very high speed (it was quoted in knots, and I've forgotten the numbers, but I think I remember calculating it to be about 450 mph...!). The brakes in the landing gear were so shredded that the metal was spun into something akin to candy floss or steel wool. I also remember them showing a list of other 727 flights that had the same loss of control problem. I think 'Hoot' is now flying a twin-prop seaplane (a Grumman, it's a famous one, I can't remember the name...) and is fed up with the civil airline industry. Also, I'm not a regular reader of this newsgroup, but I think that this story has been dealt with here before several times over. Nevertheless, I find it an interesting story. > Don't blame me.....I voted for Bush! Gosh, I didn't even vote! :) Peter How, Grad Stud ISAS University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK CANADA From kls Tue Jan 26 23:47:06 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: howp@sask.usask.ca Subject: Airliner Accident Book Recommendations? X-Submission-Date: 25 JAN 93 23:34:11 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Saskatchewan Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <25JAN93.23341105@skyfox> Date: 26 Jan 93 23:47:06 PST I just finished reading _Unfriendly Skies_ by Captain X, and I've also more or less read through _Blind Trust_ by an author whose name I've forgotten. I found the first book to be somewhat opinionated and, well, not that informative. It came across as more of a list of complaints from a pilot than a source of interesting information. The second book was fairly good, but many of the accidents described were from the seventies, with only a few from the early eighties (it was published in 1986). I've read _Freefall_, the story of the Air Canada 767 that ran out of fuel over Manitoba because there was a burnt out diode (or something) in the fuel gauge system and the crew couldn't convert from metric to Imperial units (!!). This book was good, but it was about an accident that happened in 1983 so it's a bit old. Does anybody have any recommendations about good books concerning airliner accidents (particularly recent ones)? I'm not a morbid person, but I do find the stories and descriptions of airplane problems/crashes/accidents/ near-misses/etc. to be quite vivid and interesting (when well written). They give insights into various aspects of technology and the human element...sort of like a good episode of Trek :) Thanks. Peter How, Grad Stud. ISAS University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, SK CANADA From kls Tue Jan 26 23:47:07 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: gregc@clif.ypsi.mi.us (Greg Cronau) Subject: Re: Terror at 41,000' X-Submission-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:38:24 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chaos & Confusion, Entropy Division Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan25.233824.29410@clif.ypsi.mi.us> Date: 26 Jan 93 23:47:07 PST In article ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) writes: > >[Long story about 727 near disaster deleted] Interesting. I seem to remember a newspaper story sometime around the late 70's early 80's, about either a 707 or DC-8 that rolled out at altitude, I believe it was attributed to windshear, and didn't recover untill it was down to about 2-3000 ft. Same procedure, it had to drop flaps and gear to get the speed under controll. The plane went supersonic. I'm fairly certain it was a DC-8 because I distinctly remember the article stating that they had to reverse thrust on the 2 inboard engines(!!!!) to get their speed down. Anybody remember this one? -- Greg Cronau | gregc@clif.ypsi.mi.us | Computer Consultant/Joat | gregc@edi.com | <-- Preferred. 1405 NorthBrook Drv. | 76407,2311 (CI$) | Ann Arbor MI. 48103-6166 | 313-741-0748 | From kls Tue Jan 26 23:47:07 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) Subject: Nose-down attitude X-Submission-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 03:31:11 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 26 Jan 93 23:47:07 PST Last week, while various combinations of our news server and network were in shambles, Geoff Miller wrote... > The fuselage of the DC-8 has a pronounced nose-down attitude on the ground, > which is especially noticeable with the stretched Super 60 and -70 models. > Does anyone know the reason for this? It occurs to me that the designers > might have had the possibility of a fuselage stretch in mind, ... Without knowing actual engineering history, I'd note that the DC-8 is among the more long-legged airliners and would speculate that these could be reasons for that choice: 1. Safety: Having a nose-down attitude on the ground reduces the wing's AOA on landing rolls. This puts more weight on the gear, which enables better braking action... [braking force = coefficient of friction * vertical force] and the difference probably is most significant on wet, icy, or snowy runways. The same effect helps directional stability as well as braking. 2. Economics: A shorter nose gear is lighter. In the DC-8's case it probably translates to either (a) ability to carry a couple extra paying passengers or (b) leaving behind a proportional amount of fuel, which reduces gross weight some more. 3. Safety (minor): A nose-down attitude improves visibility over the nose slightly for taxiing, admittedly a very minor effect though. ------------------ Paul Raveling Raveling@Unify.com From kls Tue Jan 26 23:47:08 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) Subject: Engine mounting X-Submission-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 04:05:40 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 26 Jan 93 23:47:08 PST Another inquiry that I missed the first time around was this one by Daryl Morse: > I have been told (by someone who had a lengthy career maintaining > large military transport aircraft) that the DC-9 family of airliners > exhibit a nose-down attitude under power. This supposed behaviour is > attributed to the angle at which the engines are (or appear to be) > canted. Actually all airliners, DC-9's included, are designed with a positive (nose-up) deck angle in level cruise. This keeps drag low by producing a relatively smooth spanwise pressure distribution, without a big flow disturbance at the fuselage. All jets that I'm aware of with tail-mounted engines have the engines canted upward to some degree. In airliners, it's true of everything from the Sud Caravelle through 727's and MD-80's. In smaller jets, it's obvious on everything from ancient Sabreliners and Jetstars to late-model Gulfstream 4's. Unfortunately my recollection of this finer point of airliner design is too rusty to warrant responding. Could someone who's more current in this area offer comments? ------------------ Paul Raveling Raveling@Unify.com From kls Tue Jan 26 23:47:10 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: news From: anderson@williams.edu () Subject: I saw it!!! (New Ua 747-400) X-Submission-Date: 26 Jan 1993 13:59:05 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: rec.travel.air Reply-To: anderson@williams.edu () Organization: Williams College Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1k3g39INNt4b@savoy.cc.williams.edu> Date: 26 Jan 93 23:47:10 PST Well gang, I feel I have had a real honor. Flew through O'hare yesterday and while taxiing I saw it.. N747UA (almost positive) New scheme and all... In the bright sunshine, it's beautiful.... Upper grey, lower blue, new tail... I was mesmerized... and my wife thought I'd lost my mind.... -- ******************************************************************************** Jim Anderson Williams College Systems Manager Center for Computing janderson@williams.edu (Internet) Jesup Hall janderson@williams.bitnet Williamstown, MA 01267 413-597-2082 ******************************************************************************** From kls Tue Jan 26 23:47:11 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: news From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: I saw it!!! (New Ua 747-400) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: rec.travel.air Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jan 93 23:47:11 PST [Note that followups have been directed to rec.travel.air, which seems about the most likely home for discussions about paint schemes and the like. Any *technical* comments about all this are quite welcome in sci.aeronautics.airliners -- please edit the newsgroup of any posts as appropriate.] Tonight I saw a 757-222 at LAX (N573UA) in the new, "malevolent skies" scheme. Hard to tell for sure as it was not well lit, but the grey did not seem as dark as I had expected. One thing that *did* strike me is how complex the painting must be of the tail with those stripes. Sounds expensive -- railroads used to use stripes liberally for safety reasons until they started thinking about the cost of masking it all and simplified the schemes. Today what few stripes are left are on easy-to-mask surfaces. Anyway, getting back to airliners, it seems to me that the all-white "color scheme" so popular in recent years has the decided advantage of being cheap. While a scheme like United's new one may be different, is it really cost effective?! To add to the expense, the old one had five colors and the new has at least seven. This does not sound like a brilliant move at a time when they're cutting both deliveries and personnel; unlike Air India, with what must be the world's most expensive paint scheme with its intricate decorations around each window (at least on early 747s), United tries to turn a profit. Of course there's also the expense of paint at all. This seems a hot debate -- the stuff adds weight (something like half a ton for a 747 as I recall) and hides cracks (which was disussed in detail during the analysis of the Aloha 737 incident a few years ago), but on the other hand it helps protect surfaces from corrosion and the like, and in particular I believe Airbus insisted on paint on the non-aluminum sections of American's A300-600Rs. (An increasingly significant amount of composites are appearing -- except for early A300s the entire vertical stabilizer of all Airbus models is made from composite materials.) One other factor in favor of paint may be found in a comment I read long ago on rec.aviation, namely that aircraft which were going to go unpainted mere manufactured with slightly thicker aluminum in the skins. I find this a bit hard to believe, and the fact that airlines such as Eastern went from paint to no paint suggests it isn't all that necessary, though I don't have any hard evidence. From kls Wed Jan 27 23:06:50 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: BOEING, EUROPEANS BEGIN LARGE AIRPLANE STUDY X-Submission-Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 11:30:45 PST Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9301271930.AA03078@moclips.boeing.com> Date: 27 Jan 93 23:06:50 PST 1-27-93 BOEING, EUROPEANS BEGIN LARGE AIRPLANE STUDY Boeing has signed an agreement with four European aerospace companies to study the feasibility of developing a Very Large Commercial Transport airplane capable of seating between 550 and 800 passengers. Participating in the one-year study are Germany's Deutsche Aerospace, France's Aerospatiale, British Aerospace and CASA of Spain. The study will be headed jointly by John Hayhurst, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group vice president for Large Airplane Development, and Jrgen Thomas, who is responsible for research and development at Deutsche Aerospace. "At this stage, we have only agreed to conduct preliminary studies. We haven't agreed to a joint development program," Hayhurst added. "But we realize that the potential market for a Very Large Commercial Transport is limited. The only way Boeing can be involved in developing an airplane of this size is by working with partners. By entering into some sort of joint venture, we can expand the market for our products and create new job opportunities for Boeing employees." Although the four companies are partners in the Airbus consortium, Airbus itself is not participating in the study. Instead, Boeing is dealing directly with companies that have the resources necessary to conduct this effort. "We'll manage this study much like the supersonic transport studies we're currently conducting with many of these same European companies," Hayhurst said. "While we will meet several times during the year, we will limit the amount of information -- and the kind of information -- that we share." -------------------------- End of Document ---------------------------- From kls Sat Jan 30 22:42:47 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: McDonnel Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices X-Submission-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 01:52:00 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 30 Jan 93 22:42:47 PST In article drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) writes: > >In article driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) writes: >>In article barr@ash.mmm.ucar.EDU (Keith Barr) writes: >>> >>>Wouldn't there be a change in attitude if the autopilot was engaged, >>>which it obviously was, and if the navigation equipment was disturbed by RF? No. Navigation equipment tells the airplane where it is, not what attitude it is in. If you have somehow convinced the airplane that it is somewhere else, it will gently guide you from where it thinks it is, to where it thinks you want to go. Large changes in attitude are not necessary. >>In this case, it is >>possible (but highly improbable) that a CD player could effect the radio >>nav (which is forward and under the cockpit). Not all of the nav boxes are under the cockpit. Some are near the antennas, some are aft under the floor. Depends on the options selected by the airline. >I guess I can't swallow the idea that a passenger's CD player is going to >find its way into nav or other avionics gear. If the manufacturer really >said this, I interpret it as straw-grasping in the absence of other >explanations. Entirely possible for reasons that I will outline below. >The most powerful components of a CD player are presumably the motor drive >and audio output. Not much there. I would think that if the aircraft systems >were so exquisitely sensitive and even if by some fault the system wiring >in the cabin area were effectively unshielded, the resulting problems would >be frequent to continuous, and emerge from many other sources than CD >players. Wiring that runs through the cabin area is not shielded, except for coaxial cables running to antennas. Shielding is heavy and is avoided if at all possible. If the passenger with the CD player is sitting next to the wire bundle, perhaps with his player leaning against the sidewall liner, it is very possible that either the digital or the analog signals from the player (which is not shielded either) could alter the data moving along the airplane's wiring. >We all live in an environment of electrical noise from multitudes of man-made >and even natural sources. Some of these are of much greater magnitude than >anything that could be supplied by the batteries in the CD player. The >normal operations of the aircraft itself emit electromagnetic energy of >considerable power. The cabin audio/video system is itself of much higher >power than the CD player, although the manufacturer does control its >installation and engineering. That last point is a key consideration. We test what we put on the airplane, part of the reason those options are so expensive, but sometimes even we make mistakes. :-) >I am sure that during development and manufacture, an expensive set of quite >sensitive measurements establish the electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) of the aircraft with itself and both known and arbitrary outside sources. I >believe that if the various and powerful internal and external sources over >a broad band were ever to start talking to the sensitive systems, we are >going to have much more to worry about than CD players. You'd be surprised at how little EMI testing has been done on commercial transports in the past. This is changing as we move to more and more complex electronic systems, fly by wire for instance. This is called HIRF testing. (High Intensity Radio Frequency I believe) HIRF tests are extremely expensive, virtually no one has the proper equipment and to my knowledge, no standards have been mandated by the appropriate regulatory agencies (FAA, CAA, JAA, etc). EMI is a major argument to move to fiber optics on airplanes. However, we have yet to certify an airplane with fiber optics. There are a lot of very senior people who have yet to be convinced that fiber optics are economically viable in the air transport industry. They don't care what the computer and telephone industries have accomplished. It is an uphill battle (you should hear their views on cables :-) but there are a few of us fighting it. -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Sat Jan 30 22:42:49 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Crew Negligence? X-Submission-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 02:34:30 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 30 Jan 93 22:42:49 PST In article ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) writes: > > In relating my story about the incident over Detroit I perhaps gave the >wrong (editorial) impression of my feelings about the crew's actions. > I too agree that any intentional act by a flight crew that places the >passsengers in harm's way should not be condoned. My comment about the >crew "saving the day" had more to do with the quick thinking they exhibited >while in a supersonic dive from 41,000' in a Boeing 727. > I also wish to make clear that erasing flight data recorder or cockpit >voice recorder is illegal and I don't condone either action. Not necessarily. Once the plane is parked at the gate, and the parking brake set, the captain is entitled - legally - to erase the cockpit voice recorder. The usual 5 channel flight data recorder installed on the trusty '27 won't have any incriminating data on it, and I don't believe the captain has the ability to erase it. Besides, they used to only record about the last thirty minutes anyway. If it took more than thirty minutes from initiation of the incident to parking, the data recorder has already overwritten what little data it stored anyway. -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Sat Jan 30 22:42:50 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping Huang) Subject: Wing "flaps" that raise on landing X-Submission-Date: 30 Jan 1993 22:22:06 GMT Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: Date: 30 Jan 93 22:42:50 PST When a jetliner lands, usually flaps on the wings are raised. Is the primary braking effect from the additional air resistance, or from the fact that the airplane is also pushed downward and therefore the brakes on the landing wheels exert more friction against the runway? -- Ping Huang (INTERNET: pshuang@athena.mit.edu), probably speaking for himself From kls Mon Feb 1 14:28:45 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) Subject: Spoilers - Was Re: Wing "flaps" that raise on landing X-Submission-Date: 31 Jan 1993 12:06:29 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1kgfc5INNae2@bigboote.WPI.EDU> Date: 01 Feb 93 14:28:45 PST In article pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping Huang) writes: >When a jetliner lands, usually flaps on the wings are raised. Is the >primary braking effect from the additional air resistance, or from the >fact that the airplane is also pushed downward and therefore the brakes >on the landing wheels exert more friction against the runway? Those 'flaps' are really called spoilers. Flaps are the large trailing edge devices that extend prior to takeoff and landing to increase wing area/camber... Anyway, the spoilers extend up into the airflow 'spoiling' the lift effect of the wing by stalling it, hence the name. This cuts any of the lift the wings were still producing and therefore transfers all the weight to the landing gear. Since braking power depends on the Normal (perpendicular) force * the coefficient of friction this increases the max braking available. (Normal can be considered to be the Force of gravity minus any lift for simplicity's sake) Some braking is gained from air resistance, ala air brakes, but this isn't the main purpose of the spoilers. Spoilers are also used on some aircraft (B-52 for example, esp. late models) as part of, or all or, the roll control system. By spoiling a bit of the lift on one side you induce roll into that direction. ############################################################################### # I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think! # #Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime# ############################################################################### From kls Mon Feb 1 14:28:48 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Wing "flaps" that raise on landing X-Submission-Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 09:12:17 CST References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9301311512.AA13079@cactus.org> Date: 01 Feb 93 14:28:48 PST In article you write: >When a jetliner lands, usually flaps on the wings are raised. Is the >primary braking effect from the additional air resistance, or from the >fact that the airplane is also pushed downward and therefore the brakes >on the landing wheels exert more friction against the runway? Braking is accomplished by two factors, aided by a third: 1. Wheel brakes. 2. Thrust reversers. 3. Spoilers. Brakes provide the certification standard for determining landing distance necessary to stop the airplane. Brakes incorporate anti-skid, to help alleviate hydro-planing. Most modern types have automatic braking systems, with "intensity" scales, such that the brakes can start working without pilot interaction (but the pilot can increase braking pressure if necessary). Thrust reversers are gravy: they deflect engine exhaust at some forward angle, thus applying "reverse thrust." There are two types of thrust reversers: cascade and clamshell. The type used depends on the geometry of the engine and its nacelle: smaller engines use clamshells; large fans tend to prefer cascade reversers. There are exceptions in both directions. Spoilers "spoil" lift: these are small panels that raise on the top of the wing. There are two types of spoilers: ground spoilers and flight spoilers. Flight spoilers are used for roll augmentation in-flight; they are normally closer to the fuselage than ground spoilers. They may also be used as in- air "speed-brakes." Ground spoilers are the flight spoilers + panels on the outer sufraces. By spoiling lift, they increase the weight of the airplane on the runway, thus improving braking effectiveness via the wheel brakes. Flaps are *not* normally raised during the landing roll. It takes over 20 seconds to go from Flaps 15 to flaps-up in a 727: by then, it's all over. It is a valid contention that IF the flaps were raised, it could increase braking effectiveness, but it isn't necessary--the ground spoilers do it all for you. Additional considerations are the sudden demand on the hydraulic system, plus the additional workload in the cockpit--landings are very much "heads up" procedures, and workload has to be minimized. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Mon Feb 1 14:28:49 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman) Subject: Re: McDonnel Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices X-Submission-Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 17:18:21 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan31.171821.15158@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> Date: 01 Feb 93 14:28:49 PST Electronics and planes just don't mix... 99% of the time, a CD player or radio will have 0 effect, but that one time, when you crank up "RUSH" too loud, and the spoilers pop out at 45,000 feet, and the thrust reversers activate, you'll be sorry, hehehe ok..that is a bit overkill, but it makes a point, no? I heard a story of a pilot having problems with his plane becuase the mag wires were getting charged with electricity via (this is what I heard) a CBer with a few thousand watt linear.... sounds impossible, but then again, we all know, in little planes, anything can happen... (like some bastard in a Decathlon could almost have KILLED you yesterday...>HINT HINT<) -- |o| Marshal Perlman Internet: perlman@cs.fit.edu |o| |o| Florida Institute of Technology IRC: Squawk |o| |o| Melbourne, Florida Private Pilot, ASEL |o| |o| 407/768-8000 x8435 Goodyear Blimp Club Member |o| From kls Mon Feb 1 14:28:50 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: kannan91@iastate.edu Subject: CD players in aircraft cabin X-Submission-Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 12:12:54 -0600 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Submission-Message-Id: <9301311812.AA02090@iastate.edu> Date: 01 Feb 93 14:28:50 PST This is a follow-up on the very interesting and educating discussion about effects of CD players causing EMI problems in cabin. I have a question which may be of relevance to this discussion. CD players and cellular phones are relatively low sources of EMI as when compared to the much greater source - lightning. Mr Drinkard in his reply mentioned that weight is a primary consideration in the decision to limit shielding of wires and cables running inside an airliner. In this regard I have two questions: (1) Will this relative lack of shielding be enough to ward off extraneous EMI emitted by a lightning bolt ? (2) To what extent does the aircraft's skin itself act as a natural shield ? Finally since Mr. Drinkard is from Boeing I would also like to know how does this philosophy about shielding change with respect to the 777 as it will be a fly-by-wire airliner where EMI could affect control actuation as well. I hope that these questions are relevant and at the same time not FAQs. Hope to get a response soon. Thanks Kannan From kls Mon Feb 1 14:28:51 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) Subject: Re: McDonnel Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices X-Submission-Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 22:30:11 GMT References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Omen Technology INC, Portland Rain Forest X-Submission-Message-ID: <1993Jan31.223011.18788@omen.UUCP> Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 93 14:28:51 PST >Wiring that runs through the cabin area is not shielded, except for coaxial >cables running to antennas. Shielding is heavy and is avoided if at all >possible. If the passenger with the CD player is sitting next to the wire >bundle, perhaps with his player leaning against the sidewall liner, it is >very possible that either the digital or the analog signals from the player >(which is not shielded either) could alter the data moving along the >airplane's wiring. Better start filling out the crash report forms. My Sony portable CD player puts out quite a bit of RF, completely swamping local stations on the standard broadcast band on a radio held next to it. This radiation is comparable to a cellular phone on standby. My laptop computer is much more powerful, putting out about the same intensity of RFI at one foot. It has extensive shielding and runs its 8 bit 8088 at 4.77 MHz; a contemporary 32 bit 25 MHz machine has more electrical activity. If a CD player can set a plane on its side, just imagine what serious RFI would do. If McD really believe a CD player caused this problem, they are negligent in not issuing an immediate AD. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software" 17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 503-621-3406 From kls Mon Feb 1 22:30:53 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Dorsett Subject: Braking errata References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 93 22:30:53 PST In I wrote: >Brakes provide the certification standard for determining landing distance >necessary to stop the airplane. Brakes incorporate anti-skid, to help Nonono: I was in "summary" mode. Brakes *can* incorporate anti-skid: landing distances are calculated with all the special effects off. Sorry if I gave a contrary impression. -- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd From kls Mon Feb 1 22:30:55 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Dorsett Subject: Re: shielding of digital avionics and subnets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 93 22:30:55 PST In kannan91@iastate.edu wrote: >Finally since Mr. Drinkard is from Boeing I would also like to >know how does this philosophy about shielding change with respect >to the 777 as it will be a fly-by-wire airliner where EMI could >affect control actuation as well. I can't speak for Mr. Drinkard or Boeing, but back when the A320 was being developed, Airbus was claiming a 600N weight savings over a con- ventional control system. This was around 1984: by 1988, that figure was distributed as 200 *pounds*, and in late articles, the savings aren't mentioned at all. It is safe to conclude that Airbus neglected to include the importance of shielding in its weight forecasts. There have also been articles which indicate that spurious interference, or even latent static buildup, causes a great number of "unsubstantiated" component failures and erratic behavior. I.e.: device fails: crew reports it. Removed from aircraft, bench-tested. Nothing wrong. Ergo: damned pilots overstating the problem again, gotta take 'em out of the loop. :-) This affects relatively "old-technology" airplanes, such as the 747-200, as well as more modern airplanes. The A320 has been exensively tested, according to a standard "DO" something- or-another. The Brits even made Airbus fly the A320 near one of those gigawatt-range military arrays near the English channel, as part of its certification conditions (this was shortly after a series of reports of Apaches suddenly wanting to flip over after doing the same). From published reports, though, I suspect that the probability of "minor glitches" is *much* higher than single-instance catastrophic failure. Of course, it's hard to estimate when a "lot" of minor problems suddenly become a big one. What is UTTERLY APPALLING about the current situation is the trend of manufacturers to hide circuit breakers from the pilots. In the A330 and A340, circuit breakers are below deck. Yet in the A320, A310, 757, and vir- tually other modern airplane, pilot-developed CB work-arounds to faults in the *system* design are common. It should be interesting to see what the A330 and A340 dispatch reliability turns out to be. When the 747-400 was being developed, Boeing initially considered hiding the circuit breakers in a similar manner, but abandoned the idea. Does anyone know if they've returned to this philosophy in the 777? I'm quite disturbed by the prospect of maintenance-reported "non-existent" glitches getting imbedded in manufacturer human-performance engineering design considerations. -- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd From kls Mon Feb 1 22:30:57 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dr Peter B Ladkin Subject: Air-Inter charges References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 93 22:30:57 PST The next day (Wed 20/1/93) there was an article also in the Herald Tribune that the president of Air Inter was making a public plea that he also be charged in the case. Since then, no further comment in the IHT. I don't scan Le Monde regularly, either. Do you know of any more developments? Peter Ladkin From kls Mon Feb 1 22:30:59 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: luca@xenon.stanford.edu (Luca De Alfaro) Subject: Re: Wing "flaps" that raise on landing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 93 22:30:59 PST rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: >Thrust reversers are gravy: they deflect engine exhaust at some forward angle, >thus applying "reverse thrust." There are two types of thrust reversers: >cascade and clamshell. The type used depends on the geometry of the engine >and its nacelle: smaller engines use clamshells; large fans tend to prefer >cascade reversers. There are exceptions in both directions. How do cascade thrust reversers work? From kls Wed Feb 3 01:07:11 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: u7wc@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (HICKEY S) Subject: Thrust Reversers (was: Re: Wing "flaps" that raise on landing) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 93 01:07:11 PST In article luca@xenon.stanford.edu (Luca De Alfaro) writes: >rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: >>thus applying "reverse thrust." There are two types of thrust reversers: >>cascade and clamshell. The type used depends on the geometry of the engine >>and its nacelle: smaller engines use clamshells; large fans tend to prefer >>cascade reversers. There are exceptions in both directions. >How do cascade thrust reversers work? Clamshells are formed by two tapered half-cylinders that normally lie flush with the engine, but are rotated back into the exhaust to butt end-to-end, catching and reversing the thrust from BEHIND the engine: \ -----------========= -------------------- \ (front) stowed deployed \ / -----------========= -------------------- / / Cascade reversers, on the other hand, are activated by sliding the rear portion of the bypass casing of the engine rear-ward, and using a number of deflector panels placed directly into the thrust stream INSIDE the engine bypass to divert the thrust stream forward: \ ------------- --------- /---- ------------------ ----------/------- (front) closed open ------------------ ----------\------- ------------- --------- \---- / The reversers don't interrupt the core flow, but since the fan provides (typically, at sea level) 75% of the thrust of a fanjet engine, enough thrust is reversed using this method to be effective. From kls Wed Feb 3 01:07:12 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: cascade reversers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 93 01:07:12 PST > In luca@xenon.stanford.edu (Luca De Alfaro) > writes: > rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: > > >>Thrust reversers are0 gravy: they deflect engine exhaust at some forward angle, > >>thus applying "reverse thrust." There are two types of thrust reversers: > >>cascade and clamshell. The type used depends on the geometry of the engine > >>and its nacelle: smaller engines use clamshells; large fans tend to prefer > >>cascade reversers. There are exceptions in both directions.. > > > >How do cascade thrust reversers work? > High-bypass jet engines develop their thrust by directing air around the turbine core. This is "cold air." "Hot air," from the turbine exhaust, con- tributes a small proportion of thrust. Maintaining the bypass ratio and thrust puts a lot of burden on nacelle design: sometimes (as with the PW4000, for instance), the turbine core pokes out the end, and there's simply no way to use clamshell reversers. So, cascade reversers are mounted further forward on the engine. They redivert the *cold* air up, forward and out. First, panelling on the engine cowling slides open. Next, thrust is blocked. Third, shutters angle upward, to deflect incoming air. It's an impressive effect. There are several rows of these "shutters," hence the name "cascade." --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Wed Feb 3 02:11:28 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fjaubert@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca (Fabrice Jaubert) Subject: Re: Airliner Accident Book Recommendations? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Computer Graphics Laboratory, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 93 02:11:28 PST howp@sask.usask.ca writes: > Does anybody have any recommendations about good books concerning airliner >accidents (particularly recent ones)? I'm not a morbid person, but I do find Have you seen the book "Death and Delivrance", about the Canadian Air Force Hercules crash at the North Pole, in 1991? I've just finished reading it, and I thought it was very well written - presumably every detail is true, and yet it reads like an excellent novel. I'm sorry, I can't remember the author's name off-hand. If you wish, I can look it up tonight - let me know. ...Fabrice -- Fabrice Jaubert Computer Graphics Lab fjaubert@watcgl.waterloo.edu U. of Waterloo, Ontario From kls Wed Feb 3 02:11:31 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) Subject: Re: Trijet engine mounts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: Reply-To: reb@Ingres.COM Organization: E 4th St Home For The Overeducated Underemployed - New Jersey Div. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 93 02:11:31 PST In article weiss@hougen.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) writes: >The tail engine on the DC-10 (and MD-11) is also pitched, quite likely for the >same reason(s) as the DC-9. That has me wondering about the L-1011; the engine >is mounted inside the fuselage, so it is difficult to tell if it is pitched >from horizontal. Does anyone know if it is? And, if it isn't, why would the >L-1011 NOT have the pitched rear engine while the DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, and 727 My question about the L-1011 is that since it sounds like manufacturers go to great pains to not 'bend' the airflow why does that rear have a duct that does just that? Why doesn't the tail engine mount look more like the DC-10? reb From kls Wed Feb 3 02:11:33 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Trijet engine mounts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 93 02:11:33 PST Phydeaux asks: >My question about the L-1011 is that since it sounds like >manufacturers go to great pains to not 'bend' the airflow why does >that rear have a duct that does just that? Why doesn't the tail engine >mount look more like the DC-10? The "S-duct" arrangement seen on the de Havilland 121 (aka Hawker Siddeley Trident), Boeing 727, Lockheed L-1011, Tupolev Tu-154, and others is popular because it has a number of advantages over the "straight duct" design used on the DC-10. Structural weight is one, since the center engine in an S-duct design is an integral part of the fuselage whereas the DC-10 design requires additional structure in the fin to support the engine. The S-duct arrangement also gets the #2 engine further away from all the hydraulics and cables for the tail surfaces, a feature which would have been invaluable to UA 232, the DC-10 flight which crashed at Sioux City, Iowa after the #2 engine's disintigrating fan took out all three hydraulic systems. In addition, the S-duct design provides better airflow around the tail cone (which of course isn't really a tail cone in this case) and thus reduces drag, perhaps enough to counter the required bend in airflow. The biggest advantage of the DC-10's design for McDonnell Douglas was that it was simpler and cheaper. Another factor, though as far as I now one not germane to the DC-10, is that it relaxes constraints on the engine's overall length -- Lockheed indicated that using the General Electric CF6 instead of the more compact Rolls-Royce RB.211 would require the sacrifice of two rows of seats at the rear of the cabin. BTW, it's always been my understanding that McDonnell Douglas has a patent on the straight duct design. I was thus rather surprised last year, when reading the article on the Trident in the Spring 1992 issue of Airliners, to encounter a sketch of an early design for the Trident (then called the DH 121) which used a straight-through center engine design. It shows the #2 engine being mounted fairly far forward, with a long exhaust duct, though. Perhaps the MD patent is more specific than simply a straight duct. Can anyone in the know shed more light on this? -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Feb 4 02:36:31 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sjones@superior.ccs.carleton.ca (Stan Jones) Subject: Re: Airliner Accident Book Recommendations? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Carleton University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Feb 93 02:36:31 PST In fjaubert@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca (Fabrice Jaubert) writes: >howp@sask.usask.ca writes: >> Does anybody have any recommendations about good books concerning airliner >>accidents (particularly recent ones)? I'm not a morbid person, but I do find >Have you seen the book "Death and Delivrance", about the Canadian Air Force >Hercules crash at the North Pole, in 1991? I've just finished reading it, >and I thought it was very well written - presumably every detail is true, >and yet it reads like an excellent novel. >I'm sorry, I can't remember the author's name off-hand. If you wish, I can >look it up tonight - let me know. Robert Mason Lee. The CBC television show 5th Estate (the current version of a long line of Canadian TV news magazine shows that CBS ripped off for the 60 minutes format) last night carried a report on how the survivors of that crash - most employed by Canadian Forces - have been badly treated in their recovery by the government. > ...Fabrice >-- >Fabrice Jaubert Computer Graphics Lab >fjaubert@watcgl.waterloo.edu U. of Waterloo, Ontario From kls Thu Feb 4 02:36:33 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kannan91@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Trijet engine mounts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Feb 93 02:36:33 PST In an article on the S-duct Karl Swartz writes: > The biggest advantage of the DC-10's design for McDonnell Douglas was > that it was simpler and cheaper. Another factor, though as far as I > now one not germane to the DC-10, is that it relaxes constraints on > the engine's overall length -- Lockheed indicated that using the > General Electric CF6 instead of the more compact Rolls-Royce RB.211 > would require the sacrifice of two rows of seats at the rear of the > cabin. I would just like to add one point in favor of the S-Duct particularly on the L-1011. The use of an S-Duct as opposed to the straight intake philosophy of the DC-10 is that allows a much greater rudder area and consequently more rudder effectiveness. This becomes of significance particularly in the event of the failure of either engine #1 or engine #3 on the DC-10 wherein a greater rudder deflection is necessary to counter the yawing moment produced by dissimilar thrust. It may be noticed that the two wing-mounted engines on the DC-10 are more inboard when compared to the wing-mounted engines on the L-1011. I remember reading that it was to reduce the rudder deflection in the event of an engine outage that McDD decided to mount these engines futher inboard. As a consequence, bending moments produced on the wing of the DC-10 will be more thereby the necessity of using a stronger wing structure. So, although the design of the DC-10 duct itself was simpler, higher costs had to be paid elsewhere. From kls Thu Feb 4 02:36:34 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dr Peter B Ladkin Subject: More on Air-Inter charges Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Feb 93 02:36:34 PST In Le Monde for Wednesday Jan 20th p15, there are two articles on the Air Inter crash. One states that the company president, M. Jean-Cyril Spinetta, has demanded that he be indicted on the same charges as his safety officer, M. Jacques Rantet. It seems also that the prosecution is trying to blame everything on the lack of a GPWS (specifically M. Rene' Pech, the public prosecutor of the Re'publique de Colmar, where the case will be tried). The second is a review and commentary by Alain Faujas. Blaming everything on the lack of a GPWS is an anticipable legal tactic, since that is what the Air Inter executives are being tried on. But it's hard to see how it would stand up for two minutes in a US court. The NTSB would only be able to call it a `contributory factor', since the agreed cause is controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), and when all instruments are working correctly, the only possible proximate cause of CFIT can be pilot error, according to the `standard' classification (which has been questioned in these columns, correctly in my view). I suspect a US court would therefore be bound to conclude pilot error. Further, since French law doesn't require the GPWS for internal flights, and there is as yet no question that the airline was operating in accordance with regulation, it's a mystery to me how the executives could be *criminally* liable for any of this. But I don't claim to understand French law, or the notions of responsibility enshrined therein. A further little legal puzzle. Air Inter has since been required to install GPWS. The article says that the transport minster at the time of the accident, M. Paul Quile`s, instructed them to do so. But they didn't change the law. Does all this mean that flying without GPWS is legal, but people will try to throw you in jail if you do? I perceive similarities between the technical aspects of the case, and those of the Viper case (which Devlin commented was an attempt to ask judges to decide what is a mathematical proof). It's a little harder to put it in writing. It's something like: human factors engineering + software safety questions + system design questions + lack of established engineering practice or terminology + humans in the loop ----> go to court to try to blame someone. If this is to become the system engineering process model of the 90s, it's going to put the field back 20 years. Peter Ladkin P.S. What on earth is the appropriate word for `anticipable'? From kls Thu Feb 4 02:36:34 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ssdg6761@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Simon S. Donnelly) Subject: aircraft noise Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Feb 93 02:36:34 PST Hi. I'm an amateur enthusiast, not in-the-know about aircraft. A naively ignorant question for those who know: why is it that small-ish 727s and 737s seem to make so much noise on take off and even fly-by, compared to the apparently MUCH quieter 747s? This has been my distinct impression on numerous occasions. Is is just more efficiently designed engines, or better noise insulation, or what? Grateful for any replies. Summary posted if necessary. Simon D. -- Dept of Linguistics, U. of Illinois, USA (217) 384 1989 email: ssdg6761@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu From kls Thu Feb 4 02:36:35 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: aircraft noise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Feb 93 02:36:35 PST >why is it that small-ish 727s and 737s seem to make so much noise on >take off and even fly-by, compared to the apparently MUCH quieter >747s? This has been my distinct impression on numerous occasions. Is >is just more efficiently designed engines, or better noise insulation, >or what ? By 737 you probably mean the 737-100/-200 variants, as the newer -300/-400/-500 versions are much quieter. Anyway, the 727s and older 737s use older engine designs which are inherently noisier than the newer designs used on the 747 and newer aircraft. The most significant difference is probably that the new designs are "high bypass ratio" turbofans, while the 727/737 use a lower bypass ratio turbofan and the early 707 and DC-8 used an even noisier pure turbojet. In a turbojet, all of the air coming into the engine passes through the combustion chamber. In a turbofan, or "fan jet" as Madison Ave. called them when they first appeared, some of the air goes through the low-pressure compressor but then bypasses the remainder of the engine. In effect, a turbofan is like a turboprop, except the propellor (the LP compressor) has a duct around it, has many more blades, and turns at engine speed rather than being geared down. It's also fixed pitch. The early turbofans had a fairly low bypass ratio, less than one if I recall correctly -- around 20% or about .2 : 1 sounds right. In contrast, the JT9D of the origianl 747 is more like 6:1 or 7:1, and new engines for the A330 and 777 will exceed 10:1. This has a dramatic impact on noise because the majority of the noise comes from the hot exhaust gasses of the combustion process. With more of the thrust coming from the cooler bypass airflow the engine is quieter. In addition, the cool bypass air surrounds the hotter combustion gasses and tends to contain the noise. Further improvement have come as the manufacturers have learned how to better control this phenomenon. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Feb 4 02:36:36 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: c2983hr@umrvmb.umr.edu (Mike Howells) Subject: DC-8 thrust reversers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ of MO - Rolla Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Feb 93 02:36:36 PST I've heard the DC-8 is approved to deploy its inboard reversers inflight to slow itself down or whatever. Can anyone confirm this? Also, how much drag does it provide? I would bet a crapload. | Mike Howells | | Commercial Pilot | | Airplane Single and Multi-engine Land ave | | Instrument Airplane | From kls Fri Feb 5 13:55:02 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: More on Air-Inter charges References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Feb 93 13:55:02 PST Peter Ladkin reports: > In Le Monde for Wednesday Jan 20th p15, there are two articles on the Air > Inter crash. One states that the company president, M. Jean-Cyril Spinetta, > has demanded that he be indicted on the same charges as his safety officer, > M. Jacques Rantet. Under French law, once he is charged, M. Rantet and his lawyers would have access to the prosecution's dossier. It can therefore be an advantage to a defendant or potential defendant to be formally charged sooner rather than later, in order to be able to make representations to the investigating magistrate, whose task is to establish the facts of the case, and in order to be able to prepare an effective defence. Michel Asseline, the captain who was charged after the Habsheim crash, gives the apparently paradoxical advice to anyone who finds themselves in a similar predicament that they should request formal charges to be brought as soon as possible, for that reason. (Michel Asseline: "Le pilote: est-il coupable", Edition #1, Paris, Sep. 1992) Regarding the rest of the report (I have not seen the original "Le Monde" article), it is true that Air Inter was operating entirely within the regulations then in force for French internal flights in not having GPWS installed. It is inconceivable that either a change in the law or a ministerial decree could be made to apply retrospectively, therefore the basis of the charge must be other than merely "not using GPWS". > since the agreed cause is controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), Although I have also heard this from informed sources, I am not aware that this is the officially agreed cause. The final report on the Strasbourg crash should be out soon (or may already be out), but we don't know the "official" cause until we have seen it. (Peter: if you have heard anything about its publication, please let me know!) CFIT is, IMHO, no more satisfactory as a "cause" of the accident than simple "pilot error". > human factors engineering + software safety questions + system design > questions + lack of established engineering practice or terminology + humans > in the loop ----> go to court to try to blame someone. > > If this is to become the system engineering process model of the 90s, it's > going to put the field back 20 years. I agree, but it has a long and distinguished history, e.g., the Tay Bridge disaster, after which the chief engineer Thomas Bouche was convicted. (Or maybe he was just found primarily responsible by the court of enquiry - anyway he never parcised again, and died a broken man.) There are occasions when people should be taken to court. The problem is to find out what *all* the *real* causes were, apportion blame appropriately, and make sure that all the *right* people end up in court. > P.S. What on earth is the appropriate word for `anticipable'? Foreseeable? Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Sq., London EC1V 0HB, Tel: +44(0)71-477-8422, JANET: p.mellor@city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Fri Feb 5 13:55:06 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dr Peter B Ladkin Subject: More on Air-Inter charges References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Feb 93 13:55:06 PST >> since the agreed cause is controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), >Although I have also heard this from informed sources, I am not aware that >this is the officially agreed cause. You are quite correct. My language was careless - I didn't mean to imply that this is the official verdict. I could better have said `rumored cause'. Peter Ladkin From kls Fri Feb 5 13:55:07 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: Aircraft Noise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Feb 93 13:55:07 PST It is interesting to note that engine hot-section noise control is reaching a level where the primary contribution to aircraft noise (on approach, at least) is the high lift system, i.e. the flaps. This is true on many of the new generation of aircraft such as the A330/340, B777, and Boeing's proposed NLA. Toby (The Commercial Aviation Nut) From kls Fri Feb 5 13:55:08 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barr@ash.mmm.ucar.EDU (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: aircraft noise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Feb 93 13:55:08 PST kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) says: > This has a dramatic impact on noise because the majority of the noise > comes from the hot exhaust gasses of the combustion process. With > more of the thrust coming from the cooler bypass airflow the engine > is quieter. In addition, the cool bypass air surrounds the hotter > combustion gasses and tends to contain the noise. Further improvement > have come as the manufacturers have learned how to better control this > phenomenon. When I was in school, I had a class on jet propulsion. In that class we were taught that sound was tightly related to the speed of the flow out the back of the engine. In fact, we were shown that sound is roughly related to a constant times the velocity raised to the seventh! Therefore, even a small slowdown in the velocity can make a great deal of improvement in the overall sound. If you work through the math, a 10% reduction in velocity results in approximately a 50% decrease in noise. In modern high-bypass turbofans the core flow is still very fast, but the bypass air is flowing at a considerbly slower rate. I am not sure if the bypass air "shields" the core flow, or if the sound decrease is based more upon mass flow (much lower mass flowing through the core of a newer engine). I might be able to come up with some rough speed differences (given in mass flow rates of course) for different bypass ratios and engines if people are interested. _____________________________ _____ | Keith Barr \ \ \__ _____ | barr@ncar.ucar.edu \___________\ \/_______\___\_____________ | Commercial/AS&MEL/Inst/IGI / < /_/ ..................... `-. |_____________________________/ `-----------,----,--------------' When you think how well basic appliances work, it's _/____/ hard to believe anyone ever gets on an airplane.--Calvin From kls Fri Feb 5 13:55:09 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) Subject: Re: CD players in aircraft cabin References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Feb 93 13:55:09 PST In article , kannan91@iastate.edu writes: > > This is a follow-up on the very interesting and educating discussion > about effects of CD players causing EMI problems in cabin. ... CD players > and cellular phones are relatively low sources of EMI as when compared > to the much greater source - lightning. ... > (1) Will this relative lack of shielding be enough to ward off > extraneous EMI emitted by a lightning bolt ? Good question. It seems like a must-study item for anyone planning safety-critical electronic systems... hopefully a few people will report on such studies in followups. A partial answer is... > (2) To what extent does the aircraft's skin itself act as a natural > shield ? The aluminum skin of an aircraft acts much like a Faraday cage, shielding the interior and conducting VERY large currents when a lightning strike occurs. Lightning strike protection is a bigger issue for all-composite airframes. The toughest case may be the B-2, with a composite airframe and potential exposure to the high level EMP of a nuclear detonation. > Finally since Mr. Drinkard is from Boeing I would also like to > know how does this philosophy about shielding change with respect > to the 777 as it will be a fly-by-wire airliner where EMI could > affect control actuation as well. I'd be quite surprised if low level EMI could affect control systems directly. EMI of the sort from electronic devices in the cabin can sometimes produce erroneous outputs from navigational instruments. Couple this to the control system through increasingly glorified autopilots and this becomes a credible source of unexpected control inputs, even without FBW controls. ------------------ Paul Raveling Raveling@Unify.com From kls Fri Feb 5 13:55:10 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Graham Mann Subject: Re: Airliner Accident Book Recommendations - Mt Erebus crash? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of New South Wales Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Feb 93 13:55:10 PST In article , howp@sask.usask.ca writes: [book recommendations deleted] The books you mention sound very interesting - I must try to get hold of them. > Does anybody have any recommendations about good books concerning >airliner accidents (particularly recent ones)? I'm not a morbid >person, but I do find the stories and descriptions of airplane >problems/crashes/accidents/near-misses/etc. to be quite vivid and >interesting (when well written). They give insights into various >aspects of technology and the human element...sort >of like a good episode of Trek :) Agreed. One need not be a ghoul to be interested in the subject of crashes. They are in fact real-life dramas, that however rare, nevertheless serve as tributes to heroic people struggling to survive, and warnings about what can go wrong with the technology we all depend on.... I have a question. Can anybody recommend a good book on the crash of the Air New Zealand DC-10 that crashed into the side of Mt. Erebus, Antarctica in 1979. I need the whole story on this disaster for something I'm writing about the hazards of flight in polar regions. Any references would be much appreciated. Cheers Graham Mann From kls Sat Feb 6 02:45:30 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: weiss@babbage.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) Subject: Re: Trijet engine mounts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 93 02:45:30 PST In article reb@Ingres.COM writes: >My question about the L-1011 is that since it sounds like >manufacturers go to great pains to not 'bend' the airflow why does >that rear have a duct that does just that? Why doesn't the tail engine >mount look more like the DC-10? That one I can answer. There was (and still is) a debate over which is better. The DC-10s approach is aerodynamically better for the engine, but is aerodynamically worse in terms of skin friction (drag along the sides of the fuselage), and is harder to remove for maintenance. The L-1011 is exactly the opposite. -- \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | / - Michael weiss@seas.ucla.edu | School of Engineering & Applied Science - - Weiss izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu | University of California, Los Angeles - / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \ From kls Sat Feb 6 02:45:32 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Wing "flaps" that raise on landing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 93 02:45:32 PST In article pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping Huang) writes: >When a jetliner lands, usually flaps on the wings are raised. Is the >primary braking effect from the additional air resistance, or from the >fact that the airplane is also pushed downward and therefore the brakes >on the landing wheels exert more friction against the runway? Actually, it is the spoilers that are raised. Called "lift dumpers" on some European designs, they do indeed give the airplanes brakes a boost by increasing the normal force on the tires. The flaps are kept fully deployed until the airplane exits the runway I think. Every little bit of drag helps. :-) -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Sat Feb 6 02:45:32 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jsm@angate.att.com Subject: Re: Terror at 41,000' References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 93 02:45:32 PST In article , howp@sask.usask.ca writes: > > ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) writes: > TEXT DELETED Sorry for the late posting, but I just started looking at this group and my machine no longer has the rest of the articles. Did they ever resolve why it occurred? I remember a story about a coffee spill or something. Anyways, I worked with a guy who was on the flight. He said he thought he was dead and a few days later he was still somewhat pale when he came back to work. I don't think he flew for awhile afterwards either. __ John S. Maddaus |"They're worth their weight in gold! Do you | AT&T Bell Laboratories |really think the authorities would lend you a| jsm@angate.att.com |Wellington bomber? What possible argument | (508)691-3116 |could I put forth to get you one?" - Ministry| |of Aircraft Production | |"If you told them that I designed it, do you | |think that might help?" - B.N.Wallis | From kls Sat Feb 6 14:18:06 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Mt. Erebus crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 93 14:18:06 PST In article Graham Mann wrote: >I have a question. Can anybody recommend a good book on the crash of the >Air New Zealand DC-10 that crashed into the side of Mt. Erebus, Antarctica >in 1979. I need the whole story on this disaster for something I'm writing >about the hazards of flight in polar regions. _Flightdeck Performance: The Human Factor_ by O'hare and Roscoe (Iowa State, 1990) has a brief analysis of the crash, in the context of ocular "white- out." The general discussion might be more interesting than the specifics of the crash, for the purposes of your paper. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Sat Feb 6 14:18:09 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: u7wc@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (HICKEY S) Subject: Re: Wing "flaps" that raise on landing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 93 14:18:09 PST In article drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: > > The flaps are kept fully >deployed until the airplane exits the runway I think. Every little bit of >drag helps. :-) >-- >drinkard@bcstec.boeing.com Actually, according to one DC-9 captain I talked with, the flaps are raised according to the post-landing checklist, without consideration for the location of the aircraft. I know one airline that decided to change the checklist to have the flaps raised sooner, after a number of controllers asked the pilots if they required assistance-- taxiing with deployed flaps is an ICAO-standard indication of a possible hijack in progress. (This is NOT classified info.) From kls Sat Feb 6 14:18:10 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 767/restrictions/Atlantic Ocean References: <1993Feb5.215714.7734@cs.ruu.nl> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 93 14:18:10 PST In article <1993Feb5.215714.7734@cs.ruu.nl> jaap@cs.ruu.nl (Jaap Romers) writes: >Three weeks ago i travelled from Amsterdam, Holland >to Tampa, Florida. The aircraft was a Boeing 767 of Martinair. >The flight had a 3 hour delay, due to a tecnical problem. >The APU was not working 100 % and they needed a jetstarter >to startup the engines. Because of this tecnical problem, >the captain explained on the PA, the flight-route was changed >to a more restricted route. On crossing the Atlantic, they had >to fly a route with an airport on max. 1 hour flying-distance, >instead of 2 hours. > >Why are these restrictions for equipment, such as the APU, that is >only needed, when the aircraft is on the ground. If you have a significant electrical failure (two generators is not uncommon) the APU is needed for in-flight power. Battery power only lasts up to 25 minutes or so for critical services--lighting and a radio bus. You need constant AC power to run your CRT's so you can at least find a place to divert to. Oceanic travel can get real lonely if none of your nav instrumentation works. >And, another question, there were only 2 pilots on board on >a non-stop flight of 9.5 hours. I thought that on these long-distance >flights there is also a cruise-pilot. Is it because this flight >was a charter ? 9.5 hours isn't long. "Long" doesn't start until about 14 hours duty time, depending on country and labor laws US is among the most regressive. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Sat Feb 6 14:18:11 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 767/restrictions/Atlantic Ocean References: <1993Feb5.215714.7734@cs.ruu.nl> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 93 14:18:11 PST In article lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) writes: >I can think of two reasons why you would need the APU in flight > >* If an engine flames out, the APU may be needed for restart attempts. Probably not--the air restart envelope is usually quite generous: the movement of the airplane forces airflow through the engines which cause the blades to move, etc. All that's needed is ignition. In fact, engine start switches have "flight" modes, which disengage the starter mode, and simply arm the ignition system. If the blades aren't moving due to windmilling effects (say, stuck by virtue of an encounter with volcanic dust), the APU's not going to help. >* If an engine fails, it is possible that the remaining engine cannot > in all circumstances provide all electric/hydraulic power and bleed air > that is required. The APU would help with this. Electric: yes. Hydraulic: no. Maybe electric-driven hydraulic pumps. Bleed air: *possibly*. I would expect engine bleed air to be sufficient, but I could be wrong. This sounds like something that would vary widely, based on mission/design. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Sun Feb 7 02:02:42 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pjhicks@acri.fr (Peter J. Hicks) Subject: Operating Costs of Modern Aircraft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Feb 93 02:02:42 PST Could I ask a simple question - although I may suspect that the answer is not so simple What are the operating costs of Modern Aircraft ? i.e. 737 - 747 - 757 - 767 , airbus ETC, The reason for this question is that I live in Lyon France and during the skiing season CHARTER flights come form the Manchester at 49 British pounds return - these being the late availability seats and they come at 89 pounds for a bookable seat. The Aircraft is either a 757 or a 767 ( dont quote me on that ). The distance is less than 1000 miles and the flying time is approx 1 hour and 30 mins. I do not believe that they can make a profit However when the skiing season is over there are no direct flights and the cost of this jumps up to 230 pounds APEX ( via LONDON) I would like to know what the operating costs are so could anyone please help Regards Peter Hicks From kls Sun Feb 7 02:02:44 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.com (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Operating Costs of Modern Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Feb 93 02:02:44 PST Peter J. Hicks asks: >What are the operating costs of Modern Aircraft ? (Question about whether 757 or 767 at 49 pounds for a Manchester to Lyon round-trip can turn a profit.) Aviation Week and Space Technology (aka AW&ST aka AvLeak) occasionally has a small section on operating expenses on the Airline Observer page. I don't have numbers on the 757 handy but do have them for 767s, from the August 24, 1992 issue (p. 15): Boeing 767-200/300 Airraft Operating Expense 12 Months Ended December 1991 Cost/Blk Hr Cost/ASM %Chg by Category ------------ ---------- -------------------- Carrier ($) %Chg (c) %Chg Crew Fuel Maint ------------------------------------------------------------ 767-200 American 2,936 0.4 3.64 (1.4) 7.5 (3.9) (2.7) Delta 2,834 (5.8) 3.57 (7.5) 2.7 (16.3) 11.1 TWA 2,987 1.4 3.70 0.8 9.9 (11.1) (41.1) United 3,215 2.8 3.83 4.1 8.9 (11.0) 18.4 USAir 3,213 (4.9) 3.39 (4.5) 7.5 (13.3) (10.7) AVERAGE 3,021 (0.2) 3.64 (1.6) 8.1 (9.8) (2.0) 767-300 American 3,367 5.0 3.44 5.5 (2.0) (9.5) 72.3 Delta 3,557 2.6 3.58 0.3 9.0 (14.7) 10.8 AVERAGE 3,486 4.6 3.53 3.5 6.3 (13.1) 35.5 Call it 2,000 miles for the round-trip. Using the average 767-300 cost per ASM (Available Seat Mile) that's about US$70.60 for the aircraft operating expenses, or at the current exchange rate of about US$1.50 to the pound it comes to 47 pounds per seat. That leaves 2 pounds left for ground expenses, capital costs, and profit. (Not a lot of profit in that endeavour!) Keep in mind, though, that these figures are for U.S. trunk carriers. The fares you saw are probably for some charter operator or some such which may have lower labor rates and almost surely packs in more seats. If they're using a 757 I'd expect that to be cheaper, too. Perhaps the biggest factor, though, is that not *all* the seats are likely to be available at that price. Airlines usually operate with a break-even point somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% capacity. Once they hit this point, another seat sold only needs to pay for the ground expenses, additional fuel for an extra 180 lbs. of payload, and a bag of peanuts and can of pop. Beyond that is profit. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Mon Feb 8 00:34:16 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gaudiot@pollux.usc.edu (Jean-Luc Gaudiot) Subject: Re: Mt. Erebus crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 93 00:34:16 PST In article Graham Mann wrote: >I have a question. Can anybody recommend a good book on the crash of the >Air New Zealand DC-10 that crashed into the side of Mt. Erebus, Antarctica >in 1979. I need the whole story on this disaster for something I'm writing >about the hazards of flight in polar regions. "Air Disasters" by Stanley Stewart published by Arrow Books Limited. I found it in Australia a few ago and do not know whether it is available anywhere else. It is a very good in-depth analysis of a number of aircraft crashes including the Mount Erebus Crash 1979. Highly recommended, IMHO. Jean-Luc Gaudiot Associate Professor From kls Wed Feb 10 03:11:22 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: watson@win.tue.nl (Bruce W. Watson) Subject: Re: Wing "flaps" that raise on landing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 93 03:11:22 PST In article rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: > >Flaps are *not* normally raised during the landing roll. It takes over >20 seconds to go from Flaps 15 to flaps-up in a 727: by then, it's all over. >It is a valid contention that IF the flaps were raised, it could increase >braking effectiveness, but it isn't necessary--the ground spoilers do it all >for you. Additional considerations are the sudden demand on the hydraulic >system, plus the additional workload in the cockpit--landings are very much >"heads up" procedures, and workload has to be minimized. > >--- >Robert Dorsett >rdd@cactus.org >...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd But... I have flown aircraft (eg. DH Buffalo) in which the standard procedure was: 1. max flaps during approach 2. after TD, retract flaps to the go around position (done by the pilot-not-flying) 3. if landing okay, throttles to max. reverse pitch. 4. else, throttles to max. for the go around. At any rate, flaps were always retracted to the go around position. On most real HEAVYs this would all be done for you: on the 747-400, go around is okay (runway length permitting) anytime before going to reverse thrust; I suspect that in this case, double clicking the -400's go around throttle buttons on the ground will also retract spoilers, flaps to 20, and rotate for you as well as flying the MAP. Sincerely, Bruce. -- _____________________________________________________________________________ Bruce Watson || favourite oxymoron: "-- rather, it simply watson@win.tue.nl || complicates our implementation." from watson@stack.urc.tue.nl || C++ Primer, 2nd ed. (p.501) by S. Lippman From kls Wed Feb 10 03:11:23 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mpalmer@encore.com (Mike Palmer) Subject: Re: 767/restrictions/Atlantic Ocean References: <1993Feb5.215714.7734@cs.ruu.nl> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Encore Computer Corporation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 93 03:11:23 PST rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: >>And, another question, there were only 2 pilots on board on >>a non-stop flight of 9.5 hours. I thought that on these long-distance >>flights there is also a cruise-pilot. Is it because this flight >>was a charter ? >9.5 hours isn't long. "Long" doesn't start until about 14 hours duty time, >depending on country and labor laws US is among the most regressive. A buddy of mine flies the Miami - Paris run for American. It's a 10 1/2 hour flight & on the 767 there's three pilots. Each has a four hour break up in first class watching the movie! Tough life being a pilot! >--- >Robert Dorsett >rdd@cactus.org >...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Wed Feb 10 03:11:24 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: adf@crosfield.co.uk (alex france) Subject: Re: 767/restrictions/Atlantic Ocean References: <1993Feb5.215714.7734@cs.ruu.nl> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Crosfield Electronics, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 93 03:11:24 PST In article rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: >>And, another question, there were only 2 pilots on board on >>a non-stop flight of 9.5 hours. I thought that on these long-distance >>flights there is also a cruise-pilot. Is it because this flight >>was a charter ? > >9.5 hours isn't long. "Long" doesn't start until about 14 hours duty time, >depending on country and labor laws US is among the most regressive. A few weeks back I was on BA for London-SF flight (which is around 11 hours total time) and since I was seated in the upper deck and semi-bored I asked one of the flight attendents if I could visit the cockpit (which, not being US registered, they are allowed to do). Anyway, this 747 only had one captain and one first officer, but being what they called a 'long' flight, they carried two flight engineers. When I asked about this the captian said it was something to do with hours in a given period, but didn't know the exact details, and the flight engineer just nodded in a sagely fashion and tapped his dials. Anyway, the visit was fun. I got a demo of all the fun things they could do on the Flight Management System, and a demo of the TCAS display which replaced the rate of climb indicator with a CRT variable scale rate of climb with the TCAS stuff in the middle. Understandably, 200 nm south of Sonderstrom, it wasn't showing much! Is TCAS widespread on commercial aircraft? I hadn't seen one before, and this was on old 747 with main instruments all mechanical, so BA would seem to have a policy of adding them into existing fleet. Anyone know of this being done elsewhere? Alex. # Alex France, Crosfield Electronics, | Phone: +44 442 230000 xt.3541 # # Hemel Hempstead, HP2 7RH, England. | Email: adf@crosfield.co.uk # # AA5A, G-BEZI - more of a 'buzzin' than a 'hummin' Grumman. # From kls Wed Feb 10 03:11:25 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler) Subject: Re: aircraft noise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 93 03:11:25 PST In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>why is it that small-ish 727s and 737s seem to make so much noise on >>take off and even fly-by, compared to the apparently MUCH quieter >>747s? This has been my distinct impression on numerous occasions. Is >>is just more efficiently designed engines, or better noise insulation, >>or what ? > >By 737 you probably mean the 737-100/-200 variants, as the newer >-300/-400/-500 versions are much quieter. In addition to Karl's well-written description of the different noise characteristics of low- and high-bypass engines, there's something else to consider: Relative size. Smaller jets (older 737s, 727s, DC-9, etc) tend to use lower-bypass engines. Larger jets (DC-10, 747, etc) tend to use higher-bypass engines. The thing to remember is not only are these engines quieter, but there's also an optical illusion - the larger airframes appear to be closer than they really are. This is the same reason a 747 appears to "hang" in the air - its huge size makes it appear much closer, which screws up your perception of speed. In summary, the larger jets seem quieter because they are farther away than you think they are. AND because they have quieter engines. --Andy stadler@apple.com From kls Wed Feb 10 13:55:32 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Hayes_Press@qmgate.larc.nasa.gov (Hayes N. Press) Subject: TCAS II Installation (was:767/restrictions/Atlantic Ocean) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Hayes_Press@qmgate.larc.nasa.gov (Hayes N. Press) Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 93 13:55:32 PST >In article writes: >I got a demo of all the fun things they could do on the Flight Management >System, and a demo of the TCAS display which replaced the rate of climb >indicator with a CRT variable scale rate of climb with the TCAS stuff in >the middle. Understandably, 200 nm south of Sonderstrom, it wasn't showing >much! >Is TCAS widespread on commercial aircraft? I hadn't seen one before, >and this was on old 747 with main instruments all mechanical, so BA >would seem to have a policy of adding them into existing fleet. Anyone >know of this being done elsewhere? >Alex. Actually, the TCAS display did not replace the rate of climb indicator but probably was the version where the verticle speed indicator was integrated with the TCAS display, with the display being an LCD not a mini-CRT. This was done because of the need for retrofitability across the variety of cockpit configurations (mechanical and electronic display ) that exist at this time. In the USA, TCAS is required of all commercial operators with aircraft passengers load capability above a certain level (30 people, I think). This requirement is for the use of USA airspace so the requirement extends to even forgein carriers. The airlines have until the end of 1993, to install either TCAS I or TCAS II. The strange thing is that some European Authories require that the system be turned off when operating in their airspace, because of concerns they have with the system. I'm glad to now know that if in the future I travel on a BA flight I can make a request to take a visit to the cockpit. Speaking only for myself. Hayes N. Press e-mail address: Hayes_Press@qmgate.larc.nasa.gov phone (804) 864-2715 fax (804) 864-7793 Good old Postal Service: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Co. 144 Research Drive MS 156A Hampton, Virginia 23666 From kls Wed Feb 10 13:55:33 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Wing "flaps" that raise on landing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 93 13:55:33 PST In article watson@win.tue.nl (Bruce Watson) writes: >In article rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: >>Flaps are *not* normally raised during the landing roll. [...] > > I have flown aircraft (eg. DH Buffalo) in which the standard procedure was: >1. max flaps during approach >2. after TD, retract flaps to the go around position > (done by the pilot-not-flying) >3. if landing okay, throttles to max. reverse pitch. >4. else, throttles to max. for the go around. > >At any rate, flaps were always retracted to the go around position. On most >real HEAVYs this would all be done for you: on the 747-400, go around is >okay (runway length permitting) anytime before going to reverse thrust; I >suspect that in this case, double clicking the -400's go around throttle >buttons on the ground will also retract spoilers, flaps to 20, and rotate >for you as well as flying the MAP. Go-around modes are explicitly autoflight modes. They are limited to commanding automatic go-around thrust (assuming autothrottle installed) and appropriate go-around attitude. Spoilers, flaps, and gear functions are all independent systems, and must be selected separately. The 747-400 landing roll procedure is (PF = pilot flying; PNF = pilot not flying, all this from ops manual): PF: - Monitor rollout progress and proper autobrake operation. - Verify thrust levers closed and speedbrake lever UP. Without delay, raise reverse thrust levers to the idle detent, hold light pressure until release, and then apply reverse thrust as required. - By 60 knots, initiate movement of thrust levers to reach reverse idle detent prior to taxi speed. Position levers full down (forward thrust) when engines have decelerated to reverse idle. PNF: - Call "60 knots." PF: - Prior to taxi speed, disarm the autobrakes and continue manual braking as required. - Disengage autopilot prior to runway turnoff. A warning is noted: "after reverse thrust is initiated, a full stop landing must be made." I would point out at this point that once the airplane is on the runway, even before reverse thrust, the "commit" is made--only in very unusual circumstances would a crew decide to go around (actually, take off again, since, technically, this wouldn't be a go-around) at this point, and that includes for reasons of avoiding aircraft that suddenly pop out of the fog, still on the runway. Cf. the USAir LAX collision a couple of years ago. Pilots tend to be very modal creatures, beyond certain points. Taxi-in and park: Strobe lights: off. Inboard landing lights: off. APU selector: start, rlease to on. Weather radar: off. Speedbrake lever: down. Flap lever: up. Stabilizer trim: 6 units. Autobrakes selector: off. The go-around procedure is: PF: - Push TOGA switch. Call for "Flaps 20." PNF: - Position flap lever to 20. PF/PNF: Verify rotation to go-around attitude and thrust increase. PNF: - Verify thrust adequate for go-around; adjust if necessary. PF: - After positive rate of climb established, call for "Gear up." PNF: - Verify positive rate of climb then position landing gear lever UP. Etc. Therefore, I stand by my contention that flaps are not intended to be used during the landing roll. I suspect that what may be happening is that crews are raising flaps *after* the roll-out is "made," i.e., by 60 knots, rather than the prescribed procedure of after leaving the active runway-- perhaps with the intent of reducing surface contamination from sludge or water off the runway. In this context, I would note that (a) the airspeed indicator is inaccurate under 60 knots, and (b) aircrews are notorious for underestimating their taxi speeds, which could cause them to start after- takeoff procedures while their airspeed is still relatively high. The vantage from the lower deck of the 747 probably gives the passenger a feeling of a greater ground speed than one would get from the upper deck, with an eye level nearly 35 feet off the ground. I maintain, however, that the workload characteristics and hydraulic system interactions are such that flap-manipulation during roll-out is not indicated. The procedure for the 757 is much the same; the procedure for the A320 seems to be the same, as well--autoflight restricted to thrust and attitude; all other systems "manual." There are often independent special systems, such as speed-brake arming modes, which will deploy when the air/ground switch is closed; or auto-braking; but gear, flaps, spoilers, and these systems are independent of the autoflight system. One does not *want* these systems completely automated, since hydraulic demands may be out of proportion to the situation at hand, reducing the crew's effectiveness in safely landing the airplane or executing a go-around. But all this is just the recommended procedure, derived from the airplane flight manual, which is the basis for certification. Airlines may adapt these and make up their own procedures. If the chief pilot is an old bush pilot, he might advocate bush-pilot techniques. I have an old SAS cockpit poster, for instance, of a 747-200 or -100, with some eight or nine HSI's and CDI's on the dash--apparently *their* chief pilot didn't like getting lost. :-) Personalities still make an important impact on training and operations policies. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Thu Feb 11 01:38:02 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: almeierh@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Axel Meierhoefer) Subject: DC-10 crash statistic Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Feb 93 01:38:02 PST Organization: Student Pool, CSD, University of Erlangen, Germany I recently discovered the following DC-10 crash statistic: date regist. airline c/n model location 17.Dec.73 EC-CBN Iberia 46925 DC-10-30 Boston 4.Mar.74 TC-JAV Tuerk HY 46704 DC-10-10 near Paris 12.Nov.75 N1032F ONA *** 46826 DC-10-30 near Istanbul 2.Jan.76 N1031F ONA *** 46825 DC-10-30 New York/JFK 1.Mar.78 N68045 Continental * 46904 DC-10-10 Los Angeles 25.May.79 N110AA American 46510 DC-10-10 Chicago O'Hare 31.Oct.79 N903WA Western * 46929 DC-10-10 Mexico City 28.Nov.79 ZK-NZP Air New Zealand 46910 DC-10-30 Mount Erebus 3.Feb.81 AP-AXE Pakistan Intl. 46935 DC-10-30 Karachi 23.Jan.82 N113WA World Airways * 47821 DC-10-30 Boston 13.Sep.82 EC-DEG Spantax 46962 DC-10-30 Malaga 23.Dez.83 HL7339 Korean 46960 DC-10-30 Anchorage 10.Aug.86 N184AT American Trans Air * 46751 DC-10-40 Chicago O'Hare 17.Sep.87 82-0192 USAF 48214 DC-10KC Barksdale/AFB 10.Oct.87 5N-ANR Nigeria Airways 46968 DC-10-30 Ilorin 19.Jul.89 N1819U United 46618 DC-10-10 Sioux City 29.Jul.89 HL7328 Korean 47887 DC-10-30 Tripolis 19.Sep.89 N54629 UTA 46852 DC-10-30 Tenere-Desert (At the end of 1992 a Martinair DC-10 crashed, the 19th loss of a DC-10 in 22 years of service.) I was a bit surprised, when I saw this statistic first. Overseas National Airways lost TWO quite NEW DC-10s in only EIGHT WEEKS!!! I think ONA was a small airline. It must have been the biggest part of their DC-10 fleet. Or did they only have these two!!!!!? How could this have happened? Does anybody know the reasons for these crashes or any other information about them? I am also interested in the reasons of the Continental, Western, World and American Trans Air crashes. Does anybody have such kind of statistic for other types of aircraft? (B.747, L-1011 etc.) I am also searching for a United Airlines accident and crash statistic. (1960 - today). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Axel Meierhoefer \ / email to almeierh@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de Zeppelinstr. 28b \ / D-8520 Erlangen \ / student of computer-science ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From kls Thu Feb 11 01:38:08 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC-10 crash statistic Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Feb 93 01:38:08 PST Axel Meierhoefer writes: >I recently discovered the following DC-10 crash statistic: First off, there's been a lot of discussion and debate on the DC-10 in this group as well as several other Usenet groups. I don't know about the other groups, but archives of sci.aeronautics.airliners are avail- able for anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org in /pub/airliners. There are two compressed files -- archive-1992.Z contains all 1992 articles and archive-1993.Z contains everything from Jan. 1 up to a day or so ago. There are also a couple of other files there which may be of some interest. * Before starting up yet another debate on the DC-10 please check the archives. If it's old ground, I'll just reject it. New material is of course most welcome. Your list, Axel, piqued my interest as it has several crashes which I wasn't familiar with as well as several others which haven't been discussed. It's also a nice summary. At least two other incidents come to mind which are at least worth mention: * On Jun. 12, 1972 an American DC-10-10 (N103AA, cn 46505, ln 5) lost its aft cargo door over Windsor, Ontario while climbing out of Detroit. While the aircraft managed to return safely the incident can be regarded as a dress rehearsal for the 1974 Turkish crash near Paris. * Circa 1989 an American DC-10-30 (possibly N136AA, cn 47846, ln 69) on its takeoff roll at DFW aborted just before reaching V1. The aircraft was very heavy as it was bound for Frankfurt and overran the end of the runway. While there were no fatalities the damage to the airframe was sufficient to result in a write-off. This incident was largely blamed on worn brakes coupled with inadequate standards for brake replacement and insufficient consideration of the effects of brake wear on overall braking during certification testing. Besides being a hull loss, this incident led to several changes in brake standards, both for the DC-10 and other airliners. >Overseas National Airways lost TWO quite NEW DC-10s in only EIGHT >WEEKS!!! I think ONA was a small airline. It must have been the biggest >part of their DC-10 fleet. Or did they only have these two!!!!!? As of 1982 they had no DC-10s, which consisted of one 707 and thirteen DC-8s of various series. >How could this have happened? Does anybody know the reasons for these >crashes or any other information about them? Some, such as the World Airways crash (see below) and I believe the recent Martinair crash, were weather related. Others could also have happened as easily to any other airliner, c.f. the American runway overrun mentioned above. However, there are at least three that are real stinkers. IMO, they suggest significant design flaws, however I suggest you look over the archives and, if you're serious about trying to understand the issues, track down a book entitled The DC-10 Case, published by the SUNY (State University of New York) Press. There's also some good material on the subject in The Sporty Game, by John Newhouse. >I am also interested in the reasons of the Continental, Western, >World and American Trans Air crashes. I have a vague recollection of the Continental crash being an overrun or ground accident or some such. Can anyone refresh the details? The Western crash was, I believe, the result of landing on the wrong runway, perhaps even at the wrong airport. (If folks send in a fairly succinct synopsis of this and the other incidents I'll collect them and post a summary article.) The World crash was a runway overrun on landing. The runways were very icy and there may have been significant wind as well. The plane was unable to brake and ran off the end of the runway and into Boston Harbor. As I recall there were only two possible fatalities -- World was unable to confirm whether or not the two missing passengers were in fact on the aircraft. I know nothing of the American Trans Air crash; never even heard of it. I find this rather surprising since, as my mailing address might suggest Chicago, including it's airport, is near and dear to my heart. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Feb 11 01:38:12 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) Subject: Re: 767/restrictions/Atlantic Ocean References: <1993Feb5.215714.7734@cs.ruu.nl> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Feb 93 01:38:12 PST In article , rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: > In article <1993Feb5.215714.7734@cs.ruu.nl> jaap@cs.ruu.nl (Jaap Romers) writes: > > > >Why are these restrictions for equipment, such as the APU, that is > >only needed, when the aircraft is on the ground. > > If you have a significant electrical failure (two generators is not uncommon) > the APU is needed for in-flight power. Battery power only lasts up to > 25 minutes or so for critical services--lighting and a radio bus. You > need constant AC power to run your CRT's so you can at least find a place > to divert to. Oceanic travel can get real lonely if none of your nav > instrumentation works. It can also be critical for instrumentation needed to "keep the shiny side up". (Actually many airline paint schemes call for keeping the shiny side down...) The first fatal airline accident at LAX was a 727 that lost all electrical power just after takeoff; its shiny side went directly into Santa Monica Bay. My recollection is that they departed with one of their three generators inoperative, as was then allowed by their Minimum Equipment List. On this departure they lost the second generator, the load transferred to the third, and the third went offline because it couldn't handle the load alone. The sudden loss of power was fatal problem because they were departing into IMC at night. This accident prompted immediate attention to MELs, plus some scrutiny of load sensitivity. I presume the same issues have had even more intense examination for FBW aircraft, and would guess that they have reasonably sophisticated controls for automatic load shedding. Perhaps someone who really knows could comment on this. ------------------ Paul Raveling Raveling@Unify.com From kls Thu Feb 11 01:38:14 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gary@maestro.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga) Subject: TCAS on airliners (was: Re: 767/restrictions/Atlantic Ocean) References: <1993Feb5.215714.7734@cs.ruu.nl> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: gbisaga@mitre.org Organization: The Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Feb 93 01:38:14 PST In article , adf@crosfield.co.uk (alex france) writes: |> Is TCAS widespread on commercial aircraft? I hadn't seen one before, |> and this was on old 747 with main instruments all mechanical, so BA |> would seem to have a policy of adding them into existing fleet. Anyone |> know of this being done elsewhere? Well, in the U.S. anyway you'll need full equippage of all A/C over 30 seats by the end of '93. Typically there are three kinds of TCAS displays in use: 1) The weather radar display, where the TCAS is overlaid on the radar (obviously). This kind has some problems in that the minimum range for the radar display is greater than the max range you might want with your TCAS. 2) The so-called "TIVSI/RIVSI", or "Traffic-advisory/Resolution-advisory Instantaneous Vertical Speed Indicator", which is a CRT-based IVSI with (a) traffic info overlaid on the dial part and (b) eyebrow lights around the edge telling the pilot things like "Climb at least 2000 feet/min". 3) Integrated displays, where the TCAS info is displayed on the EHSI, which is done in the glass cockpits. This is obviously the optimal solution if you have the other hardware to support it. Only #3 is dependent on having CRT-based instrumentation. In fact, in some cases the non-CRT-based airplanes are actually being equipped faster, since they require only minimal integration with the other systems of the aircraft. -- Gary Bisaga (gbisaga@mitre.org) From kls Thu Feb 11 22:59:43 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: brtrees@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu Subject: A Question about Tours of the Boeing plant Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Feb 93 22:59:43 PST Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics I'm going to be in Seattle in March and will have a Saturday free. I was wondering, does the huge Boeing plant give tours to the general public? How far is it from Seattle--would I need to rent a car to get there? Any info. would be greatly appreciated. Thanks From kls Thu Feb 11 22:59:45 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Christopher Davis Subject: Re: A Question about Tours of the Boeing plant References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Feb 93 22:59:45 PST BRT> == brtrees@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu BRT> I'm going to be in Seattle in March and will have a Saturday free. I BRT> was wondering, does the huge Boeing plant give tours to the general BRT> public? Yes, they're at 10am and 1pm. They are free, but there are a limited number of slots, so your best bet is to get there early. When I went, we got tickets for the 1pm tour at around 10:30, then drove out to Mukilteo to eat lunch before the tour. The tour starts with a movie about Boeing, then a Q&A session. After that you get in a bus and they drive you to the actual plant building. Then you walk about half a mile down an underground corridor, go up an elevator, and get to look down upon the production line as the tour guide explains what's what and what goes where. BRT> How far is it from Seattle--would I need to rent a car to get there? Yes, or you could take the Gray Line bus tour (which, I believe, leaves from downtown, and includes guaranteed slots). I didn't do this, so I don't know what the details are, how much it costs, when it runs, if it's different from the regular tour, or anything like that. BRT> Any info. would be greatly appreciated. There's a pretty good gift shop at the tour center; we got Boeing mugs, 747-400 playing cards, and other nifty stuff. If you're prone to spend, you might want to leave home without the credit cards... (They have discounts for airline staff, which I'm not, alas.) From kls Thu Feb 11 22:59:46 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hoyme@src.honeywell.com (Ken Hoyme) Subject: Re: 767/restrictions/Atlantic Ocean References: <1993Feb5.215714.7734@cs.ruu.nl> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Mpls. MN, USA. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Feb 93 22:59:46 PST In article raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) writes: > The sudden loss of power was fatal problem because they were > departing into IMC at night. This accident prompted immediate > attention to MELs, plus some scrutiny of load sensitivity. > I presume the same issues have had even more intense examination > for FBW aircraft, and would guess that they have reasonably > sophisticated controls for automatic load shedding. Perhaps > someone who really knows could comment on this. Folks interested in this topic might find the following article interesting: "Design of the Boeing 777 Electric System" Luiz Andrade (Sunstrand) and Carl Tenning (Boeing) IEEE AES Magazine, July 1992 pp4-11 (Based on a presentation at NAECON '92) The article talks about load shedding both during engine-out conditions as well as during engine power-up. The biggest user of power on the 777 will be the galleys. (140KVA out of about 240KVA). First choice for shedding... Ken Hoyme Honeywell Systems and Research Center (612)951-7354 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 Internet: hoyme@src.honeywell.com From kls Thu Feb 11 22:59:47 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 767/restrictions/Atlantic Ocean References: <1993Feb5.215714.7734@cs.ruu.nl> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Feb 93 22:59:47 PST In article you write: > The first fatal airline accident at LAX was a 727 that lost > all electrical power just after takeoff; its shiny side went > directly into Santa Monica Bay. My recollection is that > they departed with one of their three generators inoperative, > as was then allowed by their Minimum Equipment List. On this > departure they lost the second generator, the load transferred > to the third, and the third went offline because it couldn't > handle the load alone. > > The sudden loss of power was fatal problem because they were > departing into IMC at night. This accident prompted immediate > attention to MELs, plus some scrutiny of load sensitivity. I've read a lot about this crash, but have never managed to get my hands on the crash report. It was a UAL 727, circa 1966/7/8, LAX. If anyone has this, I'd love to see it. :-) So, caveat: most of this is from memory. Basic problem, as I understand, was: 1. Departed with a generator INOP. 2. F/E screwed up, somehow, took generator 2 offline. 3. Generator 3 tripped off. Now, the problem at this point is: 1. Excessive loads, so they couldn't just reconnect the generator(s). 2. Essential AC is normally kept in the #3 position. This allows Essential AC, DC, Standby AC, DC, the Battery Bus, Hot Battery Transfer Bus, and Battery Transfer Bus to be illuminated. Normally, Essential DC, Standby DC, Battery Bus, the HBB, and Batt. Transfer Bus can *also* be powered by Generators 1 and 2, if they were on, but they weren't-- so this "redundancy" was lost. When #3 went off, they lost *all* elec- trical services, including cockpit lighting. The airplane went dead. The Essential Power selector has a "standby" position. This powers the Standby AC via an inverter, Standby DC, Battery Bus, Hot Battery Bus, and the Transfer Battery Bus. In effect: it provides minimal cockpit lighting, powers the captain's gyros, and powers a radio bus. A "get on the ground" capability, that lasts about 25 minutes. But. The first step in managing an electrical failure is controlling loads. On the old 727's, the galley power switch was RIGHT NEXT to the battery switch. The battery switch was unguarded, looked and felt just the same as the galley power switch. The F/E pulled the wrong switch. So, even if he selected Standby Power, everything went dead again. Doesn't take too long to lose orientation in the clouds, at night, flying by the seat of your pants, so they went into the soup. It was a recoverable incident, EXCEPT for the human factors problem. True to its form, NTSB called this a "pilot error," but the real cause was the dumb-ass battery switch design and location. FAA mandated changes to the interface, the battery switch was given a guard, and moved further away, a couple of inches. Also, a circuit to the air/ground switch was added that automagically snaps the essential power selector to Standby whenever the selected AC Ess Power source dies (in air, this could be generator 1, 2, 3-- no protection on ground). This means that if this happened today, the F/E would have a panel that stayed on, and the captain would keep his flight instruments. It's an utterly fascinating crash, a classic better-human-factors-could-have- saved-it snafu. The 727, otherwise, has a very simple cockpit. The MEL for the 727 wasn't changed: you can still dispatch with a generator (maybe 2) inop. And, of course, the APU still doesn't have an in-flight capability (it's located in the right main wheel well; the A/G switch also prohibits the opening of the fuel valve in flight :-)). > I presume the same issues have had even more intense examination > for FBW aircraft, and would guess that they have reasonably > sophisticated controls for automatic load shedding. Perhaps > someone who really knows could comment on this. I understand that on the 757/767, there is no capability of monitoring of generator values in-flight (no voltage, frequency, or loading info). Control is accomplished by manipulating "smart-switches," which show a schematic-on- a-panel: close the loop, you can divert power how you want to. No manual paralleling capability. Presumably, the system stops illegal operations. The A310 and A320 both provided "nice to know" information on generator operation; I believe the 747-400 does as well. Don't think there's a manual paralelling capability, though. All which goes to say: 1. Designers have a "hands-off" mentality with regard to pilot operation of electrical systems, the most extreme manifestation of which is the trendi] on circuit breakers. 2. They save a bundle by not having to train pilots in the operation of this somewhat complex system--more time to spend on the FMS! :-) --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Fri Feb 12 11:12:01 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: EGEISELMAN@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL Subject: VR COCKPIT QUESTION 14/04 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Feb 93 11:12:01 PST This post is the first collection of responses to the following post. >This exercise is intended to demonstrate that the collective creativity and >expertise of net participants can be harnessed via a specific methodology. I >think the net should be exploited as a population of subject matter experts >and a source of user input from which the extracted information may be applied >to solving real design problems. Through an iterative process of concept >refinement, using the collective knowledge-base of the net, it may be possible >that otherwise undiscovered design questions, problems, concepts, >capabilities, and etcetera be revealed. >I am going to take a look at this idea by doing the following: I will post a >purposely vague design question to the participants of the net. For those of >you who choose to participate in the exercise, e-mail your individual >responses to me. Feel free to submit questions to the net for clarification >and discussion but I will not extract information directly from the net. If >you need a definition or have a question, ask the net first. Some weeks after >the original post I will submit an edited compilation of the net responses. >This post will hopefully act to spark more ideas, make clarifications, and >identify problem areas. The refinement process will continue. The net may >then respond to the new description in order to patch holes, make corrections, >and propose changes. This iterative process will continue until responses die >off and/or the concept is solidified. >I will document this process and report the results (I will post the report). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Sample question: >Let's say you are given a virtual reality system. Your system consists of a >high resolution wide field-of-view full color head mounted display devise >display), an extremely accurate head tracking system (transducer), and a 60Hz >graphics generator (image generator). Given this technology, how should it be >applied to the flight deck of a commercial airliner? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Note: Please indicate, in your e-mail responses, if you would like your name >and/or affiliation to be excluded from any publication which may result from >this exercise. Any information on personal background or experience you want >to include may be of some use. All credit and acknowledgements will be made >as appropriate. My thanks to all who participate. e-mail to: EGEISELMAN@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL The following is a compilation of the responses to the original December 16th post (above). The responses have been minimally edited to reduce redundancy and to organize the information into logical categories. To date, the response categories include: flight segment (pre-flight, departure, enroute, and approach), general, communications/air traffic control, hardware, and criticisms/concerns/comments. Except for reasons of clarity, responses in the criticisms/concerns/comments category were not edited. There were 16 respondents to the original post from which the following descriptions were derived. Please feel free to respond to this post in accordance with the original post. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FLIGHT SEGMENT: PRE-FLIGHT: I propose the system be utilized for pre-flight and in-flight visual inspection of internal aircraft structures and systems monitoring. A 3-D model of the airplane with all of its systems and components laid out and accessible. The pilot could visually monitor vital systems via video pickups located in strategic places (wheelwells, etc). Included would be monitoring the exterior of the airplane for ice. The inputs to the HMD would come from "rats" build into various structures. A structure would be selected with a data glove, which would also control the action of the rat: halt, go backward, go forward. With the help of a head tracker, the movement of the rat's head (two video cameras and a light) would mimic the movement of the operator's head. An alternative application would be to enable pilots to visit destination airports and environments in order to gain pre-flight familiarization. This would be a simple simulation, with basic control requests from a data glove. The operator could select location, light conditions, and weather prior to moving around the area. DEPARTURE: No responses were specific to the departure flight segment. ENROUTE: This system could be used as sort of a super-HUD. The system should have a transparent image display. An "overlay" on reality could be useful: Outline the active traffic center in a red box; draw an arrow to the destination airport; display aircraft status, and so on. A display failure would merely force the pilot to go back to "regular" instruments, and since he or she would already have "situational awareness," the disorientation would be minor. The system could superimpose airspace symbology onto the real world. The pilot could look outside and see the airway stretching out ahead. An intersection would be visible as it is approached. The TCA would appear in front of the aircraft (although this probably would be of less importance for a commercial airliner since they're IFR all the time). For traffic avoidance, the system could display superimposed targets on the flight deck and highlight them when the pilot turns his/her head(eyes) in that direction. Essentially this would be a virtual see and avoid system. One could further add to the system by selectively displaying the correct altitude, heading, distance, speed, and closure rate of any particular target within the field-of-view when prompted by the pilot. The system could provide some type of warning when a target is a potential threat to the "source" aircraft. The system could generate an image of the pilot's aircraft in 3-D or 2-D, in any scale. Position relative to other aircraft, airports, and holding patterns could be monitored from any angle. Also, the system could show the aircraft path, with time markings, through the airspace (a highway or tunnel in the sky). The system may enable the pilot to look to the right and have a list of alternate destinations available, select "on" with the blink of an eye, and have the computer automatically alter the flight plan. APPROACH: Once a descent has begun into the terminal environment, and workload increases, the system would be useful. The system could display all the usual HUD info - airspeed, altitude, etc. It could display superimposed weather information, radar cross-sections, allowing the pilot to steer around cells - he or she could see inside the cells. The system could simulate the outside environment, real-time, in 1-1 scale, as well as the entire approach and landing. This imagery could be generated in a number of ways: 1) Stored maps of well known airports. The stored imagery would be displayed based on the plane's current position derived from GPS, INS, and radar altimeter. 2) Imagery created on real-time by other remote sensing instruments on the plane. These could include FLIR, conventional radar, MMW radar, etc. The VR generator could superimpose the runway as it would appear in perfect VFR daylight conditions (including VASI, etc.). This could reduce the amount of data needed for presentation/human processing and could offer improved methods for presenting what is necessary. The pilot would have the option to display the ILS needles superimposed over the outside scene. With this system the aircraft could conceivably land in any visibility condition. Another interesting possibility on approach and departure would be to merge doppler radar data into the virtual view to (hopefully) visualize wind shear. The doppler data might best be transmitted from the ground. Initially, perhaps one pilot would wear the VR system (maybe the (younger) copilot) all the way down to landing, while the captain watches the approach flown the old-fashioned way. Provided with precise enough information from the nav equipment and data bases, the flight crew could taxi in fog. GENERAL: If you have a virtual reality system in the cockpit of a commercial airliner, there is one obvious application: Combat Simulator. Each airliner would have a system which provides simulated combat capability for use against other airliners. Missiles, guns, bombs, all could be simulated in software. A hit could be indicated by the target bursting into flames and going down, all virtually simulated, with no ecologically-unfriendly smoke trails or craters. The primary benefit of this is that it increases situational awareness. If you know that the other guy is liable to gun you, you'll keep careful watch over all local traffic. See and don't be seen. The pilot should be given the ability to select the relative intensity of the various forms of information which are overlaid in the field-of-view. For instance, the pilot might opt for the primary image to be the live camera feed, but to also have the computer generated imagery present at a lower intensity. The computer generated imagery would appear as a "ghost" image behind the main feed. This could be useful for daylight patchy fog or low-ceiling operations. It would probably be possible to also combine all the sources of input into an aggregate composite image. The computer could then compare the various forms of input and reject the ones that don't match. Suppose the camera has a clear view of a building ahead, but the on-board stored data place the building at a position 300 meters away. This could be assumed to be a failure in the GPS/locating system and the map database would be ignored or given a very low-weighting in the composite image. COMMUNICATIONS/AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL: At major airports there could be a great deal of weather sensing instruments. The data from the instruments could be processed by ground computers into a real-time weather model, this information could then be transmitted to the aircraft and onto the helmet display to give the pilot an actual visual image of wind patterns. The computer could stay in communication with airspace systems, so the pilot remains appraised of clearances, altitudes, airpseeds and so forth; and controllers remain appraised of the pilot's current situation and position. Also, the computer might be able to data link auto-pireps. HARDWARE: One application may be selective visual enhancement. LCD's exist that can turn from translucent to clear. The computer would mask out the windows and superimpose appropriate displays for glide-path insertion, runway enhancement, annotated traffic, etc. Note that the cockpit instruments would **NOT** be masked out: The pilot would actually see the gauges. The system requires more than just a good VR in-the-cockpit system. It also requires GPS, LORAN, radar/pressure altimeters, TCAS, and a host of other sensors and communications devices. We must not forget that some of that hardware might need to be modified to accommodate the VR pilot. To apply this technology to an actual flight deck, rather than just a simulator, would require piping in a live visual feed, in addition to any computer generated imagery. A 360 degree bubble mounted either under the cockpit, above the cockpit, in the nose, or possible a combination of all 3, would contain a camera system that would track the pilot/operator's head position. This "live" video could be fed directly into the "helmet" or it could be processed into a computer model and then adjusted to compensate for the position of the pilot in the cockpit versus the position of the camera to prevent pilot/operator disorientation. This would provide the pilot with not only a better panoramic view of the environment, but also the ability to look back at parts of his plane that are not usually visible. A camera per eye would be a distinct advantage, not only could expanded stereo be computer generated from the map database, but with dual cameras, one on each wingtip, the pilot could be given a much wider/deeper depth perception of the approach. The cameras mounted in the afore-mentioned bubble enclosures on the cockpit, should be dual-cameras mounted at normal human-eye separation. CRITICISMS/CONCERNS/COMMENTS (not edited): [Given this technology, how should it be applied to the flight deck of a commercial airliner?] Enroute, not a heck of a lot. Terrain avoidance is not usually a problem at FL370, and neither are VFR a/c w/o transponders. And, you're usually over most of the weather, or using the old eyeball, steering around the mushrooming heads. Navigation isn't too tricky, either, as the autopilot is flying you towards the next VOR. My personal opinion is that VR technology (WFOV head mounted display, head tracker, 60 hz graphics generator) should not be applied to an airliner cockpit at all. I do not feel that the technology is anywhere near mature enough to be safe in that situation. Some similar work has been done for military aircraft, but military aircraft have a much different mission and a higher level of acceptable risk. Another thing that MUST be considered is what to do if the system fails, as ANY system will eventually fail. It seems to me that making the transition from VR to RL (real life) could be disorienting to the pilot, possibly at the worst possible time. -- I don't want to discourage any experiments or research along these lines, but thinking about having it deployed in the general air carrier fleet makes me nervous. There's still controversy about the Airbus A320's fly-by-wire system, for goodness sake; this would be an order of magnitude more complex. -- Well now, the fundamental use of a VR system that you are describing above is that it allows you to see what you normally cannot with the usual eyeballs. This sounds stupid... -- Expect resistance from flight crews - if they don't like computers, they sure won't like VR. -- Early experimentation probably would disclose some methods of information delivery that prove unsatisfactory. Hopefully all would be tried in simulators before discovering which create problems ranging from the subtle to the blatantly gross. Early VR systems produced a high risk of vomiting even without having a ride in turbulence, and I'd wonder if airborne VR could trip the same response. -- On a less serious note, my personal taste in airborne virtual reality would need more transducers -- I'd like to feel the wind in my feathers! -- ....the traditional HUD information could also be displayed in the helmet. I think the greatest danger in this system, would be creeping featurism or information overload. The urge to put TOO MUCH information in the display. -- It shouldn't. The reliability cannot be shown to be adequate. -- My concern is that (a) glass cockpit systems cannot be shown to be adequately reliable - but at least they can be easily cross-checked against conventional instruments. A VR system would (I imagine) inhibit reference to conventional instruments. (b) the difficulty of assurance and the probability of error rises with complexity and with novelty (probably more than linearly). I expect a VR system to be both novel and complex. (c) - this is more contentious - I don't think that there are major problems in civil aviation that need VR as a solution. Safety is already higher than other forms of transport. The main aviation problem seems to be in ATC (perhaps VR for ATCOs would be a better idea). I prefer to identify the problem, then look for a technology to solve it, rather than take a technology and look for application areas. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: My thanks to the following contributors: Anonymous, Bernd-Burkhard Borys, Andrew Boyd, Greg Cronau, Terrell D. Drinkard, Chuck Gallagher, Richard Johnson, Berry Kercheval, David M. Palmer, Dan Pearl, Paul Raveling, Martyn Thomas, Kendall L. White, and Steve Wolf. E.G. From kls Fri Feb 12 11:12:05 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Dorsett Subject: More on Flaps on Landing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu Date: 12 Feb 93 11:12:05 PST I asked Don Webster, a 747 pilot, about the flaps-on-landing issue. His reply: ------------------------ Retracting flaps on landing: it is the airline's SOP not to touch the flaps until clear of the runway. As you mentioned, the "stress," or perhaps intensity of that particular phase of flight is such that the priority must be given to the control of the airplane, the runway exit plan and communications with tower and ground. On a scheduled touch and go in training, the pilot not flying selects the flaps to 20 or some other appropriate take-off setting while the plane is accelerating for the lift-off. On a go-around prior to touching down, the command is, "go- around thrust, flaps 20, positive rate (of climb) gear up." The flaps 20 applies to the 747. Other planes use different go-around settings. The airline, hence the FAA, does not teach go-arounds once on the ground with the reversers out. It is presumed that by then the plane is comitted to land. An obstruction at that point which could be cleared by flying over it would be far enough down the runway to enable the plane to stop before reaching it. The only example I can think of where a plane went around after landing was a Navy T-39 Sabreliner which had no thrust reversers and attempted to land on an iced up runway. He found he had nil braking on touchdown. He went around and tried again. The second time he had nil braking and went around. As he pulled up off of this landing, his iced up wings put him into a stall and he rolled in, killing six people. I believe the accident board questioned his returning to the unsuitable runway rather than going to his alternate. ----------End of excerpt I also asked another (retired) 747 pilot, in person: his reply was more or less akin to my latest response: by the time the crew perceives it's down to idle speed, retract the flaps. He brought up the point that one reason lift might not be *completely* dumped could be excessive wear on the brakes. -- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd From kls Fri Feb 12 11:12:06 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: weiss@curtiss.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) Subject: Re: aircraft noise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Feb 93 11:12:06 PST In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >The most significant difference is probably that the new >designs are "high bypass ratio" turbofans, while the 727/737 use a >lower bypass ratio turbofan and the early 707 and DC-8 used an even >noisier pure turbojet. [Some stuff deleted] >This has a dramatic impact on noise because the majority of the noise >comes from the hot exhaust gasses of the combustion process. With >more of the thrust coming from the cooler bypass airflow the engine >is quieter. In addition, the cool bypass air surrounds the hotter >combustion gasses and tends to contain the noise. Further improvement >have come as the manufacturers have learned how to better control this >phenomenon. I'd like to elaborate on this a bit. In order to understand the noise, you need to understand a bit about how an aircraft engine produces thrust. In greatly simplified terms, thrust is produced by pushing air toward the rear of the aircraft. Thrust is equal to the momentum of the moved air (every action has an equal and opposite reaction), but is, of course, in the opposite direction. Now, momentum is equal to the mass of the air multiplied by the velocity of the air. Therefore, you can do two things to increase thrust. Either move the air faster, or move more air at the same speed. Turbojets are required to move air at supersonic speeds to produce thrust adequate for takeoff. As anyone who has heard a sonic boom can attest, shock waves from supersonic airflow is NOISY! Therefore, to reduce noise, you can run the exhaust at lower speeds, and put a big fan on the engine to move a greater volume of air at the lower speed, keeping the added momentum the same. The thrust is the same, and the noise is lowered. As a side benefit, running the engines at a lower speed reduces heat and fuel consumption. Sounds great all around, doesn't it? -- \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | / - Michael weiss@seas.ucla.edu | School of Engineering & Applied Science - - Weiss izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu | University of California, Los Angeles - / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \ From kls Fri Feb 12 11:12:07 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: anderson@williams.edu () Subject: Re: DC-10 crash statistic References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: anderson@williams.edu () Organization: Williams College Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Feb 93 11:12:07 PST In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: |>Axel Meierhoefer writes: |>>I am also interested in the reasons of the Continental, Western, |>>World and American Trans Air crashes. |> |>I know nothing of the American Trans Air crash; never even heard of |>it. I find this rather surprising since, as my mailing address might |>suggest Chicago, including it's airport, is near and dear to my heart. |> I'm familiar with an ATA incident at O'Hare, but I thought it was an L1011 At that point I thought ATA was only flying L1011's and 727's (thye have '57's running now too...) Back to the issue at hand, there was an ATA wide-body that burned at the current International Arrival "ramp." I vividly remember pictures in the Tribune from above of the hulk of the aircraft sitting there with the roof burned off. Like I said, I thought it was an L10. But, as usual, I could be wrong! BTW, I never did hear of any cause for the fire. Anyone out there know any more? Alos, any one care to speculate how you physically dispose of a burned out widebody that's still standing on it's gear? Jim -- ******************************************************************************** Jim Anderson Williams College Systems Manager Center for Computing janderson@williams.edu (Internet) Jesup Hall janderson@williams.bitnet Williamstown, MA 01267 413-597-2082 ******************************************************************************** From kls Fri Feb 12 11:12:07 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lmiller@aero.org (Lawrence H. Miller) Subject: Re: DC-10 crash statistic References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Feb 93 11:12:07 PST In article almeierh@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Axel Meierhoefer) writes: > >I recently discovered the following DC-10 crash statistic: > >date regist. airline c/n model location > >12.Nov.75 N1032F ONA *** 46826 DC-10-30 near Istanbul > 2.Jan.76 N1031F ONA *** 46825 DC-10-30 New York/JFK > 1.Mar.78 N68045 Continental * 46904 DC-10-10 Los Angeles >31.Oct.79 N903WA Western * 46929 DC-10-10 Mexico City >23.Jan.82 N113WA World Airways * 47821 DC-10-30 Boston >10.Aug.86 N184AT American Trans Air * 46751 DC-10-40 Chicago O'Hare > >How could this have happened? Does anybody know the reasons for these (ONA) >crashes or any other information about them? > >I am also interested in the reasons of the Continental, Western, >World and American Trans Air crashes. Normally I would refer directly to the NTSB reports on these crashes, but they're packed away as I await moving my office. So this discussion is from memory: My recollection is that ONA at JFK involved a rejected takeoff. All passengers exited safely with no injuries. This was ascribed to the fact that the passengers were all ONA employees, and were trained in evacuation skills. ONA shortly thereafter ceased operations. They were a charter outfit, Overseas National Airlines. My wife once flew them from LA to England. They were quite reasonable for a charter operation. Continental blew a tire during a wet takeoff at LAX. Because of limited braking, and a wet runway, the aircraft overran the departure end of the runway, then sunk down into soft asphalt. A fire erupted and one or two passengers were killed. This may have been due to the fact that a large percentage of the passengers were elderly retirees, off to Hawaii. [I also have a recollection that this was to be the pilot's final flight before retirement. What a way to go.] There was an interesting accounting footnote on this aircraft. In Continental's annual report, they had an item under "extraordinary gains: conversion of aircraft." Polite way of saying "we made out like bandits on the insurance." Can't help on the World crash, except to recall that the plane ended off the end of the runway in icy water, and that boats were used to rescue some passengers. Let's see, Western airlines in Mexico City. I believe it was landing in foggy conditions, on a closed runway. Struck airport construction vehicles, destroying the aircraft. ATA--sorry, no recollection on that one. -- Larry Miller The Aerospace Corporation lmiller@aero.org PO Box 92957 310-336-5597 LA, CA 90009-2957 From kls Fri Feb 12 11:12:08 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@leland.stanford.edu Subject: Am Trans Air DC-10 'crash' References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Feb 93 11:12:08 PST Hi Karl, I'm having problems with my ethernet, so I've been pretty quiet. The ATA DC-10 didn't crash; it was burnt out on the ground during maintenance (I forget the details). I believe the USAF KC-10 listed had a similar experience. If memory serves, one of the ONA losses was due to an uncontained engine failure, with subsequent destruction of the aircraft by fire. It might also be worth pointing out that at least one loss, the UTA crash in Niger, was a result of a bomb. You might also want to point interested readers to the book _Destination Disaster_ published sometime in the late 70s by 3 english authors whose names I forget. It goes over the design history of the DC-10 and the factors leading up to the THY crash at Ermenonville in 74. For crash statistics lovers, there's also a long appendix listing most airline crashes from WW2 to about 1975. Stefano Pagiola spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (note new address) From kls Fri Feb 12 11:12:09 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) Subject: Airliner Life Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Feb 93 11:12:09 PST I got to wondering how long an airliner lasts and why. Since the beginning of the jet era all the airliners go about the same speed. I guess some planes have been retired from service because of fuel economy or noise. Is fuel economy just a matter of engine development, or have there been improvements in airplane design that result in greater fuel economy? (i.e. why don't they just put newer/quieter engines in old airplanes?) I've read of concerns about the number of takeoffs and landings, hence the number of pressurization/depressurization cycles; do airliners really "wear out" in this respect. What other factors cause an airliner to wear out, or to be retired from first-line service before it is worn out? -- haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@cats.bitnet "Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!" "No it aint! But ya gotta know the territory!" Meredith Willson: "The Music Man" From kls Fri Feb 12 11:12:10 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: watson@win.tue.nl (Bruce W. Watson) Subject: Re: DC-8 thrust reversers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Feb 93 11:12:10 PST In article c2983hr@umrvmb.umr.edu (Mike Howells) writes: > >I've heard the DC-8 is approved to deploy its inboard reversers inflight to >slow itself down or whatever. Can anyone confirm this? > >Also, how much drag does it provide? I would bet a crapload. > >| Mike Howells | >| Commercial Pilot | >| Airplane Single and Multi-engine Land ave | >| Instrument Airplane | > > Yes, I can confirm this. I've had many conversations with (mostly KLM) ex-DC8 captains who all claim that reverse thrust is approved in flight. There are several prop and turbo-prop aircraft approved for this type of thing. As for the DC-8, it was usually used to increase rate of descent, maintaining constant airspeed. The amount of thrust permitted (as I'm told) is up to the spinup position (however that's measured on the DC-8 -- perhaps N2?), and not to be used inside the FAF. I suppose that there probably wouldn't be a problem using reverse on all 4, if you could get the turbines to spinup at the same rate. Unfortunately, not having the two outboards go to reverse simultaneously can be trouble - asymmetric thrust. This is something of a general problem; for example, in an older 747 you may have noticed (on takeoff) that you sat in position for a moment with the brakes set while all 4 engines were spun up (to 55% or 70% N1 depending on how the particular airline measures spinup) before releasing the brakes and applying (possibly derated) takeoff thrust. The same reasoning is why after applying reverse on the 747 commits to a full stop -- it's not possible to go back to forward thrust for a go-around without a major risk of severe yaw (I admit I only *know* this for the -200). Later, Bruce. From kls Mon Feb 15 16:05:34 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Yet more on UAL 727 crash Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Feb 93 16:05:34 PST This is all from _Safety Last: The Dangers of Commercial Aviation: an Indictment by an Airline Pilot_, by Captain X #1 (not to be confused with the other Captain X--nice how these pilots take responsibility for their opinions, isn't it? :-)), Dial Press, New York, 1972, pp. 220-224. While my recollection was somewhat detailed, it differed from the reality in a few important, imaginative respects. :-) To tell you where X is coming from: FAA is evil. NTSB is its cohort. Airlines pull the strings, and is thus absolute evil. Manufacturers do their best, but make faulty equipment. Chief pilots are the airline's lackeys. ALPA represents all that is good and honest. You are in mortal peril whenever you board an airplane. All that aside, he does illustrate the sequence of events rather well. :-) Note that regulatory comments are out of date, but to the best of my knowledge, no standardized changes to MEL's have ever been made. -------------------------------- On January 18, 1969, United's Flight 266, a Boeing 727, left Los Angeles International terminal and received taxi clearance to runway 24. An extended area of fog, rain and low clouds prevailed along most of the California coastline. The official airport weather was rain and fog, 700 feet scattered clouds, measured 1000' broken, and a visibility of 3 miles. Captain Leonard Leverson, forty-nine, had recently completed upgrading training on the DC-8 and had not flown a 727 for forty-seven days (FAA allows a pilot to go as long as three months without flying before becoming unqualified). His first officer, Walter R. Schlemer, had logged nearly 2,000 hours in the tri-jet, and Engineer Ostrander, who was relatively new at the game, had barely 500 hours, only 40 of them in the Boeing 727. Captain Leverson had acknowledged his permission to taxi onto the active runway. At 6:16 PM, the tower issued the following instructions: "United 266 cleared for takeoff." F/O Schlemer answered, "United 266 rolling." The few remaining check list items were completed. "Engine start switches." "3 on." "Antiskid." "On. Yeah, that's good." "Oil cooler coming ground off." "They're stabilized." Captain Leverson said, "Take off thrust." F/O Schlemer replied, "Set looks good." As the craft gathered speed down the rain-soaked runway the jargon familiar to all pilots was heard as the F/O called off vital speed information: "100, 110, 120, VR, V2." Captain Leverson gave the thumbs-up signal and called, "Gear up." The tower operator's voice came over the cockpit speakers: "United 266, contact departure control." "United 266 on departure." "United 266, Los Angeles departure radar contact, turn right heading 270 degrees, report leaving 3,000." "270 degrees wilco." The efficient cockpit crew were startled by flashing red lights and the spine tingling CLANG! CLANG! CLANG! of the emergency system. "What the hell was that?" asked the Captain. "Number one fire warning," Walter shouted. "OK, let's take care of the warning." "That puts us on one generator," said Walter. As Leonard answered his first officer he was already starting a turnback to the field: "Yeah, yeah, watch the electrical loading." The flight was now over the Pacific Ocean and flying on instruments at night and in the clouds. Walter was again working the radio: "Ah--departure, United 266." "United 266 go ahead." "Ah--we've had a fire warning on number-one engine, we shut down, we'd like to come back." "United 266, Roger. What is your present altitude? United 266, maintain 3000 and say your altitude... United 266, say your altitude." There was no time for the flight crew to bother with radio contacts. Far more important things were happening in the cockpit. The engineer's panel resembled a giant pinball machine. Warning lights were flashing rapidly, and there was little time to cope with them. "We're going to get screwed up," said the engineer. "I don't know what's going on." All cockpit instruments stopped functioning. All that remained were the rate instruments, vertical speed, altimeter and air speed. There were no backup instruments. With the existing flight conditions it would be impossible to keep a plane right side up. First Officer Schlemer, desperately trying to aid his captain, shouted, "Keep it going up, Arnie. You're a thousand feet... pull it up!" The departure controller continued his frantic calls: "United 266, if you hear us squawk 0200 or 0400... United 266, if you hear turn right heading 260 degrees." The air traffic controller knew that the calls were in vain but he could hope. As the sweep of the radar antenna on his scope showed, one of his targets was missing. United 266 had disappeared into the ocean 11 miles off shore. Thirty-eight more deaths added to the list of company and FAA carelessness. United was experiencing more than its share of engin shutdowns. From 1966 to 1969 over seventy engines were shut down in flight. Only ten proved to be false-alarm warnings. The Boeing Company issued a service bulletin, #25-15, in May 1968. This directive made it optional to replace a sensor in the engines so that an increase of 50 F would be necessary before a warning would actuate the fire bell in the cockpit. This was not done on the affected engine. In January 1969 the No. 3 generator control panel was removed and replaced with a panel that had been proved defective on eight differnt aircraft for varying reasons. But this was the one on board the night of the crash. This generator system had a long history of "bugs." In September 1966 a Westing- house service bulletin recommended replacement of a silicone rectifier for their generators which supplied electricity to this aircraft. This was not done. The #3 generator was kicking up such a fuss that maintenance reverted to their old standby, the MEL (the minimum equipment list which specifies the number of components that can be malfunctioning on a flight). So the generator was rendered inoperative. The 727 had its blessings from the FAA to fly on two generators, which it did for a total of three days. The craft had 41 flying hours on it during that period, but it was not repaired at any of the stations because of the exigencies of available aircraft and flight scheduling. When Marvin Whitlock, senior vice president, Operations, for United, was asked his opinion of this matter, he said, "I'm not proud of the 41 hours, but I don't feel that way because of safety." During the months of June and July of 1969, United Air Lines experienced three more complete generator failures, but they were unable to duplicate each incident. The cause of the failures is stil under investigation. The board made the following conclusion: the entire electrical system was placed on the #2 generator and it could not stand the load. Yet they stil maintain that a two-generator operation is safe. ALPA recommends that "All pilots not accept aircraft with an inoperative generator, as it is considered by the association as unsafe." The remains of the #1 engine were thoroughly examined and it was determined that the fire extinguisher warning that the crew received was false, and that no traces of fire were found. If the Westinghouse bulletin had been heeded and an element of higher rating installed, the false warning might never have come on and the accident could have been averted. There are two vital switches within three inches of each other on the flight engineer's panel: they galley power, which is a tremendous drain on the electrical system, and the battery switch, which controls the essential power to the vital intruments when the generators are inoperative. Since these two switches look identical in a dimly lit cockpit, during a confusing episode it would be extremely easy to turn the wrong switch off, which is one possibility in this accident. As the galley power switch must be turned off to reduce the electircal load during an emergency condition, it would seem only proper that a guard be positioned over the battery switch. Months prior to the accident, a United pilot wrote a letter to his chief pilot suggesting that a guard be placed over the battery switch before it caused an accident. The answer was to the effect that his was the thirteenth letter to date with the same idea in mind. United felt there was no need for such a guard, although his efforts were appreciated. No action was taken on the matter. On January 31, 1969, the FAA issued an airworthiness directive requiring all B-727 operators to provide a means to prevent inadvertent operation of the battery switch on those aircraft in which the battery control is located within ten inches of the battery power switch. Battery power can be a vital commodity as the preceding accident proves. Yet the majority of today's jets have this switch crowded on both sides with sim- ilar ones; it looks like a row of tin soldiers. They are not guarded, just lying in wait to trigger another accident. In spite of the warnings given by ALPA about dispatching an aircraft with one of the generators inoperative, and obviously disregarding the crash of one of their planes, United Air Lines has made no changes in their minimum equip- ment list. As of Januaary 1971 their MEL still allows a two-generator operation. And that's two years after the lesson should have been learned. --------------------------- From kls Mon Feb 15 16:05:39 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bwood@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (William Wood) Subject: Please answer - 757/767 Hydraulic Question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Feb 93 16:05:39 PST Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center I would appreciate anyone who can elaborate on something I heard several years ago. The topic came-up in a conversation discussed on what would happen should a certain engine fail during flight on a 757. The person to which I was speaking, informed me that "it would be no terrible problem for a 757 to suddenly loose an engine whilst in flight!" Amazing to me as this sounded, I had to be the one to pose the question of 'why this wouldn't be a problem?' I was in- formed by the other party that the 757 has a "pseudo-engine" that is 'tucked-under' the wings, similar to the manner in which the landing gear is (retracted position)." "When an engine fails during flight, this (pseudo-engine) is suddenly released, and falls into a downward locked/fixed position, similar to that of one of the other (real) engines." He stated that its proported purpose is to assume the intake of forced wind through it's intake channels, which then force the turning of its 'turbo-prop' which acts-out as a wind-propelled electric generator (to allow steerage of the plane having restored the power to the hydraulic systems of the plane). Could this be a truth? I would appreciate your con- sideration towards addressing this question. Also, if it is a truth, would this also be the case in the design of the 767 as well?? Thanks, Bill From kls Mon Feb 15 16:05:40 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Repeat of seminar advert WITH address :-) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Feb 93 16:05:40 PST Apologies to all those who were puzzled about where the following event is taking place! The "City University" in question is City University, London. Obviously, I don't expect a lot of people to fly over from the States specially to hear our seminars (excellent though they are! :-) but I hoped to reach people on the lists I mailed who are resident in the UK, and close enough to consider coming along. Pete Mellor ----------- ***************************************************************** * City University Computer Science Seminar * * Virtual Reality Techniques in Flight Simulators * * Prof John Vince, of Rediffusion Simulation * * Wednesday 3rd March, 2 - 3pm, room A230 * ***************************************************************** The modern flight simulator is frequently cited by the VR community as being an excellent example of VR techniques. Although a trainee pilot is unable to leave the simulator cockpit and directly explore the virtual airport, he can still enjoy many of the other benefits associated with VR. In this talk John Vince will describe the background of the latest flight simulator technology, especially those features common with virtual reality. His talk will be illustrated with recent real-time video animation sequences. All are welcome to come to this seminar on Wednesday the 3rd March, from 2 - 3 pm in A230. Professor Vince is an authority on virtual reality, and is co-chairman of the British Computer Society Displays Group conference on Interacting with Images. Please contact Geoff Dowling on 071 477 8442, or e-mail g.dowling@uk.ac.city.cs to confirm these arrangements in case of last minute changes. Visitors to the University may find the simplest route by turning left when leaving the new Angel station. After 100 yards cross over the traffic lights, and go a further 600 yards down St John Street. The entrance is under the clock on the left hand side. --- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Sq., London EC1V 0HB, Tel: +44(0)71-477-8422, JANET: p.mellor@city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Feb 15 16:05:54 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Report on visit to Airbus Industrie - 28-29th Jan. 1993 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Feb 93 16:05:54 PST Report on visit to Airbus Industrie - 28-29th Jan. 1993 ------------------------------------------------------- Peter Mellor ------------ 1. Introduction --------------- Following the distribution of the first draft of our paper ``The Airbus A320 Electronic Flight Control System'' [1] to (among others) Andrew McClymont of AI's Office of Airworthiness, I received an invitation to visit AI in Toulouse to discuss its contents with the experts face-to-face, in order to shorten the process of comment and redraft. The following is an account of the various meetings and presentations which took place over two days on 28th and 29th January 1993. 2. Programme ------------ 28th January: 0830 - Welcome, Introduction and Video ``Progress in Control'' 0915 - Presentation by Aerospatiale (AS): A320/A30/A340 Flying Control System Architecture EFCS Software Life Cycle System Specification Method (``SAO'') Software Development Methodology Quality Assurance Certification Aspects 1230 - Lunch (AIB Cafeteria) 1400 - Depart to AS - Visit System Integration Facilities 1600 - Discussion 1730 - Depart to Hotel 29th January: 0830 - Review Draft EFCS report 1230 - Lunch at ``The Club'' 1400 - Depart, or review outstanding items if required At least, that was the plan! The driver was a bit late picking us up on the Thursday morning, so we did not start until 0900. The discussions went on far longer than anyone expected, and the visit to AS started late. The discussion scheduled for 1600 on Thursday therefore took place on Friday morning, and the review of the document and discussion of points arising dragged on until around 1800 on Friday. 3. People Involved ------------------ Peter Potocki de Montalk (Department Manager, Cockpit Avionics, AI), was the main host and had arranged the meeting. (His name is pronounced ``Pot-ot-ski'' and is of Polish origin. He is English.) Peter is the author of ``Computer Software in Civil Aircraft'' [2]. Andrew McClymont (Director, Office of Airworthiness, AI), another of the British ex-pats in Toulouse, and the man in AI to whom I originally sent the first draft of the paper [1]. Dominique Briere (Head of Flight Control Department, Technical Direction, Toulouse Plants, Aircraft Division, AS). Gerard Ladier (Airborne Computer Software, Test and Integration Laboratory, Engineering Management, A/DET/EI/LE, AS). Jean-Michel Nogue, Software Quality Assurance, A/DET/SY/SQIP, Aircraft Division, AS). Pascal Traverse (Design Office, Systems Safety, A/DET/SY, AS), to whom I also sent a copy of the first draft [1]. He is the author or co-author of several papers on avionics software e.g., [3], [4]. I had met him on several occasions in the past at meetings and workshops. Denis Ribot (Airborne Computer Software, Test and Integration Laboratory, Engineering Management, A/DET/EI/LE, AS). The guests were myself and: Daniel J. Hawkes (Head of Avionics Design, CAA) who has been heavily involved in the type-certification of the A320 and A340. 4. Video: ``Progress in Control'' --------------------------------- This was shown to set the scene, and provide background information. It describes the flight characteristics of the A320/A330/A340, the protections provided by the EFCS, and the cockpit instruments and controls. The presenter was the late Gordon Corps, the British test pilot who did much of the flight testing of the A300-600, A310 and A320, and who sadly died of altitude sickness last August while returning from a visit the crash site of the A300 which came down near Katmandu. The video was full of technical detail and made a number of interesting points, including the fact that the EFCS provides neutral stability (the aircraft maintains its pitch and bank angles if the pilots take their hands off the controls). The same flight deck design is used in the A320, A330 and A340, to minimise retraining of pilots. Since the meeting, I have been provided with a copy of this video. 5. Presentations ---------------- The presentations were based on those given to the authorities in the course of the A340 certification. Aerospatiale has recently been more concerned with the development of the A340 and A330, and the presentations therefore focused on the systems in these later aircraft rather than the earlier A320. However, a lot of technical detail about the A320 EFCS emerged in discussion. Only a brief overview can be given in this report. The A340 received its type certificate on 22nd December 1992, and the A330 is expected to be certified in March 1993. The A340/A330 FCPC (Flight Control Primary Computer) corresponds to the A320 ELAC (Elevator and Aileron Computer), and the A340/A330 FCSC (Flight Control Secondary Computer) corresponds to the A320 SEC (Spoiler and Elevator Computer). 5.1 Flight Controls System Architecture (P. Traverse) ----------------------------------------------------- The function of the EFCS is to move the aerodynamic surfaces in response to orders from the crew or auto-pilot. It is an ``Electrical'' Flight Control System, not ``electronic''. (This term is used since ``electronic'' systems have traditionally been the responsibility of radio engineers, whereas flight controls have been the province of mechanical engineers. It is a distinction based on ``turf'' or areas of technical responsibility.) Electrical signalling of the hydraulic actuators saves weight and cost, and allows digital computer control to improve ``pilotability'' and safety (e.g., stall and overspeed protections). (Some actuators are mechanically signalled in response to input from the crew.) The EFCS ``slaves'' the surfaces using two feedback loops, a servoloop which returns information on the state of the actuators and the actual positions of the surfaces, and an outer loop which returns information on the state of whole aircraft via the air data and inertial reference system (ADIRS). The building block of the EFCS (and many other systems on the A3xx family) is the Command and Monitoring fail-safe (or fail-passive) computer, which has been in use for around 30 years. (One of the points that was repeatedly stressed was that the design approach used on the A320 is ``evolutionary'' not ``revolutionary'': the ideas have been introduced gradually over many years, building on experience with many models of aircraft.) This device consists of two channels, each with its own microprocessor, RAM, ROM, watchdog timer, I/O ports and power supply. The two channels are electrically separated and physically separated by a bulkhead. Each channel contains its own software, diversely developed to the same functional specification, and the output of the command channel is compared to the output of the monitor channel. Any mismatch or time-out results in a shut-down of the one computer. There is an asymmetry between the command and monitor channels due to the existence of time-dependent functions in the servoloop. The design is intended to ensure that the only failure mode is ``stop'', after which other computers in the EFCS take over the function (possibly with a change in the flight control laws and a degradation of automatic protection). The EFCS life cycle involves requirements capture resulting in an equipment specification, including hardware, software, and functional specifications. The pilot is very definitely ``in the loop'' for requirements capture, which is an iterative process using rapid prototyping and flight tests. Emphasis is placed on validation of functional requirements, which is clearly distinguished from verification. The tool used to express functional requirements is ``Specification Assiste par Ordinateur'' (SAO) or ``Computer Aided Specification''. This tool is far more powerful than I had previously realised. It allows the precise definition of sequences of control actions in graphical form with a library of symbols to represent individual actions such as integrate, switch, etc. An SAO spec. consists of a number of sheets, with the signals flowing from left to right. SAO automatically cross-refers inputs on the left of one sheet with outputs from the right of the sheets that feed into it, and also provides configuration control. The SAO functional spec. (which can be used for hardware or software) is the interface between the ``equipment world'' and the ``aircraft world''. There are no intermediate design stages: code is derived directly from the SAO diagrams, either by automatic generation or by hand. SAO allows the inclusion of software probes for monitoring of signals during execution on a test-bench. The software is flown with the probes in place. The dependability requirements for the system involve quantitative assessment of the hardware only (to 10^-9). Software is assessed qualitatively to level 1 of RTCA/DO-178A [5]. The validation of the software is done by specification peer reviews, system safety analysis (analysis of failure conditions), performance analysis, and analysis of interaction with the structure. The control laws are tested with a real-time simulator connected to a simplified pilot desk. The complete system is tested on a time-expanded simulator to check response to various inputs. The individual computer is tested on a partial test-bench with input simulation and monitoring of internal variables via the software probes. The ``iron bird'' and flight simulator are used to test the whole system before ``heavy'' flight tests during which 10000 EFCS parameters are recorded. This approach was used within AS to develop the A320 SEC and the A340 FCSC (Flight Control Secondary Computer) software. The A320 ELAC (hardware and software) was developed separately by Thompson-CSF, and was not described in the same amount of detail. 5.2 FCSC S/W Development - Organisational Aspects (D. Ribot) ------------------------------------------------------------ The management structure of the AS Design Management (A/DET) organisation was explained at various levels. The ``coal face'' is the Atelier Logiciel (Software Workshop) within the Test and Integration Laboratory (A/DET/EI) which acts as if it were an external supplier of software to the rest of the organisation. In particular, software quality assurance is provided externally to the laboratory by software quality experts within the System Design organisation (A/DET/SY), which is the other wing of Design Management. 70% of the flight control software corresponds to functions defined in SAO, which is the part most prone to evolve during development and deals with logic, control laws and I/O. The system designer in A/DET/SY is responsible for defining the global system requirements, and can animate an SAO spec. in order to refine these. The software designer in the software workshop generates software to meet the requirements defined in SAO, and must do so with a lead time consistent with the flight test schedule. 5.3 FCSC S/W Development - Method and Quality Assurance (G. Ladier) ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Method and Quality Assurance team defines the development rules (with the development teams' involvement) and ensures they are followed. It participates in progress meetings and reviews and ``spreads the experience'' outside the department (e.g., to the system design teams in A/DET/SY) in order to help them avoid problems. They help the developers with the choice of practices and tools, ensure coordination of general tasks linked to the use of ADA, analyse metrics to do with reliability, cost and schedule of software, and participate as embedded software experts in the DO178 [5] review. Together with the development teams, they develop internal guidelines and standards. Three-monthly quality reviews are carried out. The emphasis is on quality before, not after, the fact. It was stated that no bugs had been found in the software after flight test. 5.4 FCSC S/W Development - The FCSC Software (D. Ribot) ------------------------------------------------------- The command and monitor lane teams work separately and have different managers both reporting to the project manager. The emphasis is on diverse development. To achieve diversity, the development of hardware and software for the A320 and A340 was contracted out as follows:- Aircraft Computer Chip H/W Development S/W Development -------- -------- ----- --------------- --------------- A320: ELAC Motorola Thompson-CSF Thompson-CSF 68000 SEC Intel SFENA Aerospatiale 80186 Atelier Logiciel A340: FCPC Intel Aerospatiale Aerospatiale 80386 ADL Atelier Logiciel FCSC Intel Sextant Aerospatiale 80186 Avionique Atelier Logiciel The merger of SFENA, Thompson-CSF Aviation Group, EAS and another to form Sextant Avionique has meant that a certain degree of diversity was lost for the A340 as compared with the A320. This has had to be addressed internally. The A320 ELAC contains 3 Motorola 68000 chips in the Command channel: - the main processor, which receives the pilots' commands and deals with the servo controls, - the ARINC processor, dedicated to handling I/O on the ARINC 429 buss, and - the co-processor, which handles the flight control laws. The Monitor channel has a similar internal architecture. Both channels are programmed in Macro-assembler (MASS), but development rules are in place to ensure dissimilarity. The A320 SEC contains 2 Intel 80186 chips and 1 Intel 8086:- - the main processor, which receives pilots' orders and handles the flight control laws, - the ARINC automaton, which handles I/O on the buss, and - the servo-loop processor (8086) which deals with servo control. Again, the Monitor channel has a similar internal architecture, and both channels are programmed in Macro-assembler. (I *think* this is accurate. The SEC resembles the FCSC in some ways, and the FCSC monitor channel is programmed in Pascal and assembler. - To be checked!) The A320 FCDC is not a command and monitor computer, but consists of a single 68000. The SAO derived part of the program is written in C, and the H/W interface part is written in assembler. FCSC software (like SEC software) is developed on a Digital Equipment Corporation VAX running VMS and equipped with VS2000 and VS31000 workstations on an ethernet. The object code can be burned into a PROM, or rather a set of 6 PROMs contained in an ``On-Board Replaceable Module'' (OBRM). This is simply slotted into the back of the FCSC (or SEC). The FCPC (and ELAC) can be similarly loaded with new software. The OBRM is the means of inserting new software into the EFCS both during development and test and in order to carry out field upgrades. The compiled FCSC code can be run in 4 emulators under the control of a HP9000 for initial testing, and is then conveyed in its OBRM to an FCSC connected to an integration rig. It undergoes further testing on this and subsequently on the ``iron bird'' prior to flight testing. The FCSC (and SEC) software operates in discrete cycles in response to a real time interrupt from a ``sequencer''. There is no reentrant code, and no parallelism. On each cycle, a given set of modules must be executed, and the maximum execution time for each set is computed in advance, and checked during testing. In 2 years of ground tests, the execution of the modules has never been known to overrun the cycle time. 5.5 Aerospatiale Software Quality Assurance (J-M. Noguet) --------------------------------------------------------- This is performed at the Aircraft Manufacturer level, treating the software development organisation as if it were an outside contractor. This SQA is different from the QA within software development, and is intended to ensure compliance with specification and with relevant standards, including DO178A [5] and various internal standards. It proceeds by a series of formal reviews at different stages of the life cycle. 5.6 Certification Aspects ------------------------- There was no formal presentation on this, but during many discussions, the certification of the A320 was explained. The basis for certification is described in a thick book [6] which comprises all the relevant JAR regulations and the related interpretive material. The initial certification was done by a ``college'' of 4 authorities: those of UK, France, Germany and The Netherlands. What is certified is an *aircraft*. The systems on it are qualified in the course of a demonstration that they will not compromise the safety of the aircraft as a whole. The emphasis is on function. For example, the reliability of an individual SEC or ELAC is of the order of 10^-3 to 10^-4. The architecture of the EFCS as a whole ensures that the control of the aircraft can be assured to the famous 10^-9 limit. (This is with regard to hardware failure. No reliability number is assigned to software, nor to any other design aspect.) It was interesting to note, however, that nobody to whom I spoke believed that ``reliability = 1'' for any part of any system, although they are not aware of any method of demonstrating such high reliability figures for software. In fact, I was given a copy of a paper [6] which argued the impossibility of so doing, using arguments similar to those employed by Littlewood and Strigini[7], with which paper everyone was also familiar. One interesting aside was that the 10^-9 figure is justified within the JAA by an argument that I do not believe is used by the FAA. It depends on actual statistics, which indicate that the probability of an aircraft crash is about 10^-7 per flying hour. Given that there may be around 100 critical systems on any aircraft (on the A320 there are 68) the additional factor of 10^-2 is applied to allow for the fact that *any one* of them may fail catastrophically. This justification is contained in one of the JAR interpretive documents. 6. Visit to Aerospatiale ------------------------ This included a visit to the software integration rig on which FCSC software is tested while being monitored by the SPATIAAL tool and generally probed in other ways. The ``iron bird'' simulators for both the A320 and A340 were active. We went around that for the A340. This is a rigid mock-up of the aircraft with all hydraulic and electrical systems laid out as on the real aircraft, and weights attached to provide resistance to the hydraulic actuators. The FCS is tested in this rig, with all the software running in its target machines, under a variety of simulated conditions, e.g., wind gusts, etc. (There was some discussion about which ``standard gust'' is currently in favour for simulation.) There was also the A340 cockpit simulator with its computer-generated view of Toulouse and its surroundings. I was treated to a ``flight'' in this, and made a pig's ear of attempting to land, when I was allowed to take over the controls. I didn't actually crash into the ground, but had to attempt a go around after the 'plane veered off the line of the runway and my attempts to correct it resulted in a crazy banking angle. The consensus was, however, that if a bit more detail had been available on the display, I would have found that I had just flown through the control tower! 7. Review and Discussions ------------------------- The second day was taken up with general discussions of points raised, and a detailed review of the draft [1]. A number of mistakes were pointed out and technical details clarified, many of which I have already referred to above. The third draft of our paper is now about to get under way. Glossary -------- ADIRS Air Data and Inertial Reference System AI Airbus Industrie AS Aerospatiale EFCS Electrical Flight Control System ELAC Elevator and Aileron Computer (A320) FCDC Flight Control Data Concentrator (A320 and A340) FCPC Flight Control Primary Computer (A340) FCSC Flight Control Secondary Computer (A340) SEC Spoiler and Elevator Computer (A320) References ---------- [1] Dorsett R.D., Mellor P.: ``The Airbus A320 Electronic Flight Control System'', available from 2nd author or from ata-watchers archives. (1st draft - June 1992, 2nd draft - 26th January 1993) [2] Potocki de Montalk J.P.: ``Computer Software in Civil Aircraft'', Airbus Industrie, Blagnac 31707, France (to appear in ``Microelectronics and Computing'' and available in ata-watchers archives). [3] Traverse P.J.: "Dependability of digital computers on board airplanes", preprints of "Dependable computing for critical applications," IFIP WG 10.4 International Working Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, Aug. 1989, pp 53-60. [4] Rouquet, J.C., Traverse, P.: "Safe and Reliable Computing on board the Airbus and ATR Aircraft", Proceedings of the 5th IFAC Workshop, "Safety of Computer Control Systems", 1986, (SAFECOMP '86), Pergamon Press. [5] "Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification", Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics document number RTCA/DO-178A, March 1985. [6] Butler R.W., Finelli B.G.: ``The Infeasibility of Experimental Quantification of Life-Critical Software Reliability'', Comm. ACM, 1991 (full ref. N/A). [7] Littlewood B., Strigini L.: "Validation of ultra-high dependability for software-based systems", ESPRIT BRA Project 3092, "Predictably Dependable Computing Systems" (PDCS), 2nd year report, Vol. 3, 1991. Acknowledgements ---------------- I would like to express my sincere thanks to Peter Potocki and his colleagues in AI and to all the people from AS for a very stimulating (if slightly exhausting!) two days, and to them and to Dan Hawkes for their help in acquiring various items of documentation to assist in the redrafting of the report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Feb 17 14:09:26 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: slenk@hal.EMBA.UVM.EDU (Carl A Slenk) Subject: Airbus Hijacking Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Feb 93 14:09:26 PST Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility In light of the recent hijacking to NYC, I was wondering if this model airbus was qualified for EROPS and if not what the legality was for making this flight. At what point does the pilots decision to fly out weigh FAA or IACO rules? -- Carl A. Slenk | "A computer lets you make more mistakes faster slenk@hal.emba.uvm.ed | then any other invention with the possible University of Vermont | exceptions of handguns and Tequilla" - My opinions;get your own | Mitch Ratcliffe From kls Wed Feb 17 14:09:29 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tucusito@kokuki.kuaero.kyoto-u.ac.jp Subject: [tucusito@kokuki.kuaero.kyoto-u.ac.jp: Data Link System] Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tucusito@kokuki.kuaero.kyoto-u.ac.jp Date: 17 Feb 93 14:09:29 PST Does anyone out there have data or references for the air-ground data link system operation ? I am working in the questions concerning the new relationship between the outside ground controllers and aircrews, and the sharing of the mental and control tasks related to aircraft flight management. Also I am interested in questions concerning the interface between the aircrew and ground controllers, as well as the degree of automation necessary to provide the crews with the proper information at the proper time and in the proper format. The way I am using is establishing a refined Task Analysis (function analysis and behavorial analysis) at sucesive levels of detail describing what the aircrew and ground controllers do or what they could do when operating the Air-ground data link system. I hope to cope with: - the quantity and quality of intervention from ground staff, -the circunstances under which tasks are appropriately allocated to the ground control, to the inboard computer, and/or to the aircrew - the strategy of communication (voice radio, digital data link, warnings, etc...) between controllers and pilots. in order to infer an appropiate set of operational principles which could be used to keep the controller and pilot behavior synchronized. I'd appreciate some e-mail. Thanks. faisal Zeidan Dept. of Aeron. Engrg. Kyoto University. Japan. tucusito@kokuki.kuaero.kyoto-u.ac.jp From kls Wed Feb 17 14:09:32 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Please answer - 757/767 Hydraulic Question (LONG!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Feb 93 14:09:32 PST In article William Wood writes: >during flight on a 757. The person to which I was speaking, >informed me that "it would be no terrible problem for a 757 >to suddenly loose an engine whilst in flight!" Karl's written a series of articles demonstrating various thrust-to-weight ratios, which should cover any "thrust" questions you might have. Suffice it to say, the 757 has enough power to handle an engine-out situation. > Amazing to me as this sounded, I had to be the one to pose >the question of 'why this wouldn't be a problem?' I was in- >formed by the other party that the 757 has a "pseudo-engine" >that is 'tucked-under' the wings, [...] > > Could this be a truth? I would appreciate your con- >sideration towards addressing this question. Also, if >it is a truth, would this also be the case in the design >of the 767 as well?? What you're referring to is a ram air turbine. The 757 operations manual states the following: "The ram air trubine (RAT) hydralic pump is located in the body fairing aft of the right main gear. Inflight the RAT automatically deploys into the airstream when airspeed is above 80 knots and both engines fail. The RAT then supplies power to the center system. Once extended, the RAT can only be retracted on the ground. At speeds above 130 knots, the RAT pro- vides adequate power for normal center syste[ operation. A Ram Air Turbine Pressure Light indicates the RAT is providing hydraulic power. The UNLKD light indicates teh RAT is not locked in the stowed position. Manual control for extending the RAT is provided by the guarded Ram Air Turbine Switch." The center hydralic system includes the center autopilot servos, spoilers, elevators, rudder, yaw dampers, stab trim, and elevator feel. Note that it doesn't handle the landing gear. Appended is a series of posts which address this specific question in detail, the last time it surfaced. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Aeronautics Digest 4.31 August 14, 1992 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Topics: Solly Ezekiel Re: Ram jet engine in Commmercial aircraft Mary Shafer Re: Ram jet engine in Commmercial aircraft Ken Hoyme Re: Ram jet engine in Commmercial aircraft Robert Dorsett Re: Ram jet engine in Commmercial aircraft Bob Furtaw 767 flight control (Re: Ram jet engine...) [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 92 19:35:51 GMT From: zeke@wdl50.wdl.loral.com (Solly Ezekiel) Subject: Re: Ram jet engine in Commmercial aircraft like Boeing.. In article <92216.134242TXK9@psuvm.psu.edu> TXK9@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >I remember once being told in a course that Boeing and other commercial >aircrafts have Ram-jet engine for emmergency supply of power for vital >sysems in flight. Where is this engine situated on a 747? What power >does it produce and does it help the aircraft in controlling its decent >during a engine failure. I wonder if any one can enlighten me on this topic? I believe that what you are referring to is called a Ram Air Turbine. It isn't a ramjet, but just a fan that is dropped into the airstream to generate power for such things as hydraulics if the engines fail. If memory serves, the one on the 767 drops from the belly of the aircraft (and I would guess that the one on the 747 does similarly). An example of an occasion during which this little gadget came in useful was the infamous "Gimli Glider" incident, during which an Air Canada 767 ran out of fuel in flight and landed on a race track. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 92 19:49:04 GMT From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: Ram jet engine in Commmercial aircraft like Boeing.. I think that you may be referring to the RAT or Ram Air Turbine. Perhaps you've misremembered? This is just a little turbine that folds out of the side of the plane (more usually fighters than transports) and uses the ram air to spin the turbine and generate enough power to keep the plane flying. In the F-8, for example, the RAT would keep your hydraulics going, as well as the more important avionics. It's not a ram-jet engine and 747s don't have it anyway. They (747s and all other transports that I know of) have APUs (Auxiliary Power Units) to do the same thing. The APU just burns Jet-A to make electricity and power the hydraulics. The F-16 (and the X-29 and X-31) has an EPU (Emergency Power Unit) which burns hydrazine to make the power. The EPU doesn't last very long; it's just designed to get you to a good place in the ejection envelope. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 15:34:46 GMT From: hoyme@src.honeywell.com (Ken Hoyme) Subject: Re: Ram jet engine in Commmercial aircraft like Boeing.. The Boeing 777 *will* have a RAT, and that is exactly what it is called. Also, the A320 has a RAT. > Whether any or all of the 747 line have them I can't say. Since there are electrical generators on each engine, a 4 engine plane is less likely to have one since the probability of total loss of electrical power is much lower. As far as I know, the RATs on commercial airplanes are for electrical power, not hydraulic. Any twin engine plane with fly-by-wire will undoubtedly have a RAT. I can't imagine the certifying agencies approving the plane without it. I don't have knowledge about the 757/767 configuration. They are twins, but are not fly-by-wire, so continuous electrical power is not quite as critical. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 04:09:33 GMT From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Ram jet engine in Commmercial aircraft like Boeing.. > I remember once being told in a course that Boeing and other commercial > aircrafts have Ram-jet engine for emmergency supply of power for vital > sysems in flight. Where is this engine situated on a 747? What power > does it produce and does it help the aircraft in controlling its decent > during a engine failure. I wonder if any one can enlighten me on this > topic? [ I've been in a sort of net.purgatory for the last week, and composed this early on; apologies if the discussion has lapsed. ] As others have noted, what you're referring to is a ram air turbine. This isn't the same as a ram jet engine. The RAT is a miniature turbine, usually with a propeller blade in the front, which is placed in the free airstream, to develop power. A ramjet is a hypersonic propulsion device. A conventional jet engine is basically a bunch of fan blades mounted on two or more shafts. Most airplane systems (electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic) are centered on the engine. "Accessories" are the devices that produce these services, and are physically arranged around the engine, within the engine nacelle. They use gear reduction mechanisms, hooked up to a shaft, to obtain motive power. Electrical generators and *engine- driven* hydraulic pumps are two such types of "accessories." The important thing to note about this arrangement is that all these accessories require the engine blades to be spinning, NOT necessarily for the engine to be ON. I.e., they aren't "steam-driven" from the engine turbine. An engine that is OFF will still spin: back in the good old days, when we got to walk to airplanes, one would get to see the front- stage blades of an "inert" engine spin in even a light headwind (these days, of course, we're lucky if they tell us what kind of airplane we're flying on). An engine hooked up to an airplane in a 200 kt glide will obviously spin much faster, and will still supply services, some of which may be usable. In a normal airplane, each engine powers one electric generator. In addition, on most airplanes, an auxilliary power unit, a gas-powered generator, is provided for ground operations, engine startup, and emergencies. This is usually mounted in the tail empennage. On some airplanes, such as the 727-200, the APU isn't certified for in-flight use; on others, like most 747-200's, the APU is either not certified for in-flight use, or has strict envelope restrictions on its use. The APU does two things: it produces electricity, and pressurizes the pneumatic system (useful in ground starts/air conditioning/etc). Most airplanes have one electrical generator per engine, an APU, and emergency (15-30 minutes) battery power. On the "control" issue, note that on most aircraft, hydraulic power is obtained via a combination of two or three methods: 1. Engine-driven pumps. 2. Electrically driven. 3. Air-driven. Engine bleed air is used to drive a pump. Most airplanes tend to match one hydraulic system per engine: thus, a 747 has four, a DC-10 three, etc. There are exceptions (a 727 only has two (and one standby), while a Tristar has four--but the 727 has a manual backup flight control system, like the 707, while the Tristar is all- hydraulic, like the DC-10 and 747). For each hydraulic system, one can generally count on two power sources. Thus, on the 747-200, there are four engine-driven hydraulic pumps and four air pumps, or eight sources in all. Even if all four engines fail due to something weird, like fuel starvation, there will likely be enough hydraulic pressure, via both the engine-driven and air-driven pumps, to continue to fly the airplane, due to windmilling effects. When we start taking away engines, though, the RAT becomes an attractive alternate power source. If one loses all four engines on, say, a 747, one is still developing a lot of independent power. If one loses one or both engines on a twin, one has suddenly put a very large control burden on the hydraulic system, one which a windmilling or air-driven pump may not be able to meet. One may not have the time to turn on the APU and get it on-line. In this context, a RAT provides a margin of safety: it's designed *explicitly* for a specified purpose (hydraulic and/or electrical power generation), and may permit one to do things that available pressure wouldn't make possible, such as lowering the flaps or landing gear. In general, the fewer the engines, and the longer the range, the more likely it is that you'll find a RAT. The RAT *supplements* existing systems; it doesn't really *replace* any "standard" level of redundancy. An airplane without a RAT isn't necessarily less safe than one with them: the 747, for instance, but also the 737/DC-9-class airplanes, which have a lower hydraulic demand requirement. Most Boeing airplanes do not have a RAT; the two exceptions are the 757/767. On these airplanes, the RAT is used as a source of standby hydraulic power. As airplanes become more complex, the need for a last- ditch *electrical* source is also manifesting itself. On the A320, the RAT powers the "blue" hydraulic system (one of three); Blue services a core set of control surfaces. Blue can also run a separate "hydraulic generator," for 5KVA of electrical output (as opposed to 90 KVA for each of the engine- based generators). It thus serves a dual purpose. The 777 will also have a RAT, which will follow similar considerations. On both the 757/767 and the A320, the RAT either pops out automatically in an emergency or may be commanded by the pilot. In both cases, it must be stowed on the ground. Off the top of my head, these airplanes have or will have RATs: 757 767 777 A300 A310 A320 A330 These don't: 707 727 737 747 A340 DC-9/MD-80 (?) DC-10 L-1011 So there's no hard and fast "manufacturer culture" rule we could use to figure out that an airplane will have a RAT; it's more driven by mission requirements. And, again, they're such a *marginal* power source that it's best not to screw up bad enough that it's necessary to fall back on one. I would tend to view them as "safety margins," not something I'd ever want to have an airplane I'm flying in depending on to get me home. [ I subsequently learned that the A340 has a RAT... --rdd ] ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 92 21:11:58 GMT From: furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw) Subject: 767 flight control (Re: Ram jet engine...) In article , furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw) wrote: > > The device I think you are referring to is called a RAT (Ram Air Turbine > ?). It consists of a propeller driving a hydraulic pump that falls by > pilot command from just behind the right main landing gear of the 757 & > 767. It supplies partial hydraulic power when all engines fail. > Retraction of this device is done by ground crew only. UPDATE Here are some notes about the hydraulic system(s) from 767 training done in Seattle in '86. 1. Type of System Each of the three hydraulic systems of the 767 operates with a maximum pressure of 3000 psi. 2. Location The three hydraulic systems are identified by location. They are Left, Right and Center System. The Left system is located in the left engine strut and contains a total of approximately 17 gallons of hydraulic fluid. The Right system is located in the Right engine strut and contains a total of 20 gallons of hydraulic fluid. The Center system is located in or near the right main wheel well. It contains approximately 40 gallons of fluid for a total 767 capacity of approximately 77 gallons. 3. Multiple Systems The three separate systems - Left, Right and Center - have no interconnection. 4. Multiple Pressure Sources Two engine driven (EDP) hydraulic pumps are used, one on each engine. These are primary pumps in the Left and Right systems Four electrically driven pumps ( ACMP) are used. Two serve as primary pumps in the Center system, while one each serve as demand pumps in the Left and Right systems. An air driven pump (ADP) is the demand pump in the center system. Air power comes from the airplane pneumatic system, which in turn may be supplied by engine bleed, APU or a ground source such as an air cart. A RAM Air turbine (RAT) in the center system serves as an emergency source of hydraulic pressure and is powered by the slipstream. The Right and Left primary system pumps are rated at 37 GPH at takeoff power. The Center primary system AC motor pumps are rated at 7 GPH. The secondary demand pumps are turned on automatically when the primary pumps can not maintain sufficient pressure. The Center system RAT is rated at 11.3 GPH. There is also a generator that is driven by a hydraulic motor, operation is automatic on loss of power from both electrical generators. Devices driven by each system: All: Roll, Pitch, Yaw Lateral Central Control Actuators (LCCA) L & R Elevators Rudder Left and Center only: Elev Feel Stab trim Yaw damper R&L only: Thrust Reversers R only: Normal Brakes L only: Ratio changer * * editors note: this is a mechanical arrangement that changes the ratio of command input versus rudder travel so that at high speed the rudder does no travel as far. This keeps the rudder from ripping of the airplane. Nice feature :-). Center only: Alternate Brakes Reserve brakes Inbd / outdb slats Inbd / outdb flaps Normal and reserve steering ldg gear doors hyd motor generator. The RAT controls: Roll, Pitch and Yaw, LCCA, L&R Elev, Rudder, Elev Feel, Stab trim, and Yaw damper. ONLY * editors note: my experience in the simulator is that you don't get all these at one time. Sometimes the pump can't keep up. You get most operations, then you have to wait a second. Tricky but one can get the hang of it. [...] From kls Wed Feb 17 14:09:36 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Duty time revisited Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Feb 93 14:09:36 PST In a recent post, I commented that 9.5 hours wasn't necessarily "long" when it came to determining whether to use a relief pilot for ETOPS. I was wrong: my basis for recollection was out of date, I was thinking of three-crew operations, and my handy online copy of Part 121 had been corrupted by subsection 400, and I wasn't interested enough to look up the specifics on paper. Dick Zeitlin noted on rec.aviation that the rules were more restrictive than I indicated, so I verified 'em: he's right. I stand by my other assertion, though, that the regs are rather regressive, permitting "grand slam" scheduling practices. So, in penance, following's the actual relevant text, from a copy of the regs only five years old. :-) Note the use of "flag carrier." This is defined as an airline flying an international route, in accordance with a bilateral agreement negotiated at the ministerial level. If there's enough interest, I'll type in the passages dealing with domestic operations. FAR 121.480: Applicability This subpart prescribes flight time limitations for flag air carriers. FAR 121.481. Flight time limitations: one or two pilot crews. (a) A flag air carrier may schedule a pilot to fly in an airplane that has a crew of one or two pilots for eight hours or less during any 24 consecurtive hours without a rest period during these eight hours. (b) If a flag air carrier schedules a pilot to fly more than eight hours during any 24 consecutive hours, it shall give him an intervening rest period, at or before the end of eight scheduled hours of flight duty. This rest period must be at least twice the number of hours flown since the preceding rest period, but not less than eight hours. The air carrier shall relieve that pilot of all duty with it during that rest period. (c) Each pilot who has flown more than eight hours during 24 consecutive hours must be given at least 18 hours of rest before being assigned to any duty with the air carrier. (d) No pilot may fly more than 32 hours during any seven consecutive days, and each pilot must be relieved from all duty for at least 24 consecutive hours at least once during any seven consecutive days. (e) No pilot may fly as a member of a crew more than 100 hours during any one calendar month. (f) No pilot may fly as a member of a crew more than 1000 hours during any 12-calendar-month period. FAR 121.483. Flight time limitations: two pilots and one additional flight crewmember. (a) No flag air carrier may schedule a pilot to fly, in an airplane that has a crew of two pilots and at least one additional flight crewmember, for a total of more than 12 hours during any 24 consecutive hours. (b) If a pilot has flown 20 or more hours during any 48 consecutive hours or 24 or more hours during any 72 consecutive hours, he must be given at least 18 hours of rest before being assigned to any duty with the air carrier. In any case, he must be given at least 24 consecutive hours of rest during any seven consecutive days. (c) No pilot may fly as a flight crewmember more than-- (1) 120 hours during any 30 consecutive days; (2) 300 hours during any 90 consecutive days; or (3) 1000 hours during any 12-calendar-month period. FAR 121.509. Flight time limitations: three or more pilots and an additional flight crewmember. (a) Each flag air carrier shall schedule its flight hours to provide adequate rest periods on the ground for each pilot who is away from his base and who is a pilot on an airplane that has a crew of three or more pilots and an additional flight crewmember. It shall also provide adequate sleeping quarters on the airplane whenever a pilot is scheduled to fly more than 12 hours during any 24 consecutive hours. (b) The flag air carrier shall give each pilot, upon return to his base from any flight or series of flights, a rest period that is at least twice the total number of hours he flew since the last period at his base. During the rest period required by this paragraph, the air carrier may not require him to perform any duty for it. If the required rest period is more than seven days, that part of the rest period in excess of seven days may be given at any time before the pilot is again scheduled for flight duty on any route. (c) No pilot may fly as a flight cremwembver more than (1) 350 hours during any consecutive days; or (2) 1000 hours during any 12-calendar-month period. FAR 121.487 [...] FAR 121.489. Flight time limitations: other commercial flying. No pilot that is employed as a pilot by a flag carrier may do any other commercial flying if that commercial flying plus his flying in air transportation will exceed any flight time limitation in this part. FAR 121.491. Flight time limitations: deadhead transportation. Time spent in deadhead transportation to or from duty assignment is not considered to be part of a rest period [not duty time, either...--rdd] FAR 121.493. Flight time limitations: flight engineers and flight navigators. (a) In any operation in which one flight engineer or flight navigator is required, the flight time limitations in 121.483 apply to that flight engineer or flight navigator. (b) In any operatin in which more than one flight engineer or flight navigator is required, the flight time limitations in 121.485 apply to those flight engineers or flight navigators. From kls Wed Feb 17 14:09:37 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tdlowe01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (Tony D. Lowe) Subject: Re: Please answer - 757/767 Hydraulic Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Louisville Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Feb 93 14:09:37 PST In article , bwood@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (William Wood) writes: > He stated that its proported purpose is to assume the intake > of forced wind through it's intake channels, which then > force the turning of its 'turbo-prop' which acts-out as > a wind-propelled electric generator (to allow steerage > of the plane having restored the power to the hydraulic > systems of the plane). It's called a Ram Air Turbine or RAT (also sometimes called a ramjet). It's purpose is to provide hydraulic power in the event of total engine failure. I do not believe that it is deployed if one engine is still running, but I wouldn't swear to it. It is located underneath the plane, just aft of the right rear landing gear and is covered by a 2 by 4 foot door (approx) that is released by explosive bolts. The RAT itself is on a swing arm that is mounted aft and falls from fore to aft such that the forward motion of the plane aids in deployment and locks it into place. This is the same force that drives the small prop (I definitely wouldn't call it a "turbo prop"). I've never actually seen the RAT deployed. I have only seen technical drawings during fueler safety meetings on "Why you shouldn't be under the RAT". Because it would hurt if the thing deployed while you were under it! > Also, if it is a truth, would this also be the case in the design > of the 767 as well?? The 767 has something like an 85% parts compatibility with the 757, so I would guess it would have a similar RAT. -- Tony D. Lowe, The HapMaster BITNET: tdlowe01@ulkyvx.bitnet University of Louisville INTERNET: tdlowe01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu "People without a sense of humor don't have any sense at all." From kls Wed Feb 17 14:09:39 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hoyme@src.honeywell.com (Ken Hoyme) Subject: Re: Am Trans Air DC-10 'crash' References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Mpls. MN, USA. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Feb 93 14:09:39 PST In article spagiola@leland.stanford.edu writes: > The ATA DC-10 didn't crash; it was burnt out on the ground during > maintenance (I forget the details). > I believe the USAF KC-10 listed had a similar experience. I am not sure of all the details, but last March Kevin Driscoll (co-worker and frequent commenter to this forum) and I went to "Luke Day" at Luke AFB near Phoenix. There was a KC-10 on static display. We were poking around underneath it and saw a small hatch (probably 1'x2') near the midpoint on the underside that was partially open. Being over 6' tall, Kevin reached up to open it further and we quickly had one of the AF guys by us asking what we were up to. As we conversed, he stated that they are sensitive to that area since it is the access port to the battery bank and they had lost a KC-10 to fire when fuel leaked onto the battery bank and exploded. (The main tank is right over this point.) He had a book of snapshots with him and showed us a picture of a burned-out hulk of a KC-10 on a ramp. I thought this occured overseas, but I might be wrong. This might be the same one as listed, and supports your recollection. Ken From kls Wed Feb 17 23:49:32 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: barney@skat.usc.edu (Barney Lum) Subject: UA232 Video Weds, 2/24/93 7pm JPL Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Feb 93 23:49:32 PST Organization: USC University Computing Services, Los Angeles The video tape of Capt. Al Haynes discussing United 232's engine failure and subsequent loss of hydraulics will be presented as an FAA Safety Seminar by the Caltech Flying Club. Wednesday, Feb 24 1993, 7pm-9pm Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, Von Karman Auditorium 210 Freeway, Exit at Berkshire/Oak Grove East on Berkshire to dead end, then left (north) onto Oak Grove up to JPL. Guard will direct you to parking and the bldg. Admission is free. In July, 1989, Capt. Haynes and his crew brought the crippled DC-10 to Sioux City, Iowa for a crash landing in which ~200 of the ~300 aboard survived. Thanks go to Capt. Haynes and NASA-Dryden for making the tape available. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >| >| barney@usc.edu Barney@USCVM --> --> --> | ======= --- --- --- --- --- --- --- >| Permanent Student Pilot, On the Numbers >| -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Feb 17 23:49:34 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: woodhams@phoenix.princeton.edu (Michael Woodhams) Subject: Re: Please answer - 757/767 Hydraulic Question (LONG!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Princeton University Observatory Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Feb 93 23:49:34 PST In article rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: [...] >The important thing to note about this arrangement is that all these >accessories require the engine blades to be spinning, NOT necessarily >for the engine to be ON. I.e., they aren't "steam-driven" from the [...] >When we start taking away engines, though, the RAT becomes an attractive >alternate power source. If one loses all four engines on, say, a 747, >one is still developing a lot of independent power. If one loses one or >both engines on a twin, one has suddenly put a very large control burden So if a 747 (or other airplane with no RAT) has a loss of all engines in such a way that they no longer spin, the airplane is without power, and it is time to start dictating your will into the cockpit voice recorder? The only single cause I can think of for this would be flying into a volcanic ash cloud. Does this clog the engines sufficiently to prevent generating power from windmilling? (I guess not, as a 747 has survived this scenario.) If a 757, say, lost both engines in ash, would the ash prevent the RAT from operating? Michael W. From kls Thu Feb 18 03:32:15 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ctillier@phoenix.princeton.edu (Clemens Emmanuel Tillier) Subject: Gear up on go-around? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Feb 93 03:32:15 PST Organization: Princeton University Is it necessary to raise the landing gear when aborting an approach and going around? Why or why not? Thanks, Clem From kls Thu Feb 18 03:32:22 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: naylor@research.canon.oz.au (William Naylor) Subject: spaceplane research: summary of responses Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Feb 93 03:32:22 PST Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia In a previous message, I asked: >I have heard it suggested that long distance air travel could eventually >be done by airliners which fly in low earth orbit. Flying in low earth >orbit could reduce travel time and reduce fuel consumption. > >I know almost nothing about this and I was hoping some of you could >enlighten me. Particularly, I would like to know: > > 1) What are the difficulties and advantages of flying in low earth orbit? > > 2) How much research has been done/is being done? > > 3) What is the status of the research? > >Please e-mail replies to me; I'll post a summary. This is my summary. From: ak336@cleveland.freenet.edu (John Dill) >I'm not very techincally involved with the "space plane" concept >but I can say that the hurdles are huge! To reach a near earth orbit >requires a speed of nearly 18,000 mph. The amount of fuel required with >todays technology is evidenced by the space shuttle (about 75% of it's >gross take off weight is fuel and suplemental engines..the solid fuel >boosters). >Rumors are flying about a secret spy plane operating in the Nevada desert >that can attain a speed of mach 8..about 5,0000 mph, and also can fly >around the world non-stop. Check the sci.avaition. sig above this one > for further details. From: weiss@SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) >In article you write: >> 1) What are the difficulties and advantages of flying in low earth orbit? > >There are several, mostly related to the fact that atmosphere is >extremely thinat those altitudes: > 1) Turbojets/turbofans are not very efficient at those altitudes > 2) It is extremely difficult to garner lift from such a thin atmosphere > 3) Turbojets/turbofans cannot reasonably be used at above M2 without > exorbitant fuel costs (high speeds are necessary for two reasons: one > is that the whole point is to get there faster, and two is that in > order to maintain lift, the plane has to travel at extremely high > speeds) > 4) Materials able to withstand the high forces at those altitudes and > speeds for the lifetime that makes it economically feasible have not > yet been developed. > 2) How much research has been done/is being done? > >Plenty. It is being funded by both the US and EC. > >> 3) What is the status of the research? > >Promising, but not soon to be complete. From: drickel@sjc.mentorg.com >> 1) What are the difficulties and advantages of flying in low earth orbit? >Umm. Some terminology, perhaps. If you're in low earth orbit, you aren't >flying (aerodynamic effects are insignificant). > >Let's see. Advantages. Any spot on earth is within 50 minutes of any other >spot. > >Disadvantages. Using current or projected near-term technology, craft must >be about 90% by weight fuel. Passengers are subjected to large g forces >on take off (probably at least 2.5 g's). Passengers are subject to long >periods of zero gravity. Passengers may be subject to fairly high negative >g forces (-1.5 g?) on reentry. > >This is assuming some sort of rocket; it is akin to the Single-Stage to Orbit >proposals now being investigated (DC-X is one currently being funded). > >It might be possible, using scramjets or some other technique, to lower the >fuel requirements somewhat. > >> 2) How much research has been done/is being done? > >Some. Some more (but not much more) is being done in the hypersonic flight >regime. This has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. It is >slower (craft travel from one third to half as fast), skin heating is more of >a problem (they stay within the atmosphere), there aren't any prolonged >periods of zero gravity. This is the so-called aerospace plane or orient >express. > >> 3) What is the status of the research? > >Ongoing, but not seriously. Several people would like it, but nobody knows >whether or not the market will be there. From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) from Boeing: >We've looked at the hypersonic transports, the Mach 25 stuff, and it >doesn't make sense. To make the accelerations bearable, one would have to >go all the way around the world at least once. At a minimum, fly the >reverse course. With current technology and economics, this is >unthinkable. :-) Sorry. -- Will Naylor net: naylor@research.canon.oz.au mail: Canon Information Systems Research Australia phone: (61-2) 805-2921 P.O. Box 313 North Ryde, NSW 2113 fax: (61-2) 805-2929 Australia From kls Thu Feb 18 03:32:23 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) Subject: Re: Airbus Hijacking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Feb 93 03:32:23 PST In article slenk@hal.EMBA.UVM.EDU (Carl A Slenk) writes: In light of the recent hijacking to NYC, I was wondering if this model airbus was qualified for EROPS and if not what the legality was for making this flight. At what point does the pilots decision to fly out weigh FAA or IACO rules? The flight was legal in any case. A hijacked flight is, by definition, in a state of emergency, meaning the PIC can do whatever he wants. -- Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: lhe@sics.se Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09 Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09 S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN Fax: +46 8 751 72 30 From kls Tue Feb 23 00:10:17 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Please answer - 757/767 Hydraulic Question (LONG!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 93 00:10:17 PST In article woodhams@phoenix.princeton.edu (Michael Woodhams) writes: > >So if a 747 (or other airplane with no RAT) has a loss of all engines >in such a way that they no longer spin, the airplane is without power, >and it is time to start dictating your will into the cockpit voice >recorder? It depends on the airplane. Older 747's have four engine-driven pumps, and four air-driven pumps. If you lose engine power, the power output from the engine-driven pumps is reduced, but you'd get some power from the air- driven pumps, provided that there's adequate airflow through the engine. You need an airspeed above 160 knots for control with *windmilling* engines for this to work. But if there's a lot of dust, it's entirely plausible that the entire system could get corrupted. The 747-400, in comparison, has four independent systems, as with the older airplanes, but the #3 and #4 systems have AC electric pumps: therefore, the airplane isn't critically dependent on proper engine airflow in order to keep the sunny side up. I wouldn't be surprised if the change was due to the volcanic dust near-disasters of the late 70's/early 80's, to maximise controllability if even one engine or the APU remains online. >The only single cause I can think of for this would be >flying into a volcanic ash cloud. Does this clog the engines >sufficiently to prevent generating power from windmilling? (I guess >not, as a 747 has survived this scenario.) There have been many more airliner-volcanic-ash incidents than have been reported into the media, including at least six 747's. By all rights, at least a few of them have been *real* lucky, with several flights exper- iencing complete loss of power. Fortunately, jet engines are fairly simple, and can continue operating, despite massive damage. Still, remarkable that many of these cases (such as the KLM 747-400) were able to relight, though. >If a 757, say, lost both >engines in ash, would the ash prevent the RAT from operating? It's my understanding that the ash acts as an abrasive in the normal engine mechanism, which suggests it interferes with normal moving parts and the clearances between the fan tips and the nacelle and enclosing structures. RAT's often don't have a duct, so there wouldn't be a clearance problem. But I really don't know. In the 757 case, on the other hand, there are no "air-driven pumps," as with the 747: just two engine-driven pumps, plus two electric pumps to go along with the engine-driven pumps, plus two more electric pumps for the center system. But here the problem is power: if you lose the engines, you've lost the generators--and how long would the APU last in such conditions? So the RAT could still be your last hope... But then again, we've got the 727, which has a "manual reversion" mode, by aerodynamic trim tabs. *Small* pulleys move the tabs on the surfaces, which then move via an aerodynamic effect. Sure, the controls get REAL heavy, but it'll get you back on the ground. :-) I'm fond of this approach. :-) --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Tue Feb 23 00:10:18 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jfc@macsch.com (Jack Castro) Subject: Re: A Question about Tours of the Boeing plant References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation (MSC), Los Angeles, CA, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 93 00:10:18 PST In article , brtrees@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes: |> I'm going to be in Seattle in March and will have a Saturday free. |> I was wondering, does the huge Boeing plant give tours to the general |> public? How far is it from Seattle--would I need to rent a car to get |> there? Any info. would be greatly appreciated. The "Boeing Tour" is a tour of the 747 production plant in Everett, about a 40 minutes north of Downtown Seattle. My understanding is that reservations are required and that the tour only takes place on weekdays. I am not entirely sure that this information is entirly correct, but I recall reading this in my Seattle guide book. I have not taken the tour myself, because I have not yet taken a vacation day to take the tour, even though I live nearby Everett. Friends who have taken the tour give it high marks. As an alternative, you might consider visiting the Boeing Museum of Flight at Boeing Field. This is located at Boeing Field, 20 minutes south of downtown. -- Jack Castro (j_castro@macsch.com) The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation - Bellevue, WA (All opinions expressed are my own and not my employers.) From kls Tue Feb 23 00:10:19 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: devine@olympus.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Bob Devine) Subject: 727 paint removal Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Berkeley Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 93 00:10:19 PST >From Business Week Jan 25, 1993: Removing the paint from Boeing 727 produces 70,000 gallons of polluted water, 175 pounds of hazardous waste, and 10,000 pounds of toxic air emissions. And aircraft typically need a paint job every four years of their 20-30 year lifetime. McDonnell Douglas Corp. is testing an automated process that uses bursts of heat from a high-intesity lamp to remove paint. Particles of dry ice blast off soot, then a vacuum sucks up the residue. With this Flashjet process, waste from a 727 totals five pounds, the work takes 14 hours instead of 48, and the jobs costs half as much. That is partly because $20,000 in hazardous-waste-disposal costs is avoid. The company intends to market the system by yearend and adapt it later for other tasks such as stripping bridges. Bob Devine From kls Tue Feb 23 00:10:20 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Report on visit to Airbus Industrie - Corrections to references References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 93 00:10:20 PST In the trip report which I mailed on 3rd Feb., there was an incomplete reference and an incorrect reference. Please note that the following are the complete and correct versions of references [2] and [6]:- [2] Potocki de Montalk J.P.: ``Computer Software in Civil Aircraft'', Airbus Industrie, Blagnac 31707, France (to appear in a special issue of ``Microprocessors and Microsystems'' on ``Safety-Critical Software'', edited by Prof W J Cullyer). [6] Butler R.W., Finelli B.G.: ``The Infeasibility of Experimental Quantification of Life-Critical Software Reliability'', ACM SIGSOFT '91 Conference on Software for Critical Systems, New Orleans, Dec. 4-6, 1991, (Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 66-76). My thanks to Jonathan Bowen and R.W. Butler for the information. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Sq., London EC1V 0HB, Tel: +44(0)71-477-8422, JANET: p.mellor@city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Tue Feb 23 12:04:33 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Non-review of "The Boeing 737" Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 93 12:04:33 PST Ran across this at the bookstore today: a tidy little text on the B-737, apparently one of a series. This isn't one of those photo-album books that Osprey's been putting out for a while: much more historical/analytical than that. Somewhat Euro-oriented. TITLE: Modern Civil Aircraft: 9, The Boeing 737 AUTHOR: Alan J. Wright. PUBLISHER: Ian Allan Ltd, Shepperton, Surrey, England. DATE: 1991. ISBN: 0-7110-1955-X Illustrated (B&W, color cover), 80 pp. PRICE: #7.95, $14.95 US (distributed by Howell Press in the US, 1-800-868-4512). CONTENTS: Preface 1. Background 2. Development 3. Into service 4. The Series 300 5. The Series 400 6. The Series 500 7. The Military 737 8. Variants 9. Mishaps Appendix 1. Customer Numbers Appendix 2. Operators. The Mishaps section is a discussion of the various crashes: not just tabular data. Appendix 2 is likewise a discussion of the various fleets and plans, and not just tabular data. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Tue Feb 23 12:04:34 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Another datum on engine thrust angles Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 93 12:04:34 PST _The Boeing 737_ has a diagram of the 737-300 engine placement: it makes a 5 degree pitch-up angle with respect to the airplane centerline... --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Tue Feb 23 12:04:36 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tony Heatwole Subject: Airliner Routes and 767s Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 93 12:04:36 PST Last week I flew from Delhi, India to Frankfurt, Germany on a Delta 767-332 (ER), N178DN. I picked up a few interesting tidbits from the first officer on airplane routings and 767s in particular: 1. Our route out of India was over Pakistan, Afghanistan, and into the former USSR. US Airlines, it seems, are not allowed to fly over Iran. Last December I flew Swiss Air from Zurich to Delhi and we flew over Iran (the Swiss get along with everyone), but curiously, our route seemed to avoid Afghanistan. 2. US airlines didn't used to be allowed to cross Afghanistan. At that time Delta's route from Frankfurt to Delhi had to cross Saudi Arabia and skirt Iran to the south, over the Indian Ocean. The flying time was 1.5 hours longer than it is now. 3. The air traffic control is coordinated "across" Afghanistan. Pakistan and the ex-USSR republics coordinate the crossing. As a courtesy to Afghanistan, planes crossing that country call ATC there to let them know that they're coming. Sometimes they get a response from Afghanistan, sometimes they don't (on this trip they did). 4. Since this was a 767, I asked the first officer about the plausibility of United pilots' rumored concern (discussed previously in this group) about crossing the Himalayas in a 767. He said (possibly diplomatically) that he wasn't aware of their concern. However, on our flight the minimum crossing altitude for northwest India and Pakistan was 16,000'. They have a specific "point- of-no-return." If an engine fails before that point, they do an immediate 180 deg. turn to avoid the mountains. Tony Heatwole Gaithersburg, MD heatwole@hns.com From kls Tue Feb 23 12:04:37 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lmiller@aero.org (Lawrence H. Miller) Subject: Re: A Question about Tours of the Boeing plant References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 93 12:04:37 PST In article jfc@macsch.com (Jack Castro) writes: >In article , brtrees@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes: >|> I'm going to be in Seattle in March and will have a Saturday free. >|> I was wondering, does the huge Boeing plant give tours to the general >|> public? > >The "Boeing Tour" is a tour of the 747 production plant in Everett, about >a 40 minutes north of Downtown Seattle. > >I have not taken the tour myself...Friends who have taken the >tour give it high marks. The tour starts in the visitor center with a film/video presentation and a pep talk from the tour guide. You then go by bus to the 747/767 final assembly plant, allegedly the largest building in the world in total interior volume. You enter the building through a 1-mile long tunnel, about half way to the elevator. You take the elevator to the visitors observation platform, pretty much in the center of everything, and above it all. And you just stand there and look. About a 1/2 hour later you go back. That's it. Somehow I expected more, and certainly a closer, more detailed, look at the assembly. I'd suggest bringing binoculars. I took a camera, but the pics don't do justice to the immense size of the facility. WARNING--You may have to get there very early, particularly during busy tourist times, and sign up for a tour later in the day. ALSO, there is a minimum age limit, and they are serious about this. Some families with small kids were turned away. Check on this before going. -- Larry Miller The Aerospace Corporation lmiller@aero.org PO Box 92957 310-336-5597 LA, CA 90009-2957 From kls Thu Feb 25 06:13:22 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pauln@ihlpl.att.com Subject: Airliner Projects Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Feb 93 06:13:22 PST Organization: AT&T Could someone "in the know" furnish some information about new airliner projects. This includes brand new planes like the 777 and upgrades/ enhancements to existing airliners, e.g. 747-500. A description of the changes and status of the work would be appreciated. Also, what is a good ongoing source of such information? I get Boeing annual reports yearly, but there is no mailing list that I know of that you can get on, so must call regularly to get anything. Aviation Week is expensive and provides too much information in other areas. "Airliners" seems to provide information mostly on the carriers themselves and "Airliners Monthly News" seems to focus on route and fleet changes. Are there others? Haven't seen "Air Transport World", but it sounds like a management magazine. Any info is appreciated. Paul Nelson Bell Labs Naperville, IL From kls Thu Feb 25 06:13:25 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: A Question about Tours of the Boeing plant References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Computer Services Research and Technology, Bellevue, WA USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Feb 93 06:13:25 PST >|> I'm going to be in Seattle in March and will have a Saturday free. >|> I was wondering, does the huge Boeing plant give tours to the general >|> public? The tour center will be closed in the afternoon on Monday March 1. There will be morning tours, but no afternoon tours on Monday March 1. Public Tours are at 9 am & 1 pm, Monday through Friday. Free of charge. First come, first serve. No reservations allowed for Public Tours. Groups larger than 10 are not allowed on the Public Tour. Group Tours are conducted separately from the Public Tours and reservations for Group Tours are required. For group tour reservations call 206-266-9974 between 8:30 and 10:30 am, Monday through Friday. Boeing Tour Center lobby and gift shop are open 8:30 - 4 pm Monday through Friday. For recorded information, call 206-342-4801 (in the White Pages as BOEING COMPANY THE--EVERETT PUBLIC TOURS). >The "Boeing Tour" is a tour of the 747 production plant in Everett, about >a 40 minutes north of Downtown Seattle. > >I have not taken the tour myself...Friends who have taken the >tour give it high marks. The tour starts in the visitor center with a film/video presentation and a pep talk from the tour guide. You then go by bus to the 747/767 final assembly plant, allegedly the largest building in the world in total interior volume. and soon to include 777 production. You enter the building through a 1-mile long tunnel, about half way to the elevator. You take the elevator to the visitors observation platform, pretty much in the center of everything, and above it all. 1/3 of a mile walk. 21 very steep stairs. And you just stand there and look. About a 1/2 hour later you go back. That's it. It is a kinda lame tour, but then I get to go down on the floor and poke my head in places and talk to folks. :-) Somehow I expected more, and certainly a closer, more detailed, look at the assembly. I'd suggest bringing binoculars. I took a camera, but the pics don't do justice to the immense size of the facility. No photographic equipment at all is allowed on Boeing property. That's a new rule (within the last year or so). It used to be that only video cameras weren't allowed. Now all types of photographic equipment are verbotten. It is amazing to realize that 8 747s take up less than a third of the whole building (footprint-wise). Each of the 4 doors (maybe more now that the 777 extension is close to be completed) is the size of a football field. That's big!! WARNING--You may have to get there very early, particularly during busy tourist times, and sign up for a tour later in the day. ALSO, there is a minimum age limit, and they are serious about this. Some families with small kids were turned away. Check on this before going. No children under 10, because of insurance reasons. Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud bcstec!bcsaic!stephen.nicoud Boeing Computer Services Research and Technology, Bellevue, Washington USA "I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks." From kls Fri Feb 26 04:43:23 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dmp1@ukc.ac.uk (D.M.Procida) Subject: Is there a FAQ list for this group & where can I get info? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Feb 93 04:43:23 PST Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK. I haven't seen a FAQ list, or any mention of one, since I started reading this newsgroup a few weeks ago. Is there one, and if not, is there a site (accessible by FTP) from which I might be able to retrieve information related to this group? I have no particular reason for wanting information other than the most compelling fascination I have ever had! Flight, but especially commercial airline flight, grabs my attention in a way that nothing else does. Why should I enjoy reading about cockpit design, or the considerations which made the designers of the DC-10 put the engines closer in-board than they might have done otherwise, for goodness' sake? But I can hardly think of anything more engrossing... I also have a terrific fear of flying (who knows why, it came upon me by surprise a few years ago, after I spent the first 18 years of my life taking an average of about ten flights a year with no worries at all) and I think perhaps if I can see more of these discussions etc it may be dispelled. I get such a strange thrill just from *seeing* jet-airliners, and I regularly dream about flying (and usually about being involved in some sort of accident). Well, I suppose most people here are reading this group out of some sort of professional interest, and I don't imagine that I have much to contribute to it, but if anyone could let me know where I might satisfy my fascination with these great big metal objects that seem to hang in the air over motorways, I'd be most grateful. Regards, D.M.Procida From kls Fri Feb 26 04:43:25 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Is there a FAQ list for this group & where can I get info? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Feb 93 04:43:25 PST >I haven't seen a FAQ list, or any mention of one, since I started >reading this newsgroup a few weeks ago. Is there one, and if not, is >there a site (accessible by FTP) from which I might be able to retrieve >information related to this group? An early draft of a FAQ was circulated a month or so ago, but nothing has been done on it for a while. Archives of the group, as well as a few other files of interest, are available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org; they're in /pub/airliners. >Well, I suppose most people here are reading this group out of some >sort of professional interest I really do need to work up a bio at some point. The short story is that Unix and networking pay the bills for me, while airliners are just a off-hours interest. With the increasing computerization of modern airliners there's an increasing professional interest, but it is still pretty far afield from my real work. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Feb 26 04:43:28 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fultz@scs.carleton.ca (Brian Fultz) Subject: Re: Gear up on go-around? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Feb 93 04:43:28 PST In article ctillier@phoenix.princeton.edu (Clemens Emmanuel Tillier) writes: >Is it necessary to raise the landing gear when aborting an approach and going >around? Why or why not? > >Thanks, >Clem > FAR 25 number 77 or there abouts says that all A/C must be able to do a bauked approach with the gear out and the flaps in landing config. You may retract the flaps to another setting if you can do it in less than 2 seconds with no trim change. Thats how the thing was tested years ago: with a test pilot at sea level with a new paint job, waxed to a high gloss, no bugs, no rain with new engines the pilot was just off 2 weeks practice on holding the "right" airspeed he was expecting it to happen. and lots of other problems make the real world case less wonderful, in short if the fuze blows when you select gear and flaps up you are better off to chop the throttle and land straight ahead. From kls Fri Feb 26 04:43:31 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Gear up on go-around? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: rec.aviation.piloting Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Feb 93 04:43:31 PST In article you write: >Is it necessary to raise the landing gear when aborting an approach and going >around? Yes. >Why or why not? To use the immortal words of a recent poster, gear lends a "crapload of drag." :-) Lift is a function of excess power: this in turn is a function of power available and power required. Power required, in turn, is the amount needed to overcome drag in a specified flight condition. Thus, any in excess results in *lift*. So, if you reduce drag, you lessen power required, and increase lift. It's that simple: your objective in this game is to get away from the ground as fast as you can, as soon as you decide you won't be landing on it. So you retract your gear. See Don Webster's recent post for a detailed overview of a 747 go-around procedure. A pilot also considers, in the back of his mind, what might happen should he lose an engine, in which case he can very easily lose a lot of that excess power. You don't want to be wallowing around like a hog in mud when this happens. And, as the old saying goes, altitude == speed (potential energy), and speed == life. Being low, slow, and dirty is a good way to kill your airplane, and maybe your passengers, as the captain of an A320 discovered in France in 1988. So any competent pilot keeps his margins, and, indeed, all of airline operations and training is based on the assumption that sh*t happens, and *will* happen. The best "lay" explanation of these concepts I've seen is in _The Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics_. It's pretty pointless to discuss this further without some sort of graphing capability. :-) Posters are requested to follow up to rec.aviation.piloting. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Fri Feb 26 04:43:34 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw) Subject: Re: Gear up on go-around? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Motorola Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Feb 93 04:43:34 PST In article , ctillier@phoenix.princeton.edu (Clemens Emmanuel Tillier) wrote: > > Is it necessary to raise the landing gear when aborting an approach and going > around? Why or why not? > Interesting question. I once thought that since the gear was already down, might as well leave it there and come around for another attempt. That would be one more thing out of the way on the chedck list. That is until I had a student that, when on the way down wind, he put the gear UP. I waited until he'd pick up somes signs that the gear was in the wrong position, which never happened. I had to point it out on final. I tested this a bit further when transitioning between local airports...almost overlapping traffic patterns (FXE and POM), with another student. I said to him "Since this is a very short flight, just leave the gear down". Sure enough, as part of his check list, he RAISED the gear. That was enough for me. So, from then on, I encourage raising the gear as in a normal take off even for a go around. The idea is to do the normal thing since man is a creature of habit. It also points out the necessity to rigorously: A. 1. say "gear down" 2. Do it 3. Wait for the green light(s) 4. say "gear down and indicated locked" and point to the light(s). 5. Be aware of the "sounds" of the gear being down. 6. Be aware of the power and A/S required for a normal approach. if the gear is not down you might have trouble showing the bird down. 7. Don't depend on the gear down horn or automatic extension systems to work if so equipted. B. Check list for aircraft should be done in at least 3 places during approach. Just before descent (full POH list), downwind (GUMP check), and a quick "(3) green" check over the fence. C. If you fly fixed and retracts...do the checks always as if you have retracts. "Gear down and welded :-)". Bob Furtaw - W8IL CFI-A/G/I/MEI, CGI-A/I All disclaimers ever written by anybody apply. :-) From kls Fri Feb 26 04:43:35 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) Subject: Re: Gear up on go-around? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Feb 93 04:43:35 PST In article ctillier@phoenix.princeton.edu (Clemens Emmanuel Tillier) writes: >Is it necessary to raise the landing gear when aborting an approach and going >around? Why or why not? Standard procedures call for gear up very early in the routine, often immediately after power is added. Whether it's absolutely necessary or not depends on the situation, but the procedures assume maximum climb performance is immediately required. They generally set things for maximum power, maximum lift, and minimum parasite drag. The gear is a big drag item. There are some aircraft that put the gear-up operation a bit later in the sequence. The reason is that with some systems the gear in-transit actually generates more drag than the gear down does. It is true that flaps & leading edge slats also generate some drag. But this drag is tolerated since at go-around settings they produce a great deal more additional lift than they do added drag. The net result is a steeper climb angle. From kls Fri Feb 26 04:43:38 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David R. Smith Subject: Re: DC-10 crash statistic References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Palo Alto,CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Feb 93 04:43:38 PST In article you write: >The Western crash was, I believe, the result of landing on the wrong >runway, perhaps even at the wrong airport. (If folks send in a fairly >succinct synopsis of this and the other incidents I'll collect them >and post a summary article.) I don't have documentation, but I remember this: Mexico City airport had two parallel runways, with an ILS approach to one. The one with the ILS was closed for maintenance on that foggy day, and the tower was instructing pilots to follow the ILS down to runway-in-sight, then step over to the open runway. The pilot failed to step over, landed on the closed runway, and collided with ground vehicles. This accident was not the fault of the DC-10. -- David R. Smith, HP Labs | "I like to get my hands dirty, dsmith@hpl.hp.com | because it stimulates my mind." (415) 857-7898 | -- Irwin Sobel From kls Fri Feb 26 04:43:39 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC-10 crash statistic References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Feb 93 04:43:39 PST In article anderson@williams.edu () writes: >I'm familiar with an ATA incident at O'Hare, but I thought it was an L1011 >At that point I thought ATA was only flying L1011's and 727's (they have >'57's running now too...) I just stumbled upon a reference to this while looking up something completely different. The aircraft was indeed a '10, the second DC-10-40 built to be precise. It served Northwest for over ten years as N142US and was sold to American Trans Air 6 Jul 1984; it burned at O'Hare on 8 Oct 1986. Still haven't seen any mention of the cause of the fire. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Mon Mar 1 11:29:29 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson) Subject: Re: A Question about Tours of the Boeing plant References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Mar 93 11:29:29 PST In article lmiller@aero.org (Lawrence H. Miller) writes: >In article jfc@macsch.com (Jack Castro) writes: >>In article , brtrees@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes: >>|> I'm going to be in Seattle in March and will have a Saturday free. >>|> I was wondering, does the huge Boeing plant give tours to the general >>|> public? >> >>The "Boeing Tour" is a tour of the 747 production plant in Everett, about >>a 40 minutes north of Downtown Seattle. >> >>I have not taken the tour myself...Friends who have taken the >>tour give it high marks. > > The tour starts in the visitor center with a film/video > presentation and a pep talk from the tour guide. You then > go by bus to the 747/767 final assembly plant, allegedly > the largest building in the world in total interior volume. I lived within a mile and a half of the plant (Mukilteo) 9 years, and work about the same distance. I have been on the tour just about every year since 1983, and it changes from time to time. They used to take you by the big paint booths across Highway 526, and the last time I went, the time spent on the balcony overlooking the production floor was accompanied by a running commentary by the tour guide, spoken over a PA system. This added a lot. THe idea of binoculars is a good one; I wish I had thought of that! In general I give it high marks, too, and it is a standard part of my things to do list for visitors from out of town, although it would not be by first choice if I had only one day.... I'd recommend that you spend part of your Saturday at Boeing's "Museum of Flight" at Boeing Field just south of downtown Seattle. Decide after that if you want to take the time to go to Everett (about 1 hour each way). At the Museum of Flight, you will get a chance to see the original (restored) Red Barn where Bill Boeing first set up shop on the banks of the Duwamish River and built his first plane, a float-plane! They have a replica of the Wright Brother's wind tunnel (!) as well as some of the original machine tools, lathes, jointers, and so on. Inside an attached airy, glass-roofed, modern structure hang airplanes of every vintage, with many many others parked below. They have an SR71 parked in there, along with a Mustang that was under water in Lake Washington for something like 13 years. There are jet fighters, old mail planes, just wonderful stuff. I heartily recommend a visit to this place! You can see it pretty much in a morning, and you really should take one of their walking tours. Take the "long" tour - it is about 45 minutes, as against a 20-minute teaser. The tour is filled with interesting information about how the museum came to be, stories about how the airplanes came in, (the SR-71 was trucked in on 5 separate semis), and all kinds of historical stuff. They tell about a B-17 crew reunion that was held at the museum a few years back, and have a collection of pictures of B-17 nose art. I think the entracne fee is about $6.00 and worth every penny. Do that. Bring your camera. There's also a terrific gift shop. -- Gary Benson -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-inc@sisu.fluke.com_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Two things are wanted by a true man, danger and play. Therefore, he seeks woman as the most dangerous toy. -Friedrich Nietzsche From kls Mon Mar 1 11:29:32 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stephen@boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) Subject: Re: Airliner Projects References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Computer Services Research and Technology, Bellevue, WA USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Mar 93 11:29:32 PST Also, what is a good ongoing source of such information? Are there others? Haven't seen "Air Transport World", but it sounds like a management magazine. Any info is appreciated. This is not a recommendation, but try looking at Commercial Aviation News. For subscription information call 1-800-368-5718. Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud bcstec!bcsaic!stephen.nicoud Boeing Computer Services Research and Technology, Bellevue, Washington USA "I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks." Neither The Boeing Company nor any of its employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever, implied or express, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. No specific reference constitutes or implies endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by The Boeing Company. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the The Boeing Company, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. From kls Mon Mar 1 11:29:34 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: das@emmapeel.ca.boeing.com (Deb Schwartz) Subject: Re: A Question about Tours of the Boeing plant References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Yet Another Graphics Project, Bellevue, WA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Mar 93 11:29:34 PST And, of course, while you're in Seattle, don't forget to stop by Boeing Surplus in Kent (just south of Seattle). Be the first on your block to own a 747 engine cowling (at least I think that's what they're called - the large round thing they put the engine in - I'm a humble business systems programmer, not an engineer). They actually did have one for sale there once - I asked a store employee what someone would do with one and he said children's play house. Anyway, it is a fun place to visit, never know what's going to be there from one week to the next. It's open Tuesday through Saturday. ------ Debbie Schwartz // das@voodoo.ca.boeing.com // ....uw-beaver!bcsaic!voodoo!das "When life weighs heavily upon him, he benchpresses it." - quote from an old Rolling Stone article about Arnold Schwarzenegger From kls Mon Mar 1 11:29:36 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Airliner Projects References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Mar 93 11:29:36 PST In article pauln@ihlpl.att.com writes: >Could someone "in the know" furnish some information about new airliner >projects. This includes brand new planes like the 777 and upgrades/ >enhancements to existing airliners, e.g. 747-500. A description of >the changes and status of the work would be appreciated. A quick review sans notes: 767-300 ERX Longer range variant. Under study. 767 Freighter Just sold to UPS, in serious work. 747-X Competes with New Large Airplane. Low level activity. NLA 800 seats, under study with all the Airbus members. Your basic 5 aisle, twenty abreast airplane. 737-X Under serious study, waiting for a launch customer & funding. 757 Stuff In work, but nothing public. MD-12 600 seats (?) Needs major equity partner to launch, low-level study from what we hear. MD-95 Haven't heard much on this one lately. A322 A 757 competitor. Low-level study. Fokker 70 Serious work, needs a launch customer. Fokker 130 Low-level activity, will launch after the F 70 RL 92/122 DASA's lever to enter regional jetliner market. They decided to buy Fokker instead. Deal closed a week or two ago. Dead issue now. British Aerospace NRA Upgrade of BAe 146. Shelved study. Tu-204 with various engines. Just got Russian cert. Will be working on Western certs the next two years. Good airplane. Il-96 Russian twin-aisle going the same route as the Tu-204. A321. First flight shortly. 183 seats, medium range, single-aisle. UHCA Airbus 800 seater. Low level study effort. >Also, what is a good ongoing source of such information? I get Boeing annual >reports yearly, but there is no mailing list that I know of that you can >get on, so must call regularly to get anything. There isn't one. :-) Not in the public domain at any rate. >Aviation Week is expensive and provides too much information in other >areas. You might try Flight International. They also do a lot of military and space, but do seem more commercially oriented than AvWeek. Also that unique European perspective is helpful to my work. Aircraft Economics is another one that I read. It deals almost exclusively with current production aircraft, but stuff like the A321 (March April '93) is in there. >"Airliners" seems to provide information mostly on the carriers themselves >and "Airliners Monthly News" seems to focus on route and fleet changes. > >Are there others? Haven't seen "Air Transport World", but it sounds >like a management magazine. Any info is appreciated. Your assessments are correct. The commercial airframe business is so limited that a magazine devoted strictly to new developments would not have many pages in it. :-) -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Tue Mar 2 13:23:28 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Correction to "Further correction to AI trip report" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Mar 93 13:23:28 PST Sorry! My last message should have read: ------------------------------ One of my colleagues has pointed out a missing reference. The line: described in a thick book [6] which comprises all the relevant JAR ..... should be changed to read: described in a thick book [8] which comprises all the relevant JAR ..... with a new ref.:- [8] ``A320 Joint Certification Basis'', Issue 5, Airbus Industrie, July 1988 Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Sq., London EC1V 0HB, Tel: +44(0)71-477-8422, JANET: p.mellor@city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Tue Mar 2 13:23:30 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pcp$1280@altair.selu.edu Subject: Tours of Douglas in Long Beach Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Mar 93 13:23:30 PST I have been hearing about tours of the Boeing facilities in Washington lately and was wondering about tours of the McDonnel Douglas facility in Long Beach, California. I will be traveling there in about a week and was wondering if tours were offered. If so, how much and what times are they offered? Also, directions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance Gerald F. Bauerle, Jr. PCP$1280@altair.selu.edu From kls Tue Mar 2 22:36:27 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dme5907@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (David M. Eklund) Subject: Re: A Question about Tours of the Boeing plant References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Mar 93 22:36:27 PST In article inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson) writes: > >I'd recommend that you spend part of your Saturday at Boeing's "Museum ^^^^^^^^ >of Flight" at Boeing Field just south of downtown Seattle. Decide after that >if you want to take the time to go to Everett (about 1 hour each way). Not to be picky, but the Museum of Flight is a non-profit organization not affiliated with Boeing. Some friends who work at the museum get mildly annoyed when it is refered to as Boeing's. -- David Eklund | In no way, shape, form, size, structure, System(no s) Engineer | magnitude, configuration, or conformation Boeing Commercial Airplane Group | is my opinion that of Boeing's From kls Tue Mar 2 22:36:28 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: new jetliner developments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Mar 93 22:36:28 PST My own assessments of aircraft presently under development: A321: Will be a mild success but will have trouble attracting non-A320 customers because of the performance and versatility of the 757 A330: Likely to be a big success as long as it targets airlines who don't need the size and range of the 777; could be the next 767 of the Atlantic A340: Will probably flop because airlines will soon be able to by two engined aircraft to do the same job; With today's reliablity, two are safer than four!; The aircraft is also underpowered and the cost and weight of equipping it with RB211-535's or PW2000's will be unacceptable; The -200 may find a niche in very long range specialty markets like all first class London-Perth service or something similar; Boeing 777: It's in a very hard fought three-way battle, but the aircraft is likely to attract the stronger, more stable carriers (as it already has) and in the long run, it will be the market leader; Perhaps it is a little too big, though, for the market it seeks; MD-90: Will be stillborn unless Douglas is much more aggressive about finding new customers; Nevertheless, the aircraft has distinct advantages over its competitors (noise, pax comfort, ...); Fokker 70: This aircraft needs customers!; It's hard to believe that this aircraft with its Fokker 100 wing and other systems from the larger aircraft will be able to compete with, say, a Canadair RJ Stretch; But, the simplicity of the change from the 100 will mean that it only needs a few sales to make money for Fokker; This will be an interesting aircraft to follow; Russian re-engined aircraft (IL-96,Tu-204): The designs are presumably of quality similar to Boeing/Airbus, and with Western avionics, interiors, engines, etc., AND with competent marketing, these aircraft should be very appealing, especially to third-world and start-up carriers; It will be interesting to see if the current big 3 manufacturers try to keep these aircraft out; These are a summary of my opinions...I'd like to see comments and reactions on the newsgroup. Toby (The Commercial Aviation Nut) From kls Tue Mar 2 22:36:29 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Tours of Douglas in Long Beach References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Mar 93 22:36:29 PST > I have been hearing about tours of the Boeing facilities > in Washington lately and was wondering about tours of the > McDonnel Douglas facility in Long Beach, California. > McDonnell Douglas does not offer tours of its Long Beach facility. You can't see much from the fence around the plant, either: just MD-11 tails poking from the top of the blast fence. Ciao, Stefano --- Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Wed Mar 3 01:16:20 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airliner Projects References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 93 01:16:20 PST In article drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: > 737-X Under serious study, waiting for a launch customer & funding. According to various things I've seen, three approaches are under consideration: somewhat gradual phasing in of new features, sort of a 737-300 Advanced; a new series, e.g. 737-600; or a totally new aircraft, e.g. 787. Are all of these options still plausible? > 757 Stuff In work, but nothing public. 8-) Do keep us posted! The 757 is somewhat distinguished in having remained in a single version. > MD-95 Haven't heard much on this one lately. The Feb. 22 AW&ST has photos of the rollout of the first MD-90. > Tu-204 with various engines. Just got Russian cert. Will be working on >Western certs the next two years. Good airplane. How would you say it compares to the 757? On paper, the numbers say it is remarkably similar, even down to essentially the same RB.211 or PW2000 engines as used by the 757. > A321. First flight shortly. 183 seats, medium range, single-aisle. In many ways this seems like a 757 competitor, never mind the A322. Seating is comparable, and while the ~45,000 lb. lower MGTOW gives it a shorter range it's still (at least on paper) quite capable of going most of the way across North America, which means it's quite capable of handling what appears to be the majority of the 757's markets. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Mar 3 01:16:25 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: new jetliner developments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 93 01:16:25 PST In article Tobias Henry Lutterodt writes: >My own assessments of aircraft presently under development: >A321: Will be a mild success but will have trouble attracting non-A320 >customers because of the performance and versatility of the 757 Of course it's somewhat cheaper than the 757, and the 757 seems to be used in many cases where its inter-continental range isn't not needed. Still, I suspect your assesment is accurate, and with some of the really large buyers (American, British Airways, Delta, United) all flying the 757 already the A321 (and A322 if it's built) seems to have something of an uphill climb to true success. >A330: Likely to be a big success as long as it targets airlines who don't >need the size and range of the 777; could be the next 767 of the Atlantic The A330 is about midway between the 767-300 and the A market 777. If airlines already operating 767s think the 777 is too large then they may go smaller than the A330, down to the 767-300. Then again the A330 may be a nice compromise between the two. It's hard to say at this point but the A330 has some stiff competition. (From the MD-11, too.) >A340: Will probably flop because airlines will soon be able to by two >engined aircraft to do the same job; With today's reliablity, two are safer >than four!; The aircraft is also underpowered and the cost and weight of >equipping it with RB211-535's or PW2000's will be unacceptable ... While 180-minute ETOPS will allow the A330 (and 777) to do nearly the same job as the A340, the A340 may still prove more economical. The number of engines isn't the only consideration -- witness the BAe-146 which seems awfully silly with four engines on such a little plane, but has done fairly well. Two engines safer than four?! Perhaps slightly, but only because of the added equipment and testing in a twin certified for ETOPS, and that's expensive. I think it's pretty far-fetched to consider safety as a liability for the A340 versus the A330 and its competitors. Looking at power/weight ratios, the A340 does appear to be a bit on the anemic side, though it's still a bit ahead of the DC-8 Series 50 and Series 60 which in some regards it replaces, and not too far behind the 747-100. I'm not sure how much of a liability this is for the A340. Overall, your outlook for the A330 is sufficiently rosier than for the A340, yet sales so far paint quite the opposite picture. Either way, even modest sales of both types individually could make them a financial success due to their high degree of commonality. >Boeing 777: It's in a very hard fought three-way battle ... You don't mention the third entry in this battle, the MD-11, which seems to be foundering rather badly. >MD-90: Will be stillborn unless Douglas is much more aggressive about >finding new customers; Nevertheless, the aircraft has distinct >advantages over its competitors (noise, pax comfort, ...); Too late to be stillborn -- the first one was rolled out last month. But MacDAC does have a serious problem with sales. Advantages? As far as I can tell the MD-90 is nothing more than yet- another-stretch of the DC-9 (except for the MD-90-10 which fits in between the MD-87 and larger MD-80 models) with the same wing. Only new engines and, I assume, updated avionics seem to distinguish it beyond that. And comfort has never been a word I would associate with any member of the DC-9 clan. Am I missing something on this one? -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Mar 3 01:16:28 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airliner Routes and 767s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 93 01:16:28 PST In article Tony Heatwole writes: >Last week I flew from Delhi, India to Frankfurt, Germany on >a Delta 767-332 (ER), N178DN. I picked up a few interesting >tidbits from the first officer on airplane routings and 767s >in particular ... > 4. Since this was a 767, I asked the first officer about > the plausibility of United pilots' rumored concern > (discussed previously in this group) about crossing the > Himalayas in a 767 ... Just last week I was on a United 767-222 on a much less glamorous routing -- San Francisco to Los Angeles. As it happened, I was seated next to a United 757/767 captain who was commuting to work out of LAX, and I asked him about this as well. He's only been on the 757/767 for a short time so wasn't directly involved at the time of the dispute but his answer was the first plausible one I've heard. The key points are that all of United's 757/767 flight crews are based in the U.S., and that United does not operate the type in the trans- Pacific markets. Thus, the crews operating the segment between Delhi and Hong Kong would be based in New York or perhaps Washington! The idea was to fly JFK-LHR-DEL-HKG and back, with one day layover at each stop. This sounds like a rather hellish schedule, and apparently the pilots thought so too. The pilots suggested a TDY (temporary domicile) in Paris or London, with these pilots flying the LHR-DEL-HKG route, just as temporarily London-based pilots operate United's European 727 operations. Most likely, United saw the rising tide of red ink and saw the pilots as a scapegoat for cancelling the round-the-world service. I also asked about the Washington to Johannesburg service, which was to have operated with 767s via Cape Verde. United received authority to operate this route, which would have been their first service to Africa, early this year, but dropped the plans and the route authority was subsequently taken over by New York-based USAfrica Airways. The reason given by United was that they expected the same labor problems as with the round-the-world service, though the problem wouldn't seem to be as severe and perhaps this was nothing more than more cost- cutting, with the pilots again as scapegoats. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Mar 3 01:16:32 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: 747-400F Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 93 01:16:32 PST The Feb. 22 issue of AW&ST has a photograph of the first 747-400F, which is currently being assembled at Everett. I was surprised to see that it has the smaller upper deck of the 747-100/-200 instead of the extended upper deck of the -300 and passenger -400 models. Several years ago I had heard that Cargolux had ordered four or five 747-400 freighters, with smaller upper decks, but subsequently heard that Boeing had convinced them to accept the stretched version to avoid extra engineering and certification costs. Any idea why the change of heart? -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Mar 4 01:53:29 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jacobs@charly.taclog.af.mil (SSgt Scott Jacobson;93D APS/TROS;981-7441) Subject: Re: 747-400F References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Mar 93 01:53:29 PST The 747-400F doesn't have the stretched upper deck due to the fact that the floor of the upper deck reduces the clear ceiling height available on the main deck, hence the available cargo volume is LESS than the unstretched version. I know it sounds backwards, but a 747-400F with a Stretched upper deck has LESS available cargo volume than a -400F without it... Since no cargo is carried on the upper deck stretching it just adds dead weight. There might be aerodynamic advantages to the stretch but I'll bet there outweighed by the extra weight. Scott From kls Thu Mar 4 01:53:30 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: h andrew chuang Subject: Re: 747-400F References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Mar 93 01:53:30 PST In article Karl Swartz writes: >The Feb. 22 issue of AW&ST has a photograph of the first 747-400F, >which is currently being assembled at Everett. I was surprised to >see that it has the smaller upper deck of the 747-100/-200 instead >of the extended upper deck of the -300 and passenger -400 models. >Several years ago I had heard that Cargolux had ordered four or >five 747-400 freighters, with smaller upper decks, but subsequently >heard that Boeing had convinced them to accept the stretched version >to avoid extra engineering and certification costs. Any idea why >the change of heart? I don't think there is a change of heart. If I remember correctly, Air France is the first airline that ordered the freighter version of the -400. At that time, Boeing said it will not build the -400F's with SUD's. There should not be any major extra cost for Boeing, after all, it has been building the -100's, -200's, and SP's for the last twenty some years. For most freighter operations, the upper deck is used only by the crew. Therefore, it is quite useless to have a SUD, and it means extra weight. Cargolux used to carry passengers in the upper deck on some of their regular cargo flights. If anyone wants a SUD with the -400F, it should be Cargolux. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- | H. Andrew Chuang || Tel: (513) 774-5267 | | BS & AT || Fax: (513) 774-5171 | | GE Aircraft Engines || Email: chuang@hp659.crd.ge.com | --------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Thu Mar 4 01:53:31 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: Jetliner Developements References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Mar 93 01:53:31 PST >While 180-minute ETOPS will allow the A330 (and 777) to do nearly the >same job as the A340, the A340 may still prove more economical. The >number of engines isn't the only consideration -- witness the BAe-146 >which seems awfully silly with four engines on such a little plane, >but has done fairly well. But the A340's engines are generally operating at their extremes (thus the lack of growth capability) while those of the 146 are relatively cooler. This and other considerations must also be taken into account. Most airline bosses will want the long life and reliability of two large engines for all but the most extreme missions. >I think it's pretty far-fetched to consider safety >as a liability for the A340 versus the A330 and its competitors. I agree, it's not a liability...everything's relative. Passengers always like to see lots of engines out there, but I'd bet that in the long run the A330 beats its sister when it comes to dispatch reliability and IFSD's. >And comfort has never been a word I would associate with >any member of the DC-9 clan. >Am I missing something on this one? Well, the MD-80 series has about the same passenger comfort level (seat width/ aisle width) as the A320 on a per passenger basis. Both are much better than the B737. And, the MD-80/90's engines are at the rear of the cabin. The A320 especially, is noisy inside the cabin. Toby (The Commercial Aviation Nut) BTW, the MD-95 is not an MD-90 as such but rather a shortened, simpler MD-87. From kls Thu Mar 4 01:53:33 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: new jetliner developments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Mar 93 01:53:33 PST Tobias Henry Lutterodt writes: > My own assessments of aircraft presently under > development: > > A321: Will be a mild success but will have trouble > attracting non-A320 customers because of the > performance and versatility of the 757 Depends what you mean by `mild success.' I agree it probably won't reach 757 numbers, but since its development, given commonality with the A320, should have been cheaper, it'll probably make money for Airbus. It'll also benefit from the `family effect,' especially if the A319 (shortened A320) is finally launched (expected soon; one lessor has already placed an order). I believe cockpit commonality with the A330 and A340 is also high, which might allow pilots to be certified for both (as on the 757/767). (A puzzle in all this, BTW, is why Iberia has ordered _both_ A321s and 757s) > A330: Likely to be a big success as long as it targets > airlines who don't need the size and range of the 777; > could be the next 767 of the Atlantic > > A340: Will probably flop because airlines will soon be > able to by two engined aircraft to do the same job; With > today's reliablity, two are safer than four!; The > aircraft is also underpowered and the cost and weight of > equipping it with RB211-535's or PW2000's will be > unacceptable; The -200 may find a niche in very long range > specialty markets like all first class London-Perth > service or something similar; Agreed that the A340 looks a little underpowered. Still, call me old-fashioned but I still prefer 3 or 4 when flying over vast expanses of water. How you reach the conclusion that 2 is safer than 4 is a little beyond me. > Boeing 777: It's in a very hard fought three-way battle, > but the aircraft is likely to attract the stronger, more > stable carriers (as it already has) and in the long run, it > will be the market leader; Perhaps it is a little too big, > though, for the market it seeks; Same comment as above. I think this aircraft (and the A330) are excellent replacement for the likes of DC-10s and L-1011 on US internal routes; I'm not sure I relish the thought of flying them on long overwater routes. One thing that is really helping the 777 is that given the current recession, the fact that it will arrive 3-4 years after the MD-11 and the A330/A340 won't count too much against it. Douglas (especially) and Airbus had really bad luck on this one. > MD-90: Will be stillborn unless Douglas is much more > aggressive about finding new customers; Nevertheless, > the aircraft has distinct advantages over its > competitors (noise, pax comfort, ...); My feeling here is that this aircraft is about 3-4 years too late. If it had been shipping in say, 1990, the DC-9/MD-80 production line would not be down to about 40 ships a year (Douglas projection for the next few years). Ciao, Stefano --- Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Thu Mar 4 01:53:35 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: DC-9 Comfort (Was: new jetliner developments) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: rec.travel.air Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Mar 93 01:53:35 PST Karl Swartz writes: >... And comfort has never been a word I would associate > with any member of the DC-9 clan. I beg to differ. I systematically pick DC-9s/MD-80s over ANY narrowbody Boeing type, _specifically_ because of comfort. Three-abreast seating, quite simply, sucks. At least the DC-9/MD-80 has 2-3 seating, which allows me (by picking the right side of the aircraft) to have a window seat and easy access to the aisle. I fly a Boeing narrowbody only when there is no alternative (unless, of course, it's a 707, in which case I'd gladly fly on it even if it was in a cargo config :-) (Ditto for a DC-8 :-). By the same token, I always try to fly any other widebody rather than 747s; again, the smallest set of seats on a 747 is usually three-abreast (most airlines have 3-4-3 seating) while all the others have two-abreast seating available (eg 2-5-2 on the DC-10/MD-11; 2-4-2 on the A300/A310). Nothing against Boeing, mind you; its just that except for the 767 (which is fantastic) the seating configurations on the aircraft they build tends to be so uncomfortable. Ciao, Stefano --- Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Thu Mar 4 01:53:36 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: h andrew chuang Subject: Re: new jetliner developments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Mar 93 01:53:36 PST In article Karl Swartz writes: >In article Tobias Henry Lutterodt writes: >>My own assessments of aircraft presently under development: >>A321: Will be a mild success but will have trouble attracting non-A320 >>customers because of the performance and versatility of the 757 >Of course it's somewhat cheaper than the 757, and the 757 seems to be >used in many cases where its inter-continental range isn't not needed. >Still, I suspect your assesment is accurate, and with some of the really >large buyers (American, British Airways, Delta, United) all flying the >757 already the A321 (and A322 if it's built) seems to have something >of an uphill climb to true success. Am I missing something? I only know of A319, 320, and 321. What is A322? With either CFM56 or IAE2500 engines (which are at least 10-20% smaller than those engines powered 757), the A321 should have shorter range and theoretically not be competing directly with the 757. >>A330: Likely to be a big success as long as it targets airlines who don't >>need the size and range of the 777; could be the next 767 of the Atlantic >The A330 is about midway between the 767-300 and the A market 777. If >airlines already operating 767s think the 777 is too large then they >may go smaller than the A330, down to the 767-300. Then again the >A330 may be a nice compromise between the two. It's hard to say at >this point but the A330 has some stiff competition. (From the MD-11, >too.) But the growth version (-400?) should compete directly with the 777. >>A340: Will probably flop because airlines will soon be able to by two >>engined aircraft to do the same job; With today's reliablity, two are safer >>than four!; The aircraft is also underpowered and the cost and weight of >>equipping it with RB211-535's or PW2000's will be unacceptable ... >While 180-minute ETOPS will allow the A330 (and 777) to do nearly the >same job as the A340, the A340 may still prove more economical. The >number of engines isn't the only consideration -- witness the BAe-146 >which seems awfully silly with four engines on such a little plane, >but has done fairly well. >Two engines safer than four?! Perhaps slightly, but only because of >the added equipment and testing in a twin certified for ETOPS, and >that's expensive. I think it's pretty far-fetched to consider safety >as a liability for the A340 versus the A330 and its competitors. One has to remember the two engines on A330 are bigger than the ones on 767 and A300/310. Although, all the engines are growth versions, none has been proven. Singapore Airlines once found out it was very expensive to operate EROP's with their A310's between Mauritius and Singapore over the Indian Ocean. I guess that's why they ordered A340's (if you recall, Singapore cancelled the MD-11 order before they ordered the A340). Personally, I will probably refuse to fly across the Pacific on a B777. >Looking at power/weight ratios, the A340 does appear to be a bit on >the anemic side, though it's still a bit ahead of the DC-8 Series 50 >and Series 60 which in some regards it replaces, and not too far >behind the 747-100. I'm not sure how much of a liability this is for >the A340. >Overall, your outlook for the A330 is sufficiently rosier than for the >A340, yet sales so far paint quite the opposite picture. Either way, >even modest sales of both types individually could make them a >financial success due to their high degree of commonality. >>Boeing 777: It's in a very hard fought three-way battle ... >You don't mention the third entry in this battle, the MD-11, which >seems to be foundering rather badly. Ever since Boeing lauched the 777, Airbus received very few orders for the A330/340. For the past year, GPA and NWA both cancelled the 340 orders. One must wonder if the program will be as successful as previous Airbus models. MD11, in my opion, is going to be the L1011 of the 90's. Any comments on the MD11C and MD11D? >>MD-90: Will be stillborn unless Douglas is much more aggressive about >>finding new customers; Nevertheless, the aircraft has distinct >>advantages over its competitors (noise, pax comfort, ...); >Too late to be stillborn -- the first one was rolled out last month. >But MacDAC does have a serious problem with sales. >Advantages? As far as I can tell the MD-90 is nothing more than yet- >another-stretch of the DC-9 (except for the MD-90-10 which fits in >between the MD-87 and larger MD-80 models) with the same wing. Only >new engines and, I assume, updated avionics seem to distinguish it >beyond that. And comfort has never been a word I would associate with >any member of the DC-9 clan. >Am I missing something on this one? Well, the 2-3 layout is a little better than the 3-3 layout, especially if you sit on the side with two seats. Nonetheless, I still prefer to fly on a widebody jet, if possible. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- | H. Andrew Chuang || Tel: (513) 774-5267 | | BS & AT || Fax: (513) 774-5171 | | GE Aircraft Engines || Email: chuang@hp659.crd.ge.com | --------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Thu Mar 4 01:53:39 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) Subject: Re: 747-400F References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Mar 93 01:53:39 PST It's my understanding that the stretched upper-deck 747s are a bit more efficient from an aerodynamic point of view. The extra deck does, no doubt, add weight however. greg -- Gregory Reed Travis D P S I Data Parallel Systems Incorporated greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!) Bloomington, IN greg@indiana.edu (For the others) From kls Thu Mar 4 19:45:12 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.radio.amateur.misc Path: bounce-back From: camel@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Phillip Espinasse) Subject: radio transmissions for the north atlantic Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Mar 93 19:45:12 PST Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois. last year i got to visit the atc control center at Shannon.Being myself a fan of commercial airlines and everything that deals with them i want to share what i have learned. vhf is used, as you all know, for atc purposes over land and depends on 'line of sight' between transmitters and receivers. relay stations troughout the uk and europe are required to enable transmissions during flight. over the atlantic, short wave radio is used(HF). Also because of the limitations of radar, none of the aircraft over the ocean are tracked estimated times quoted in flight plans, to ensure that aircraft are kept apart by minimum prescribed limits. For air traffic purposes the north atlantic is divided into five main areas: Shanwick, Santa Maria, Iceland, Gander and New York known as Nartel (the north atlantic radiotelephony network). My question to you is the following : i have never been able to find any sort of HF frequency for the north atlantic boundaries. if ever you know any, i would appreciate it if you could e-mail me them. i also would like to know where the major atc control centers are located in the world. Student at Northwestern University e-mail: camel@merle.acns.nwu.edu From kls Thu Mar 4 19:45:13 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: data@beast.math.ualberta.ca (Daryle A. Tilroe) Subject: Re: new jetliner developments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Alberta, Dept. of Mathematics Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Mar 93 19:45:13 PST In article spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) writes: >Tobias Henry Lutterodt writes: > >> A340: Will probably flop because airlines will soon be >> able to by two engined aircraft to do the same job; With >> today's reliablity, two are safer than four!; If my memory serves me a four engined aircraft is safer than two at HIGHER engine reliability. I believe that four engines are safer at any p failure less than one third (which is VERY unreliable). Thus for any reasonable failure rate four engines are better than two. BTW I am dreging this up from my recollection of a statistics course many years ago so if anyone else remembers this problem feel free to comfirm or dispute. All the usual disclaimers. From kls Fri Mar 5 00:07:39 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rigotti@caercn (Kevin Rigotti) Subject: Integration of air and ground computer systems? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Mar 93 00:07:39 PST I earn a living (well almost) researching software systems for supporting Air Traffic Control, but being a humble technocrat I don't get to talk to people at the sharp end of things unless it directly affects my work .... that being the case I'd be very interested to hear from anyone with a well informed interest who has an opinion on the following: In order to increase capacity without increasing controller work-load a number of tasks normally done solely by the ATC staff can be supported by software; flight path monitoring, conflict prediction and short term conflict alert, for example. Others can actually be performed by a computer and checked by a controller, such as conflict resolution and inter-sector coordination. Given that the pilot would have a similar level of computer support from flight management systems, how integrated should the ground and air systems be? What level of integration are people likely to accept ? I'm assuming nobody would be happy (yet) with a completely automatic system (no controller, no pilot), but where would you draw the line? Kevin Rigotti -- Email : rigotti@hermes.mod.uk (MIME & ATK) Fax : +44 (0)684 894109. Post : ATC Systems Division, DRA Malvern, Malvern WR14 3PS, England -- From kls Fri Mar 5 00:07:42 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: nicknames Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Mar 93 00:07:42 PST Organization: Chicago Software Works The latest Airliners mentions a couple of airliner nicknames which are rather amusing: French crews have nicknamed the Airbus A320 "Rantaplan." The name of a dog in a cartoon strip, Rantaplan is a brave but stupid canine who, when commanded, acts in exactly the opposite way -- a reference to the occasional behaviour of the Three-twenty's flight computers. We also hear that American Airlines' pilots are calling the MD-11 "SCUD" -- because you never know where it's going to land. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Mar 5 00:07:43 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: vacation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Mar 93 00:07:43 PST Organization: Chicago Software Works I'll be on vacation all next week, so articles won't be going out to the group during that time. Upon my return I'll be announcing details of a mailing list version of the newsgroup for those without convenient access to news -- watch this space for details! -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Tue Mar 16 21:57:45 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp) Subject: Airbus "family ratings" ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Mar 93 21:57:45 PST Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany Yesterday there was an article about Airbus 321's roll-out in our local newspaper. In the end, when listing the 321's advantages, there was a quote that "the Airbus family is better, because the crew doesn't need any additional training for another model" ? Does this mean there is a "family rating", like there is one for the ATR-42/ATR72, and if so, what exactly is the "Airbus family"; just the 32x, or all Airbus models ? Or does all this only apply to the service crew ? -- Wolfgang Diestelkamp wd@cs.tu-berlin.de wolfgang@first.gmd.de From kls Tue Mar 16 21:57:46 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus "family ratings" ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Mar 93 21:57:46 PST >In the end, when listing the 321's advantages, there was a >quote that "the Airbus family is better, because the crew >doesn't need any additional training for another model" ? >Does this mean there is a "family rating" It certainly seems like a lot of information from Airbus is distorted by marketing hype, and this is no exception. Yes, there is a family rating amongst *some* Airbus models -- but not all. Specifically, the A320 and derivatives (A321 and, if built, presumably the A319) along with the A330 and A340 share a common rating. (Why one would want to propagate this pilot interface is a matter for another debate!) However, the A300 and A310 are *not* part of this family rating, much as Airbus Marketing might like you to believe otherwise. I suspect that the A310 and A300-600 form a single family; older A300s may be yet another rating. Amongst current production Boeing has three families -- 737, 757/767, and 747. At the start, the 777 (back when it was called the 767-X) was to share ratings with the 757/767 but customer demand quickly caused Boeing to switch to the 747-400 as the model. While there may be substantial similarities, I suspect that the 777 has evolved to the point of requiring a separate rating. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Tue Mar 16 21:57:48 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) Subject: 2, 3, 4 engines-- what's actually safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Mar 93 21:57:48 PST DAT> == Daryle A. Tilroe DAT> If my memory serves me a four engined aircraft is safer than two at DAT> HIGHER engine reliability. I believe that four engines are safer at DAT> any p failure less than one third (which is VERY unreliable). Thus DAT> for any reasonable failure rate four engines are better than two. DAT> BTW I am dreging this up from my recollection of a statistics course DAT> many years ago so if anyone else remembers this problem feel free to DAT> comfirm or dispute. I know this topic has been hashed over in RISKS before (the question of independent failures vs. common-mode failures, the question of how much sooner an engine will fail if it's doing 33% more vs 50% more vs 100% more work, and so on) but I'm interested in looking at actual data. I can think of a few incidents where having three engines was not much additional help (the EA L-1011 that was missing O-rings on *all three* engines, for example) or actually a drawback (Sioux City; if #2 hadn't been in the tail, it wouldn't have done the same damage). And, of course, there are the cases of four-engined aircraft losing all four due to volcanic ash ingestion or the like. Even some of the twinjet incidents (Gimli) would have been no different with three or four engines, since the nature of the failure would have affected them all. In particular, I'm interested if anyone can think of an incident in which a trijet survived (for some value of survived; a semi-controlled crash landing, such as the Sioux City crash, would qualify) where a twinjet would have (presumably) not done so. (Arguably, the above-mentioned L-1011 might qualify, since the early shutdown of one engine allowed them to fly just that much longer...) -- * Christopher Davis * * * [CKD1] * MIME * RIPEM * 226 Transfer complete. 17512509 bytes received in 5.2e+02 seconds (33 Kbytes/s) From kls Tue Mar 16 21:57:51 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gregory@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Greg Wright) Subject: Re: 747-400F References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Mar 93 21:57:51 PST In article jacobs@charly.taclog.af.mil (SSgt Scott Jacobson;93D APS/TROS;981-7441) writes: >The 747-400F doesn't have the stretched upper deck due to the >fact that the floor of the upper deck reduces the clear ceiling >height available on the main deck, hence the available cargo >volume is LESS than the unstretched version. Not to be picky but in the -400F we don't put a floor in the upper deck. This lets us put in oversized cargo there and reduces the overall empty weight of the airframe. > >I know it sounds backwards, but a 747-400F with a Stretched upper >deck has LESS available cargo volume than a -400F without it... We could actually get more cargo in without the floor but the weight increase overcomes this advantage. > >Since no cargo is carried on the upper deck stretching it just adds >dead weight. There might be aerodynamic advantages to the stretch >but I'll bet there outweighed by the extra weight. > There is a incremental drag increase with the upper deck from the added wet area of the plane. The only aero advantages from the upper deck are at the critical mach number where, through a better area ruling, the wave drag is decreased a little. This is why the 747-100,-200 cruise at mach .84 and the -300, -400 cruise at mach .86. >Scott > Greg. -- ________Greg Wright____________ High Lift Development | gregory@bcstec.ca.boeing.com | 747/767 Aerodynamics | gregory@halcyon.com | |____uunet!bcstec!gregory_______| NOT A BOEING SPOKESPERSON. From kls Tue Mar 16 21:57:53 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: afirmin@squid.ingres.com (Anthony Firmin) Subject: Re: Tours of Douglas in Long Beach References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: afirmin@Ingres.COM Organization: Ingres, The ASK Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Mar 93 21:57:53 PST I have been hearing about tours of the Boeing facilities in Washington lately and was wondering about tours of the McDonnel Douglas facility in Long Beach, California. =========================================================== I am new to using the net so excuse me if this appeared already. McD do tours - but it depends who you are, what you are, where you are from, which day they are replying on etc... I have been around the factory 4 times, the first two times I applied to the public affairs office. Being a 'Brit' (and a spotter - but thats another story) makes it much easier. If you work for a McD customer then it is very easy (my last 2 times were with a customer) to get tours, a friend of mine works for an airline and gets around every 3 months. Going around the perimeter, up and down all the side roads gives you a good feel for whats going on and plenty can be seen - I've taken a large number of photos at the end of the runway. Try to avoid the C17 plant though - they get a bit touchy around there. Good luck - and let us know how you got on. ..Anthony Firmin (the mad British spotter). From kls Wed Mar 17 10:18:31 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: 747 missed-approach incident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Mar 93 10:18:31 PST 747 IN GATWICK TERMINAL NEAR-HIT By Mike Gaines. From FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL, February 24, 1992 "A Continental Airlines Boeing 747-200B narrowly missed one of the world's busiest international terminals and an associated crew building while its crew attempted an automatic landing at London Gatwick early in February. "The 747's starboard wingtip is estimated by witnesses to have missed the five-storey Concorde House by about 100ft. Concorde House is a crew-reporting and operations building alongside the South Terminal. "The UK Air Accident Investigation Board (AAIB) has started a formal investigation. The AAIB has also taken the unusual step of advertising for public assistance in the investigation. "The incident occurred at 10:39 on 7 February. Weather conditions, recorded minutes earlier, were 800m visibility in light drizzle, with four octas of cloud at 400' and the main cloud cover at 1800ft. The aircraft, operating on flight CO4 from Houston, Texas, with 223 people on board, was set up for an autopilot-coupled instrument-landing- system (ILS) approach from the east to Gatwick's Runway 26L. At 1000', the autopilot had still not coupled with the ILS correctly and the crew executed a missed approach, noting that the aircraft was right of the extended centreline when they could see the ground. "On the second approach, the auto-ILS option was again selected. Again, the aircraft was well to the right of the centerline and crossed the airfield perimeter to the north of the runway, overflying buildings at 230' above ground lvel. The aircraft landed safely from a third ILS, flown manually. "Continental confirmed the incident, saying: "The company is holding an internal routine inquiry and will participate fully with any official investigation in the UK." "In May 1991, a British Airways pilot, Capt. Gen Stewart, was convicted of negligently endangering his aircraft and the people on board after a similar incident at Heathrow in November 1989. Stewart's 747-100 descended to 75', clearing a hotel by about 12'. "This incident also followed difficulty in getting the autopilot to lock onto the ILS. "The AAIB did not investigate the Heathrow incident, being engaged in the Lockerbie 747 sabotage and Kegworth Boeing 737 accident investigations. Stewart, who had resigned from BA, lost his captain's qualification on type and was fined #2000. "On 30 November, 1992, Stewart committed suicide." In the same issue, an advert: CIVIL AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT FORMAL INVESTIGATION "Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Regulation 10(2) of the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents) Regulations, 1989, that a Formal Investigation under the said Regulations is taking place into the circumstances and causes of the incident to Boeing 747, N33021 which occurred at the South Terminal, London Gatwick Airport, on 7 February 1993. "If anyone has information which they believe may relate to the circumstances or causes of the incident they should write to the Chief Inspector of Air Accidents, Air Accidents Investigation Branch, Department of Transport, DRA, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 6TD as soon as possible and should quote the reference EW/C93/2/1. "Dated this day of February 1993." Signed: Air Accident Investigation Branch Department of Transport. From kls Wed Mar 17 10:18:34 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Dorsett Subject: Re: 2, 3, 4 engines-- what's actually safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rdd@cactus.org Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Mar 93 10:18:34 PST >In particular, I'm interested if anyone can think of an incident in which a >trijet survived (for some value of survived; a semi-controlled crash >landing, such as the Sioux City crash, would qualify) where a twinjet would >have (presumably) not done so. That is a loaded question. In some cases, a trijet could be up there by virtue of having a more flexible MEL, and in more risk, whereas a twin could be grounded. In that UAL 727 discussion a few weeks ago, recall that the airplane was dispatched with the generator control panel inoperative: you can't dispatch with dual redundancy with one generator out in a twin. Perhaps a better way of looking at it would be to ask whether there's been a twinjet crash which a trijet could have survived. >(Arguably, the above-mentioned L-1011 might >qualify, since the early shutdown of one engine allowed them to fly just >that much longer...) I think that when we look at airliner certification, we need to consider the mission profiles involved, and the regulatory environment's requirements, rather than just the simple binary issues of whether an airplane can stay in the air following some disaster.. For example, the 727 was originally envisioned to compete against Electras at out-of-the-way airports. The CAA rules (at the time) benefitted three- and four-engined airplanes in marginal weather. By offering a third engine, Boeing was able to offer significantly better dispatch reliability. The reasoning behind the rules was that a twin-engine airplane, upon suffering a failure, had to land immediately, at the destination airport. A trijet could continue to an alternate. Thus, is weather was good enough for takeoff, but not good enough for landing, the trijet could fly, while the twin would be grounded. If you suffer an engine failure in a twin, it is an automatic emergency, and this has nothing to do with how "good" or reliable the engines are. You are reduced to one level of redundancy, and this is not an appropriate margin to be flying passengers with. With a trijet, if you lose an engine, you lose an engine. The flight can continue to destination. This relates to McDonnell Douglas' wavering between a trijet and a quad in the MD-12 program: if you experience an engine failure in a twin on an EROPS flight, and faced with the "land now or else" decision, it could be several hours before you can reach an appropriate airport. The need to stay in range of suitable airports further constrains your actions. A trijet has lower dispatch requirements, lower aircrew requirements, and gives the crew (and the airline's fleet logistics) much more flexibility in determining whether to keep the flight on schedule. This is one reason the DC-10 has been pop- ular with several long-distance operators. In the short-term, single-instance failure considerations, there's not much difference between a twin or a trijet or a quad. But it is the need to *maintain* the safety margins, given the possibility of multiple failures, which recommends three- and four-engined airplanes for longer routes. Shit happens, and I'd personally want at least two levels of redundancy *following* a failure. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Wed Mar 17 10:18:36 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jb3051@csc.albany.edu Subject: Airliners landing in water Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Mar 93 10:18:36 PST Can large airliners safely land in water in case of an emergency? If so, will they float? Have there been cases? Thanks -- ******************************************************************************* Jorge Bela Kindelan * E a falla dos pinhaes, marulho obscuro, Center for Legislative Development * E' o som presente d'esse mar futuro, jb3051@thor.albany.edu * E' a voz da terra anciando pelo mar. ******************************************************************************* From kls Wed Mar 17 10:18:39 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: A340s in United's future? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Mar 93 10:18:39 PST The current Airliners Monthly News (AMN, March 1993) includes the following on p. 10: [United Airliners] has been talking to Airbus about the A340, although this would appear to be more long-range than short-term (some press reports have speculated A340s could replace existing Boeing 777 orders) because of the political flak that could be sent up. I can see United having some interest in the A340 for the long, thin routes on which they currently use the 747SP, which they would like to get rid of. The 747-400 is probably too big (read: expensive to operate) for these routes and even B market 777s might not have the range. But to replace 777 orders? United's original order was entirely for A market (domestic) aircraft to replace the DC-10, stretched just a bit from the baseline to permit Chicago-Hawaii nonstops, a route currently operated with the DC-10-30. When Boeing refused to allow United to cancel or defer some 777 deliveries, they agreed to instead cancel or defer some 747-400 orders and convert at least the early 777 orders to A+ versions, not quite B market but with sufficient range to handle some of the 747 routes. Chicago-Beunos Aires was mentioned as being a route they wanted to be able to operate. In any case, I've not seen any of the "press reports" regarding United and the A340. Has anyone else? Does anyone have any other details? -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Mar 17 10:18:42 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: 757-300? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Mar 93 10:18:42 PST The current Airliners Monthly News (AMN, March 1993) includes the following on p. 26: A 23ft 4in stretched fuselage version of the 757 is being considered by Boeing, along with a long-range model with increased gross weights. In typical two-class configuration the stretched version sounds to me like a nightmare at gates -- the current 757-200 is already a pain in the hindquarts to board, though boarding at door 2 does help ease the congestion a bit. (For comparison, that stretch would make it just slightly longer than a DC-8-61/-71. Given typical economy seat pitch it would add 8 rows or 48 seats, absent additional lavs and/or galleys, which is significantly above a comparably configured DC-8-61/-71.) For the longer range version I'd guess they could easily hang on the larger RB.211 engines, but what about other options? I've never read much about the PW2000. How closely related is it to the PW4000 series or to the older JT9D? Is it a completely different design? From the specs (turbine and compressor stages, etc.) it look significantly different from the PW4000 ... -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Mar 17 23:14:44 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Paul Michael Keller Subject: Re: A340s in United's future? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Mar 93 23:14:44 PST In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: [Airliners Monthly quote about possible UAL purchase of A340 deleted, along with other stuff] >In any case, I've not seen any of the "press reports" regarding United >and the A340. Has anyone else? Does anyone have any other details? About 4-6 weeks ago there was a p. A3 article in the Wall Street Journal about Airbus approaching UAL with a proposal for the A340 to replace existing orders for the 777. The WSJ noted that Airbus has been left with some difficult resales with the NWA A340 cancelations. Apparently some of those A/C are far enough along in production to be substantially customized to NWA's specs, greatly reducing their replacement possibili- ties. If my recollection is correct, the WSJ speculated that Airbus was trying to offer these A/C to UAL at a large discount. It was reported that UAL was talking to Airbus about their proposal, and also to Boeing about their 777 orders at the same time. The WSJ suggested that UAL may have been simply using the Airbus offer to lever Boeing into offering more favorable terms on the 777. This proposal seems to have died since then. The WSJ published no de- tailed followup to this, and I have since read a few other very short references in both the WSJ and AvWeek similar to Karl's quote from Airliners Monthly. I am fairly certain that AvWeek published nothing substantive or detailed on this. After reading the above noted article in the WSJ I looked carefully for what AvWeek might have had to say about this, and nothing has appeared. Paul Keller pkeller@engin.umich.edu From kls Wed Mar 17 23:14:45 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) Subject: Re: Airliners landing in water References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Mar 93 23:14:45 PST In article jb3051@csc.albany.edu writes: >Can large airliners safely land in water in case of an emergency? It's not at all safe, but it has been done. >If so, will they float? Have there been cases? Not for long. The only case I am aware of where an airliner full of pax was ditched (controlled touchdown on the water) was a Boeing Stratocruiser in the North Pacific, perhaps in the early 50's. Partly due to excellent navigation and communications, a brilliant rescue was completed, I believe without the loss of a single life. I believe it lost an engine (as in "came off") and the remaining three could not overcome the drag. According to Gann's "Flying Circus", the state-of-the-art four-bladed props turned by the R-4360's turned out to be actually a touch beyond the state of the art. When they came apart, they took the entire engine with them. From kls Thu Mar 18 09:03:17 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: APU hourly rates Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Mar 93 09:03:17 PST Someone recently asked me what the typical costs of running off an APU were. Here's some data from the April-June 1981 BOEING AIRLINER: Hourly operating and maintenance costs, electrical power only, no air conditioning, fuel $1.00/gal, electricity $0.05 per kWh: Aircraft type APU Diesel GPU Fixed power system ------------------------------------------------------------------- Narrow-body $32/hr $4.30/hr $0.75/hr Wide-body (2/3) $70/hr $6.50/hr $1.20/hr B-747 $141/hr $17/hr $1.70 Estimated direct cost of producing electricity and air conditioning, same limitations: Aircraft type APU Diesel GPU Fixed power + pneumatics ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Narrow Body $45/hr $16/hr $10/hr Wide Body (2/3) $75/hr $31/hr $18/hr --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Thu Mar 18 09:03:18 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: 2, 3, 4 engines-- what's actually safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Mar 93 09:03:18 PST > In particular, I'm interested if anyone can think of an incident in which > a trijet survived (for some value of survived; a semi-controlled crash > landing, such as the Sioux City crash, would qualify) where a twinjet > would have (presumably) not done so. In the same article, the poster continues: > And, of course, there are the cases of four-engined aircraft losing > all four due to volcanic ash ingestion or the like. As I recall, in these cases it has at least sometimes been impossible to restart all the engines. So this is a form of common-mode failure where having more engines is nevertheless a big safety benefit. In another article, it is suggested: | Perhaps a better way of looking at it would be to ask whether there's been | a twinjet crash which a trijet could have survived. Yes, there is a quite recent example. Kegworth, England. There was a fire in one engine, and the crew misinterpreted the indications and shut off fuel to the *other* engine. QED. (Details from memory.) -- Mark Brader "People tend to assume that things they don't know SoftQuad Inc., Toronto about are either safe or dangerous or useless, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com depending on their prejudices." -- Tim Freeman This article is in the public domain. From kls Thu Mar 18 09:59:52 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman) Subject: Re: Airliners landing in water References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Mar 93 09:59:52 PST >Can large airliners safely land in water in case of an emergency? >If so, will they float? Have there been cases? Well... let me tell you something that happened to me. A few years ago, I was going from California back east to see a friend... and the Eastern Pilots were nice enough to let me in the jump seat for a while, and while I was up there, the pilot produced a glossy information card with "Emergency Procedures" on it (just like the passengers get in the back of their seats)... anyhow, the pilot said to the co-pilot, "We got new cards, did you see them???" and the co-pilot started laughing very loudly, and I asked him what was so funny... and he told me (while pointing to a very well drawn picture of an aircraft floating on water), "Like this thing would float!?" Sorta funny... eh? -- |o| Marshal Perlman Internet: perlman@cs.fit.edu |o| |o| Florida Institute of Technology IRC: Squawk |o| |o| Melbourne, Florida Private Pilot, ASEL |o| |o| 407/768-8000 x8435 Goodyear Blimp Club Member |o| From kls Fri Mar 19 00:07:38 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jacobs@charly.taclog.af.mil (SSgt Scott Jacobson;93D APS/TROS;981-7441) Subject: re: 747-400F References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Mar 93 00:07:38 PST In article jacobs@charly.taclog.af.mil (SSgt Scott Jacobson;93D APS/TROS;981-7441) writes: >The 747-400F doesn't have the stretched upper deck due to the >fact that the floor of the upper deck reduces the clear ceiling >height available on the main deck, hence the available cargo >volume is LESS than the unstretched version. GREG >Not to be picky but in the -400F we don't put a floor in the upper GREG >deck. This lets us put in oversized cargo there and reduces the GREG >overall empty weight of the airframe. If there is no floor in the upper deck then what are the pilots seats bolted to? I think what you mean to say is that the upper deck floor in the -400F is not as long as in the passenger model. Since the cockpit floor still intrudes into the main cabin area operators are limited, height-wise, as to what can be loaded thru the nose. Solution? Cut a full height cargo door into the aft fuselage - which is exactly what Boeing did. BTW: What are the structural implications of removing a portion of the upper deck floor? Scott From kls Fri Mar 19 00:07:39 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: 2, 3, 4 engines-- what's actually safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Mar 93 00:07:39 PST In article rdd@cactus.org writes: >>In particular, I'm interested if anyone can think of an incident in which a >>trijet survived (for some value of survived; a semi-controlled crash >>landing, such as the Sioux City crash, would qualify) where a twinjet would >>have (presumably) not done so. Hi Robert! Sorry to piggyback on your message, but the original one is gone from our system, and I just read something today that is highly pertinent to the discussion. Gordon Bethune, the incoming Renton Division VP&GM, just made a speech in Singapore on ETOPS, and he made two interesting statements. 1) The number of accidents involving twin-engine jets which occurred because of both engines shutting down for unrelated reasons: Zero. None. 2) The number of accidents involving airplanes with more than two engines with two engines shut down for unrelated reasons. Two, both involving four engined airplanes on take off. The guy who made these statements was the VP of Boeing Customer Services and is therefore quite conservative. :-) I hope this answers the original question. I now return to our regularly scheduled newsfroup. -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Sat Mar 20 21:21:07 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gregory@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Greg Wright) Subject: Re: 747-400F References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Mar 93 21:21:07 PST In article jacobs@charly.taclog.af.mil (SSgt Scott Jacobson;93D APS/TROS;981-7441) writes: > >If there is no floor in the upper deck then what are the pilots seats >bolted to? > >I think what you mean to say is that the upper deck floor in the -400F >is not as long as in the passenger model. Since the cockpit floor still This is correct. >intrudes into the main cabin area operators are limited, height-wise, >as to what can be loaded thru the nose. Solution? Cut a full height >cargo door into the aft fuselage - which is exactly what Boeing did. There is still the swinging nose section to load cargo through. Even through a full size aft door you couln't get oversized cargo into the upper deck area. To tell the truth, I didn't notice where the nose section swings open at(I went to the roll out week before last). I will call the -400F people and let you know. If it is allowed I could even post some more detailed info on it. > >BTW: What are the structural implications of removing a portion >of the upper deck floor? I am no structures person, but as I said above, I may be able to post any non-limited info on it...I'll let you know. > >Scott > Greg.... -- ________Greg Wright____________ High Lift Development | gregory@bcstec.ca.boeing.com | 747/767 Aerodynamics | gregory@halcyon.com | |____uunet!bcstec!gregory_______| NOT A BOEING SPOKESPERSON. From kls Sat Mar 20 21:21:13 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Joe Dellinger" Subject: hydraulic failure Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Mar 93 21:21:13 PST January 5, 1992, I was flying back to Honolulu from LAX (after missing seeing an annular solar eclipse at sunset because of clouds) on Delta flight 123 (don't know what kind of jet it was!). We took off only a little late and settled in for the long flight to Hawaii... I fell asleep. An hour and a half or so into the flight I woke up because of some minor turbulence. A little later I noticed there was a sort of white plume coming out of the end of the wing (I was in seat 43A and had a perfect view of the left wing). While I was puzzling as to what it might be, the pilot came on the PA and said "we've had a minor hydraulic failure and are turning back towards LA. The stuff you see coming out of the wings is fuel which we're dumping because we don't need it anymore. Don't worry, we have plenty of backup systems and we're returning to LA purely as a precaution." Nobody seemed very upset. The stewardesses went around telling people how safe air travel was, etc. (I thought to myself well _normally_, yes, it's very safe, but this is obviously no longer a normal flight!) What really started me wondering, though, was that on the way back to LAX we seemed to be almost entirely flying _through_ clouds and then _storms_. We were getting thrown around rather violently and the stewardesses had to strap themselves in. It was the most severe turbulence I've ever experienced! Some people on the plane started becoming motion-sick and began throwing up. The rain outside became so thick that I could not see any hint of the wings which were just beyond my window... outside was just a pure featureless white beyond a windowpane with rain coursing down it. Coming in for a landing we were really thrown around a _lot_. I was wondering what the heck was going on... it seemed too much of a coincidence that the same flight that had a hydraulic failure also had terrible weather. We couldn't see the runway until we were rather close to the ground, when we abruptly dropped below the thick fog. Anyway, we made an OK landing and came to a stop on the runway; everyone clapped. And we sat there as all sorts of emergency vehicles appeared and circled around the edges of the runway. We didn't need them though... What we needed was a tow. The pilot came on and explained that owing to the hydraulic failure we had completely lost the ability to turn the nosewheel, so we were stuck sitting on the runway until they brought out a car to tow us into the terminal... (that took about 15 minutes). We then were told to applaud the co-pilot, who it turned out had had to manually go down into the bowels of the plane to lower the landing gear by hand crank. (We later heard from him that he was reading the manual step by step while doing it. Best way to do it, I suppose.) Then we got off the plane and waited for them to fix it. There was a sort of holding area for us; unfortunately, it was on the other side of security from restrooms and food, there was no place to store your carry-on luggage, and the single exit/entrance hallway to the holding room was plugged by the crowd of people trying to get up to the counter set in an alcove in the hallway where they could attempt to reschedule their flight. Every now and then a representative would appear and tell us there was no news, but we _might_ suddenly leave in 30 minutes so don't go anywhere. Then one to two hours later they would reappear, apologize for being late, and tell us the same thing. As lunch time came along they gave us coupons to use at the Burger King and Pizza Hut (on the other side of security). When dinner time came along they gave us another set of coupons for the same places. Meanwhile we could drink the Delta drinks they had available for us in the holding room (with a smiling Delta lion emblazoned on each can). I must have gone back and forth through security 7 times, each time with my two carry-ons and needing to be hand-wanded because of the metal in my hiking boots. (I was glad to note that they did indeed search me just as thoroughly the last time as the first.) Eventually people found out that the most interesting thing to do was to go watch the plane being repaired. We watched while repairmen would go up into the tail of the plane, then come out with their hands and uniforms covered with reddish-brown fluid... there were also drips of the same fluid coming out from all around the open access door and puddling on the ground underneath the plane. (Looked like someone had taken a hydraulic-fluid shower in there and not shut the curtains.) After about 8 hours of this, as promised we WERE abruptly told "it's fixed, get on the plane NOW or you're left behind". We were supposed to have arrived in Honolulu at noon... we made it there about 1AM. Everyone clapped when we landed. They didn't lose my luggage, at least! Now... a year after the event I'm sort of curious. Just how BAD a mechanical failure was that? It seems to me that not being able to turn the nose wheel at all and having to lower the landing gear by hand-crank is sort of NOT A GOOD SIGN... And why did we fly straight through such awful weather to get back to LA? Why didn't they go above it, or around it, or something? If they indeed had "plenty of backup hydraulic systems" as advertised, what was the big deal? How often do such "minor hydraulic failures" occur? Are they fairly common? This one didn't make either the LA or Honolulu papers. Is that typical? Now and then since I've experimentally asked flight attendants if they've ever had a similar experience and they've always said "no, of course not" and launched into _their_ worst experiences, which usually involve being stuck in line on the ground for several hours while having to put up with drunk unruly passengers. From kls Sat Mar 20 21:21:16 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "John (J.F.) Hawkins" Subject: Information request Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Mar 93 21:21:16 PST Hi, I was interested in attending the LAX air memorabilia show as advertized in the last few issues of Airliners. I wrote the address listed, and asked for further information about the show, but received no reply. Does anybody know if the show is on? Is it worth the trip (I'll be in the area, but will have to prolong my stay 1 night). Any comments or info would be appreciated. *John Hawkins --- Bell Northern Research, Research Triangle Park, NC USA * *MaBell: (919)9918579 email:jhawkins@bnr.ca USnail:35 Davis Drive RTP,NC * From kls Tue Mar 23 00:24:47 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jonathan@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Thornburg) Subject: tip vortices *do* exist! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Mar 93 00:24:47 PST Organization: U of Texas at Austin / Physics Dept / Center for Relativity On the first leg of a recent (still-in-progress!) trip I saw a really beautiful triplet of aerodynamics/physics in action: B-727, I was in a window seat just ahead of the wing leading edge, we were departing San Antonio, Texas. Air temp was ~12-15 C 55-60 F. The relative humidity on takeoff must have been almost 100%, because just as we were passing over the end of the runway on climbout a really textbook-perfect pair of condensation clouds appeared, one over the aft part of the wing surface (the pressure on top of the wing really *is* lower than elsewhere!), and the other a beautiful spiral tip vortex trailing aft from the wingtip. (Yes, the direction of spiraling was correct :-) .) The diameter of the vortex cloud was around ~ 25-40 cm (10-16 in), it oscillated slightly as we hit light turbulence, and the spiral rotation period looked like ~ 5 m (15ft). Very pretty! Alas, I didn't have a camera with me, so no GIFs... Both clouds disappeared in ~15 seconds, as would be expected as $C_L$ came down enough at higher airspeed for the pressure differentials to drop below the water-vapor-condensation point. [A question for people who know more aerodynamics than I do: Since the pressure drop is strongest over the *leading* 1/2 of the wing, why did "my" main-span cloud form over the *trailing* 1/2? That is, in terms of an xy coordinate system with the relative wind being in the +x direction, "up" being in the +y direction, the leading edge at (0,0), and the trailing edge at (1,0), I was under the impression that the strongest pressure drop was in the general vicinity of (0.25,0.50), whereas "my" cloud extended roughly from (0.50,0.10) to (1.00,0.10) to (0.50,0.50) to (1.00,0.50). Perhaps there's enough of a time delay after peak pressure drop before a visible cloud forms to account for the rearward shift? At (say) 300 knots = 150 m/s, a 3 m (10 ft) shift would be ~ 2 milliseconds time delay. Is this reasonable? Perhaps some expert could comment?] Just too add sauce to the "Jearl Walker" cake [JW is the author of "The Flying Circus of Physics"], a few minutes later, just after we climbed above a cloud deck at ~12,000 ft (we had a "travelogue" copilot), I saw a really beautiful 180-degree "glory" rainbow completely surrounding our shadow on the cloud deck. (180 degrees is the sun-observer-rainbow angle, i.e. I was looking directly away from the sun, right at the aircraft's shadow.) I could see it for ~ a minute before I lost it as we gained altitude. A final point: We had some discussion in this newsgroup a few months ago on in-flight use of spoilers. As I recall, the consensus seemed to be that they're used for roll control, but not usually for lift dumping as such. On this same trip, coming in to Salt Lake City over the Wasatch mountains, I could clearly see the spoilers being deployed several times, *without* their being any perceptable roll. I believe the Salt Lake City approach path is somewhat notorious for requiring rapid altitude loss. (Indeed, one of the early B-727 deep stall crashes was on such an approach, I think.) - Jonathan Thornburg or [until 31/Aug/93] U of Texas at Austin / Physics Dept / Center for Relativity and [until ~Apr/93] U of British Columbia / {Astronomy,Physics} From kls Tue Mar 23 00:24:49 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gabrielh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Gabriel Haythornthwaite) Subject: Re: 2, 3, 4 engines-- what's actually safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: Organization: Telectronics Pacing Systems Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Mar 93 00:24:49 PST |> | Perhaps a better way of looking at it would be to ask whether there's been |> | a twinjet crash which a trijet could have survived. |> |> Yes, there is a quite recent example. Kegworth, England. There was a |> fire in one engine, and the crew misinterpreted the indications and shut |> off fuel to the *other* engine. QED. (Details from memory.) I believe in this case the fire warning indicators for the two engines were incorrectly wired (they were reversed). There was NO error on the part of the crew. BA examined several other Boeing aircraft from the same order and found they had the same problem. I can't remember the plane type but I recal the episode prompted quite a stir in the UK and at Boeing. -- gabrielh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT. You feel sleepy. Notice how restful it is to watch the cursor blink. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise. From kls Tue Mar 23 00:24:50 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: Airbus "family ratings" ? (incl. Robert's reply) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Mar 93 00:24:50 PST > > Airbus refers to the 2-crew A300 cockpit as FFCC - Forward-Facing > > Crew Cockpit; I always found this to be very funny. > > I agree it sounds funny. Could it be a euphemistic way of > referring to the lack of a flight engineer (who would not > normally need to face forward)? Remember that 2-man > crews were a very sensitive issue around that time. > Yes, that's exactly where the name comes from: no flight engineer sitting sideways. On the subject of F/Es: does anyone know if Air Inter's unions got their way and forced the airline to have an F/E in the A320? I think they didn't, but at one time it looked like they would. Can anyone confirm one way or another? Ciao, Stefano --- Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Tue Mar 23 00:24:51 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Airbus "family ratings" ? (incl. Robert's reply) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Mar 93 00:24:51 PST > On the subject of F/Es: does anyone know if Air Inter's unions got their way and > forced the airline to have an F/E in the A320? No they didn't! The A320 is operated universally with two-man crews. (At least, *almost* universally. There was some correspondence a while back about a possible variant which did allow for an F/E, but I can't remember the details. Perhaps Robert could remind me!) There was certainly no F/E on the Air Inter flight which crashed near Strasbourg. Pete ---- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Sq., London EC1V 0HB, Tel: +44(0)71-477-8422, JANET: p.mellor@city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Tue Mar 23 00:24:54 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) Subject: Re: hydraulic failure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Mar 93 00:24:54 PST joe@montebello.soest.hawaii.edu (Joe Dellinger) writes: >Now... a year after the event I'm sort of curious. Just how BAD >a mechanical failure was that? It seems to me that not being able to turn >the nose wheel at all and having to lower the landing gear by hand-crank >is sort of NOT A GOOD SIGN. It's no big deal, actually. Large transport aircraft typically have 3-4 hydraulic systems, with the most levels of redundancy applying to the primary flight controls (ailerons, elevators and rudder). Other systems, such as landing gear and flap extension/retraction, normal and emergency wheel brakes and nosewheel steering, have fewer levels of hydraulic backup and are spread out among the separate hydraulic systems. Nosewheel steering is among the less critical systems employing hydraulic pressure -- perhaps the *least* critical -- so it generally gets its actuation pressure from only one hydraulic system. If the nosewheel steering fails, it's a simple matter to steer the airplane with the rudder, and center it on the runway before slowing to a speed at which rudder authority is lost. As for cranking down the landing gear, that's a simple, straightforward procedure, albeit an uncommon one. >And why did we fly straight through such awful weather to get back to LA? Why >didn't they go above it, or around it, or something? Difficult to say for sure without knowing the facts of that particular situation. Returning to LAX via the most direct route might've been considered more important under the circumstances than sticking to the best route for a smooth ride. And maybe the turbulence was worse than anticipated. >How often do such "minor hydraulic failures" occur? Are they fairly common? Not very. I've probably flown hundreds of hours in commercial aircraft since my first flight in 1960, and I've never experienced an inflight emergency. Nor do I know anyone personally who has. >This one didn't make either the LA or Honolulu papers. Is that typical? Sure. Inflight malfunctions such as this one are relatively rare, but they do happen from time to time. And since the passengers were never in any danger, the incident wasn't newsworthy. Your plane probably could've made it all the way without further incident, but it's standard procedure (and common sense) to land as soon as possible when an inflight failure occurs, simply as a precaution. Geoff -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Menlo Park, California -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- From kls Tue Mar 23 00:24:56 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: hydraulic failure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Mar 93 00:24:56 PST >> January 5, 1992, I was flying back to Honolulu from LAX (after missing >>seeing an annular solar eclipse at sunset because of clouds) on Delta >>flight 123 (don't know what kind of jet it was!). According to an OAG from a couple of months later that would have been a Lockheed L-1011, aka TriStar. (BTW, I was down in LA for that same eclipse, with similar results. SFO-LAX is a lot shorter and cheaper, however!) >Large transport aircraft typically have 3-4 hydraulic systems Four if it was indeed an L-1011. >As for cranking down the landing gear, that's a simple, straightforward >procedure, albeit an uncommon one. Is is visually checking the locking of the gear, yet confusion over this procedure ultimately led to the crash of United's DC-8-61 N8082U at Portland, Oregon on 28 Dec 1978. Similar problems had earlier led to the loss of an Eastern L-1011 (N310EA) at Miami on 29 Dec 1972. >Inflight malfunctions such as this one are relatively rare, but they >do happen from time to time. And since the passengers were never in any >danger, the incident wasn't newsworthy. Fortunately Delta's run of bad luck of a few years ago, and the attendant publicity, has subsided. I remember when a Delta flight having a flat tire on landing (not at all uncommon) would make the national news. >Your plane probably could've made it all the way without further >incident, but it's standard procedure (and common sense) to land as >soon as possible when an inflight failure occurs, simply as a precaution. Of course being over a vast amount of water in this case was a further encouragement since there aren't any alternatives between LAX and the Hawaiian islands. Another minor consideration in this case might have been that LAX is a major base for Delta, and thus an easier place to perform major repairs if required, whereas Hawaii is, I suspect, some- what less well equipped. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Tue Mar 23 01:09:45 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: elschaef@hwking.cca.cr.rockwell.com (Ellen Schaefer) Subject: Re: A340s in United's future? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Mar 93 01:09:45 PST [Forwarded with Ellen's permission from an e-mail exchange. Ellen's disclaimer: "I'm not a spokesperson for the company, and the quotes from the Times do not necessarily represent my own opinions."] > If the Seattle Times had more information I'd be greatful for a bit > more detail. Here are some of the excerpts that probably started the rumors: Feb. 14, 1993: "Is Airbus Industrie, the European rival to the Boeing Co., about to risk an international trade war to drastically under cut Boeing's newest model, the 777 twinjet? [several paragraphs skipped] Late last week, Boeing disputed reports that United, one of its biggest customers, intends to cancel orders for 86 jetliners scheduled for delivery between now and the end of 1995. But senior United executives had quietly spread that word among key industry analysts earlier in the week. ... Word on Wall Street is that Airbus is offering Northwest's A340s to United under terms that translate into a 23-30 per- cent discount of the list price of $105 million a jet. Because Airbus is sponsored by social democratic governments concerned with keeping workers employed, Airbus' only other alternative would be to build the jets and park them as so- called 'white tails', .. Now along comes Airbus pitching the long-range, four-engine A340 for the bargain basement price of $85 million. The jet is available immediately for minimal out-of-pocket cash via a so-called 'walk-away lease', industry sources said. Under such a lease, an airline essentially pays rent for the airplanes, with little or no money down, and can return the jets at any time to Airbus. 'If you're United, how do you resist this deal? You don't," said Mark Bobbi, market analyst at Forecast International. Feb. 11, 1993: "A worry for Boeing is that Eorpean Airbus Industrie, the European consortium also suffering from delivery delays and cancellations might try to entice United to lease its jets instead of buying Boeing airliners. United did just that last July in leasing A320s instead of buying Boeing 737s." -Ellen L. Schaefer From kls Tue Mar 23 01:09:46 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: h andrew chuang Subject: Re: 757-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Mar 93 01:09:46 PST In article Karl Swartz wrote: >The current Airliners Monthly News (AMN, March 1993) includes the >following on p. 26: > > A 23ft 4in stretched fuselage version of the 757 is being > considered by Boeing, along with a long-range model with > increased gross weights. > I really doubt Boeing will seriously consider this program. With the stretch, a "757-300" will have similar range and capacity as a 767-200. With the long range version, it will compete with the 767-200ER. It just doesn't make sense that Boeing would want to compete with itself. Even if the streched 757's will have significant performance advantages over the 767's, a 757 is still a narrow body, and a narrow body configuration for long haul operations will simply irritate airline passengers! IMHO, the only 757 derivative that makes sense is a shortened version to fill in the gap between 737-400's and 757-200's (as well as to compete with A320's). However, this will be feasible only if a derated PW2000 or RB211-535 is available. To "re-engine" the 757 derivative with CFM56's or V2500's most likely will not be well-received by current 757 customers. Perhaps, the reason that the 757 is the only aircraft in the Boeing family that does not have a derivative is because Boeing doesn't want to cut into either the 737 or the 767 market. (Since I mentioned that re-engining a 757 may not make sense, I would also like to point out that Airbus may face the same dilemma when they want to grow the A340's beyond the -300.) -- --------------------------------------------------------------- | H. Andrew Chuang || Tel: (513) 774-5267 | | LEA || Fax: (513) 774-5171 | | GE Aircraft Engines || Email: chuang@hp659.crd.ge.com | --------------------------------------------------------------- personal opinions... not speaking for GE Aircraft Engines From kls Tue Mar 23 01:09:48 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 757-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Mar 93 01:09:48 PST H. Andrew Chuang writes: >I really doubt Boeing will seriously consider this program. With the >stretch, a "757-300" will have similar range and capacity as a 767-200. I'm not sure how important the 767-200 really is these days -- my impression is that most new 767 orders are for the -300. In any case the 757 would probably have significant fuel burn advantages as well as a lower acquisition cost versus a 767. >a 757 is still a narrow body, and a narrow body configuration for >long haul operations will simply irritate airline passengers! The 757 already operates some pretty long routes, including trans- Atlantic charters and U.S. to Hawaii. In choosing to operate the 757 on the latter routes, United noted that most of the traffic would be vacation travellers who were more interested in low fares than in comfort -- United's DC-8s served well on these routes until quite recently. >IMHO, the only 757 derivative that makes sense is a shortened version to >fill in the gap between 737-400's and 757-200's (as well as to compete with >A320's). I noted last year that a shortened 757 seemed like a winner, to which Greg Wright commented that Boeing had never successfully shortened an aircraft. I still think the reasons for that are irrelavent to a "757-100" but it got me thinking about the 757 further. After doing some research I was amazed at just how large an aircraft the 757 is. Wing area is about twice a 737 and MGTOW is nearly twice the heaviest 737. In these figures a 757 also greatly exceeds a 727-200 Advanced and has tremendous range to boot -- over 4,500 miles. Something roughly comparable to the 727-200, perhaps a wee bit bigger, seems quite desireable. But the more I look at the 757 the clearer it seems that it isn't the right place to start, despite first appearances. (This is borne out by comments from several Boeing folks who cite a variety of economic and political reasons as well.) >However, this will be feasible only if a derated PW2000 or RB211-535 >is available. To "re-engine" the 757 derivative with CFM56's or >V2500's most likely will not be well-received by current 757 customers. Not only that but a "757-100" with reasonable range would likely push the CFM56 and V2500 to their limits. Look at the A320, which barely has sufficient range for many North American routes (some would say that it isn't even barely adequate), and the A321, which isn't even close (though it may do just fine for most European routes). There really does seem to be a gap in engine offerings here. >Since I mentioned that re-engining a 757 may not make sense ... ... >H. Andrew Chuang >GE Aircraft Engines Come now, you'd really like to see Boeing re-engine the 757 -- with GE engines, right? ;-) (Seriously, it's good to see someone from one of the engine manufacturers contributing to the group. Welcome!) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Tue Mar 23 11:02:24 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: winslade@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Winslade) Subject: Re: Airliners landing in water References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Mar 93 11:02:24 PST drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) writes: >Not for long. The only case I am aware of where an airliner full of >pax was ditched (controlled touchdown on the water) was a Boeing >Stratocruiser in the North Pacific, perhaps in the early 50's. >Partly due to excellent navigation and communications, a brilliant >rescue was completed, I believe without the loss of a single life. This sounds very much like the ditching/rescue filmed in the Coast Guard's documentary film _Rescue_On_Ocean_Station_November_ which was in the late 50's or early 60's, I guess. It's mostly taken from 8mm film shot by a guy on the crew of the ship, but it's quite viewable. If I remember correctly, it was a flight from LA to Hono. that lost (as in quit) two engines just before midpoint. The film showed the fuselage broken in two, but it stayed afloat long enough for all crew and passengers to be rescued. Any large USCG installation should have a copy of this, as it's been used as a recruiting/publicity film for many years. Good day JSW From kls Tue Mar 23 11:02:28 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) Subject: Re: Airliners landing in water References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Mar 93 11:02:28 PST drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) writes: >The only case I am aware of where an airliner full of pax was ditched >(controlled touchdown on the water) was a Boeing Stratocruiser in the >North Pacific, perhaps in the early 50's. A Japan Air Lines DC-8-62 landed in San Francisco Bay just short of runway 28 in 1969. The plane's buoyancy wasn't tested because the water was shallow enough that it settled on its landing gear, but there didn't seem to be major structural damage. I remember the newspaper photograph of the airplane being lifted out of the water by a trio of crane barges, and there was no obvious damage. (Corrosion was another story, though, and I'm sure the fan and compressor blades weren't a pretty sight.) The airplane was repaired by United at the SFO overhaul facility and was returned to service several months later. As an aside, a former boss of mine was a rescue swimmer aboard the Coast Guard cutter that was standing by when the Pan Am Stratocruiser ditched. He said it was an amazing sight. mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman) writes: [...] >anyhow, the pilot said to the co-pilot, "We got new cards, did you see >them???" and the co-pilot started laughing very loudly, and I asked him >what was so funny... and he told me (while pointing to a very well drawn >picture of an aircraft floating on water), "Like this thing would float!?" Well, you never know until it happens. Many of us in the C-130 community got a big laugh out of the similar drawing in the -130 flight manual that depicted a floating Herk, with the usual arrows depicting escape routes. Then a Colombian C-130 ditched, and the newspaper photograph was virtually an exact duplicate of the drawing in the Dash One! Geoff -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Menlo Park, California -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- From kls Tue Mar 23 11:02:29 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 2, 3, 4 engines-- what's actually safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Mar 93 11:02:29 PST In article gabrielh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au wrote: >|> Yes, there is a quite recent example. Kegworth, England. There was a >|> fire in one engine, and the crew misinterpreted the indications and shut >|> off fuel to the *other* engine. QED. (Details from memory.) > >I believe in this case the fire warning indicators for the two engines >were incorrectly wired (they were reversed). > >There was NO error on the part of the crew. The switches and indicators were correctly wired. It was crew error. There was a *separate*, *independent* set of reports that the ever-diligent media dug up in order to provide "possibilities," following the crash. Media behavior in this case was similar to that following the recent El Al crash: the most spectacular AD on the top of the stack, dealing with a likely subsystem, got the most publicity, even if there was little reason from published evidence to indicate a relationship. In this case, the press ran away with its conjecture, especially in England. And, as always, the final results are given less "sensational" coverage than the original coverage. The AAIB (Aircraft Accident Investigation Board) found that the cause was crew error, and listed a long set of human factors issues that needed to be addressed. Paramount was the use and design of the Smiths Industries LCD-based engine instrumentation, which provides digital instantaneous data and a low-resolution LCD "needle" for trend vectors. This type of display, while undoubtedly much cheaper to produce than conventional electro- mechanical dials or CRT displays, has significant problems (to my mind obvious problems--I couldn't believe the first pictures of the prototypes that were published in AvLeak). >BA examined several other Boeing aircraft from the same order and found >they had the same problem. I can't remember the plane type >but I recal the episode prompted quite a stir in the UK and at Boeing. Boeing had a quality control problem in the mid-late 80's, due to an explosion of orders and a shortage of qualified manpower. These received quite a bit of press, both before and following the Kegworth accident. They started following the JAL disaster. By 1990, the reports had stopped. Boeing's immediate response was to hire a lot of experienced workers from Lockheed; it also tightened up production standards to reduce the possibility of "wrong connector" type incidents. A few latent reports about a drop in overall workmanship (BA, I believe, refused to accept a plane that had a bad finish) persisted. One of the av-rags noted that more airlines were keeping their own inspectors on-site to monitor the progress of their airplanes. This used to be a standard practice, years ago, but died out. Boeing disputed the significance of the problems reported, claiming they were well-documented isolated incidents. And, in all fairness, the organ- izations doing the complaining had been themselves under the spotlight, and needed to be perceived as being "on the ball." A minor nit: note that the airplane in question was a British Midland Airways 737-400, not a BA 737. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Tue Mar 23 11:02:31 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) Subject: 727 deep stall (Re: tip vortices *do* exist!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Mar 93 11:02:31 PST In jonathan@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Thornburg) writes: >On this same trip, coming in to Salt Lake City over >the Wasatch mountains, I could clearly see the spoilers being deployed >several times, *without* their being any perceptable roll. I believe >the Salt Lake City approach path is somewhat notorious for requiring >rapid altitude loss. (Indeed, one of the early B-727 deep stall crashes >was on such an approach, I think.) Do you have a reference for this crash (how about Robert or Karl?)? I wasn't aware that any 727s had been lost to deep stall. I was actually under the impression that 727s were somewhat immune to deep stall and that the designers had spent considerable effort getting this T-tail bugaboo out. I've seen several videos of 727s in stall testing - seemed pretty straight-forward. I do know that BAC 1-11s have a history of deep stall problems - in fact one was lost to a deep stall during testing. However, I was also under the impression that the 1-11's stall problems had been fixed (via a placard? do not stall! I dunno). greg -- Gregory Reed Travis D P S I Data Parallel Systems Incorporated greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!) Bloomington, IN greg@indiana.edu (For the others) From kls Tue Mar 23 11:02:37 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,rec.travel.air,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: sci.aeronautics.airliners now available via e-mail Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Mar 93 11:02:37 PST For people without Usenet access, as well as for those who just prefer mail, the sci.aeronautics.airliners newsgroup is now available via e-mail. This is a relay of all official articles posted to the group; mail *to* the list simply goes to the same submission address as for the newsgroup, which is moderated. The list is machine-maintained using Brant Chapman's MajorDomo package. While modelled along the lines of LISTSERV, it is not the same, so RTFM even if you already known LISTSERV. Administrative requests, such as requests to be added to the list, should be sent to majordomo@chicago.com with the requests in the *body* of the message. Further instructions are attached. (For convenience, listserv@chicago.com also works. Any requests to the submission address will be ignored.) As always, submissions for the group should be sent to airliners@chicago.com -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com *** Majordomo Instructions *** To use majordomo, users email requests to an alias that pipes their message to majordomo. The commands that majordomo understands are: subscribe [
] Subscribe yourself (or
if specified) to the named . unsubscribe [
] Unsubscribe yourself (or
if specified) from the named . which [
] Find out which lists you (or
if specified) are on. who Find out who is on the named . info Retrieve the general introductory information for the named . lists Show the lists served by this ListServ. help Retrieve this message. end Stop processing commands (useful if your mailer adds a signature). *** airliners.info *** This is the mailing list form of sci.aeronautics.airliners, a moderated Usenet newsgroup. Submissions to the newsgroup/list should be mailed to airliners@chicago.com or may be posted to the newsgroup if your news system properly handles posting to moderated groups, something a depressingly large number of systems do a dismal job of. Administrative questions pertaining to the newsgroup should be mailed to airliners-admin@chicago.com Requests pertaining to the mailing list should be mailed to majordomo@chicago.com Note that this is an automated system which processes commands in the *body* of the message -- commands in the subject line will be cheerfully ignored. While this software was inspired by the BITNET LISTSERV, it is not LISTSERV and uses different commands. The command help will return a list of commands. (For convenience, listserv is a mail alias for majordomo.) From kls Wed Mar 24 21:43:39 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: The Sporty Game -- Boeing 757 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Mar 93 21:43:39 PST In article gregory@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Greg Wright) writes: >In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>I'm *still* surprised that Boeing hasn't made much noise (maybe none) >>about plugging this obvious hole by offering a 757-100 or whatever -- >>a shortened 757 like the original proposal and a real replacement for >>the 727-200. Even with United it never seemed to come up, instead all >>the discussion focussing on a massively stretched and pulled and re- >>designed 737-600. True, a 757 is more expensive (~ $45 million versus >>$30 - 35 million) but the changes embodied in the 737-600 would surely >>have added tremendously to the price. > I think that you will find that every attempt at a shortened version >of one of our planes has had limited success. Take the 747SP for example. >Airlines tend not to like the sorted versions very much. In $/seat or $/mile >these versions are too expensive to run. There is a real problem having >too much engine or wing with them. We find it is better to stretch if >anything.... I agree that the shortened Boeings haven't done all that well. But look at them carefully and I think you'll find it has more to do with the fact that these planes filled only a small market niche or missed what the market really wanted. The 720 was the first shrunken Boeing, if you'll accept that it was a 707 shortened and modified for medium-range work. The airlines wanted something cheaper to operate than the 707 and the 720 didn't make that significant a dent in operating costs -- it couldn't with four engines. Boeing knew that, but perhaps hesitated to do the right thing because the airlines were not sufficiently confident in jets to accept only two engines and the compromise of three was too weird. Of course the compromise ultimately *was* produced, in the form of the 727, and was a very successful aircraft indeed. The 747SP, in contrast, simply never had a large market, at least not as far as I can see with 20-20 hindsight. The DC-8-62 had already shown that, while a market existed for a really, *really* long range jetliner, it just wasn't that big. Small wonder tht only 45 instances of the 'SP were produced. (I would expect the A340-200 to be somewhat less than a stellar success for similar reasons.) The only other shortened version of a Boeing that comes to mind is the 737-500. I'm not sure if it's better to think of it as a shortened -300 or a new technology 737-200, with the -300 as the stretched version which just happened to be built first. In any case, I don't have any references handy but it wouldn't come as a great surprise if the -500 hasn't done as well as the larger -300, even factoring out the fact that the -300 has been around for a much longer time. On the other hand I suspect the -500 has done better than the largest 737, the -400. In contrast to at least the 720 and the 747SP, there would seem to be a huge market for an efficient 727-200 replacement, or if you prefer a 150-seat airliner with a trans-continental range. The question, then, is whether or not a shortened 757 (let's call it a 757-100) could efficiently fill this role. My first impression was that since the 757 started off at this size, and was stretched to the 180-seat range primarily to secure British Airway's launch order, the 150-seat version would be easy, much like doing the 737-500 well after the 737-300 came out. Any fool can guess, though, and this fool ;-) wanted some hard numbers to back up such an argument. After tracking down said numbers, I put my response on ice (note that the original exchange took place last autumn) as the number said the job of shrinking the 757 would really be quite an undertaking. For comparison, here are a few key figures: model pass range MGTOW w.span w.area engines thrust ----- ---- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ------ 737-200(A) 120 2840 128.6 93.0 980 2 JT8D-17A 16000 737-300 141 2950 139 94.8 980 2 CFM56-3B2 22000 737-400 159 2800 150.5 94.8 980 2 CFM56-3C1 23500 727-200(A) 145 2240 191.5 108.0 1560 3 JT8D-15A 15500 757-200 186-220 4550 220 124.8 1951 2 PW2037 38250 where range is maximum still-air in miles, weight is in pounds, and wing span and area are in feet and square feet, respectively. For the 727 and 737 I listed the heaviest version for each series; the 220,000 lb. 757 is the *lightest* for that type. All numbers are from a spec chart in AW&ST (March 16, 1992). Clearly the 757-200 is a *much* larger aircraft than the 727-200 in every regard. Creating a 757-100 to replace the 727-200(A) would most likely entail significant redesign of the wing (reduced span would probably be an operational requirement due to gate space, while the much larger area suggests greater drag -- producing greater lift to permit the higher weights and range, but the higher performance would not be necessary and thus the drag wouldn't be acceptable). Landing gear would most likely be redesigned too, at least the mains, to use two-wheel mains to save some weight. And then there are the engines: as discussed elsewhere in this group, shrinking the RB.211 and PW2000 doesn't seem likely, yet switching to the CFM56 or V2500 has quite a few liabilities as well. Working from the other direction, a 737-600 would probably need a new wing (but so might the 757-100) and new landing gear (the 737-400 is already at the length limit with the current gear) but the engine options seem more reasonable. Given the price difference the 737 would probably be much more attractive to airlines. I'm still not convinced a further stretched 737 is the right plane to address this market, but a shrunken 757 doesn't seem feasible. (The prospects for a wholly new airframe would likely be even worse.) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Mar 25 00:08:02 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: 757-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Mar 93 00:08:02 PST Karl Swartz writes > >a 757 is still a narrow body, and a narrow body configuration for > >long haul operations will simply irritate airline passengers! > > The 757 already operates some pretty long routes, including trans- > Atlantic charters and U.S. to Hawaii. In choosing to operate the > 757 on the latter routes, United noted that most of the traffic > would be vacation travellers who were more interested in low > fares than in comfort -- United's DC-8s served well on these > routes until quite recently. > Yes, the 757 has some pretty long routes, and few people are happy about that. The latest issue of Frequent Flyer (the magazine that comes with the pocket OAG) had a long article complaining about the use of 757s on long routes. 757s might work on routes like mainland-Hawaii where, as you note, people place price over comfort, but I suspect that on most routes widebodies would have a competitive edge. Ciao, Stefano --- Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Thu Mar 25 00:08:04 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) Subject: Re: 757-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Mar 93 00:08:04 PST HAC> == H. Andrew Chuang KS> == Karl Swartz HAC> IMHO, the only 757 derivative that makes sense is a shortened version HAC> to fill in the gap between 737-400's and 757-200's (as well as to HAC> compete with A320's). KS> I noted last year that a shortened 757 seemed like a winner, to which KS> Greg Wright commented that Boeing had never successfully shortened an KS> aircraft. Arguably, the 737-500 is a shortening of the -300; yes, yes, I *know* it's the same size as the -200, but it's in the "new generation" 737 series. Certainly that model seems to be doing well (or maybe it's just that Southwest is buying them all :). KS> I still think the reasons for that are irrelavent to a "757-100" but KS> it got me thinking about the 757 further. After doing some research I KS> was amazed at just how large an aircraft the 757 is. Wing area is KS> about twice a 737 and MGTOW is nearly twice the heaviest 737. In KS> these figures a 757 also greatly exceeds a 727-200 Advanced and has KS> tremendous range to boot -- over 4,500 miles. The 757 is what I like to call a "teenager"--very gangly, doesn't look its true size, has lots of spare energy... HAC> However, this will be feasible only if a derated PW2000 or RB211-535 HAC> is available. KS> There really does seem to be a gap in engine offerings here. True. But if a derated engine did become available, wouldn't it have really good MTBF numbers? (Isn't that one of the big advantages of derating?) This would imply that a theoretical 757-100 with, say, derated RB211s would have the dispatch reliability and time-between-maintenance to serve in many of the current 727 "feeder" and "shuttle" roles. (But can it land at LGA? If so, other advantages, especially with derating, could include quieter engines and faster [therefore noise-abating] takeoffs.) KS> (Seriously, it's good to see someone from one of the engine KS> manufacturers contributing to the group. Welcome!) Agreed; the amount of real expertise here (both professional and `amateur') is incredible. I think a great deal of the thanks must go to our moderator as well (and I'm not just saying this so he'll post my message :) (Note also that I am *not* a real expert of either type, so I can't claim that what I've said about derated engines is correct. But I hope to be corrected by those who *do* know, and learn therefrom.) -- * Christopher Davis * * * [CKD1] * MIME * RIPEM * 226 Transfer complete. 17512509 bytes received in 5.2e+02 seconds (33 Kbytes/s) From kls Thu Mar 25 00:08:07 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: h andrew chuang Subject: Re: 757-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Mar 93 00:08:07 PST Karl Swartz wrote: >I noted last year that a shortened 757 seemed like a winner, to which >Greg Wright commented that Boeing had never successfully shortened an >aircraft. I still think the reasons for that are irrelavent to a Is that right? How about 720 (shortened 707-100) and 747SP (shortened 747)? Neither sold very well, but I don't consider them aerodynamically unsuccessful. And, technically speaking, isn't the 737-500 a shortened version of 300/400, rather than a lengthened version of 100/200? >some research I was amazed at just how large an aircraft the 757 is. >Wing area is about twice a 737 and MGTOW is nearly twice the heaviest I noticed the same thing when I was comparing the 757 with A321. >There really does seem to be a gap in engine offerings here. Agree. That's why Airbus will have a hard time to find a powerplant if it plans to grow its A340 beyond -300. But the gap is really within an engine manufacturer not the engines. Thrust-wise, the gap between a PW2037 (37K) and a CFM56-5C4 (34.5K) is very small. Size-wise and weight-wise, PW2000 is a lot larger and heavier. Unfortunately, it will be very undesirable for Airbus to offer the A340 with CFM engine at one end, and P&W engine at the other end. Also, Airbus needs to structually change the wing to mount the heavier P&W engines. >Come now, you'd really like to see Boeing re-engine the 757 -- with GE >engines, right? ;-) Actually, GE did have an engine for the 757 -- CF6-32. Unfortunately the program was cancelled when GE was not able to secure an order from AA. Ironically, AA ordered a lot of PW2000's without ordering the 757, and later cancelled that P&W order. Presently, AA is flying RR-powered 757's. However, by "re-engine" I meant introducing a brand new engine for the "new" 757. Obviously, this kind of "re-engine" is very unpopular: for example, Rolls Royce was a late comer in the MD-11 program (since RR engines was not offered on the DC-10), and RR was only able to find one customer (but the airline went bankrupt, and MD-11/RR program was cancelled). That's why I said using CFM engines on "757-100" does not make sense from an airline's point of view. IMHO, GE is very lucky that it only misses the 757 market, since the 757 is probably the least successful Boeing program. >(Seriously, it's good to see someone from one of >the engine manufacturers contributing to the group. Welcome!) I am glad to be here, but I probably can't provide as much "insight" to the engines as the Boeing guys can to their airplanes. :-( -- --------------------------------------------------------------- | H. Andrew Chuang || Tel: (513) 774-5267 | | LEA || Fax: (513) 774-5171 | | GE Aircraft Engines || Email: chuang@hp659.crd.ge.com | --------------------------------------------------------------- personal opinions... not speaking for GE Aircraft Engines From kls Thu Mar 25 00:08:09 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 757-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Mar 93 00:08:09 PST Stefano Pagiola writes: >the 757 has some pretty long routes, and few people are happy about that. Who cares? As Richard Ferris, former head of United, allegedly said to Boeing with regard to the 767: "Don't bug me about double-aisle or seven-abreast. I want the most efficient airplane. Just guarantee the seat-mile perform- ance. As for customer preference, I couldn't care less." One wouldn't normally associate Southwest and comfort either, but that doesn't seem to be keeping people from stepping all over each other to help keep Southwest solidly in the black. The lower frontal area of a narrow body aircraft generally means lower drag -- and lower operating costs -- as compared to a wide-body. With airlines constantly driving prices down they'll do anything they can to reduce costs, and if they can get away with operating an aircraft that's less comfortable for passengers to do so, so be it. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Mar 25 00:08:17 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 757-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Mar 93 00:08:17 PST Christopher Davis writes: >Arguably, the 737-500 is a shortening of the -300 ... >Certainly that model seems to be doing well (or maybe it's just that >Southwest is buying them all :). United has been averaging around two new 737-500s per month for over two years now; Braathens SAFE seems to be getting a fair number of them as well. Lufthansa and LOT are buying them as well, though not quite in bulk. >This would imply that a theoretical 757-100 with, say, derated RB211s >would have the dispatch reliability and time-between-maintenance to >serve in many of the current 727 "feeder" and "shuttle" roles. One of the keys to shuttle operations is fully amortized aircraft, which don't have to work as hard to earn their keep. Thus Electras (until recently) on Varig's Ponte Aerea shuttle, old 727s on Delta's ex-Pan Am shuttle in the northeastern U.S., and old 737-200s on many of United's mid-day Los Angeles - San Francisco "shuttle" flights. Same thing goes for United's intra-European feeds out of Heathrow and de Gaulle, which use their oldest 727-200s for a single round-trip per day. For work like this, most any new aircraft is simply too expensive to acquire, regardless of operating costs. >can [a 757] land at LGA? Easily. So can a DC-10, L-1011, or A-300 for that matter. The 757 also seems to be popular at Orange County, with its over-restrictive noise abatement regulations. >Agreed; the amount of real expertise here (both professional and `amateur') >is incredible. I think a great deal of the thanks must go to our moderator >as well (and I'm not just saying this so he'll post my message :) >Note also that I am *not* a real expert of either type ... I'm no more of an expert on these matters than your are -- I just play one on the net! ;-) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Mar 25 00:08:27 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 757-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Mar 93 00:08:27 PST H. Andrew Chuang wrote: >Ironically, AA ordered a lot of PW2000's without ordering the 757, >and later cancelled that P&W order. What on earth for? Did they buy them in anticipation of a 757 order which did not, at the time, materialize? I've never heard of anyone buying the engines before the airframe, though with Crandall at the controls I suppose just about anything can happen. >IMHO, GE is very lucky that it only misses the 757 market, since the >757 is probably the least successful Boeing program. While the 757 got off to an exceedingly slow start, deliveries caught up with and surpassed the 767 about a year ago. The gap is now about 50 aircraft and widening. The 757 sells for less, of course, but it also is cheaper to build due to all the commonality with the 727 and 737, plus the 757 orders seem to be fewer and larger. At this point I'd think the 757 is doing quite nicely for Boeing. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Mar 25 00:08:38 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Another 747 autopilot incident. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Mar 93 00:08:38 PST The recent FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL report on a 747-100 missed-approach incident mentioned an earlier one, taking place in 1989. I looked it up: the following is some interim coverage of that incident. There don't seem to be overwhelming similarities. -------------------------------- >From FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL, 18-24 July, 1990: BA REPORT REVEALS LHR 747 OVERSHOOT FROM 75ft. "A British Airways Boeing 747, involved in a low offset overshoot incident at Heathrow last November, came as low as 75ft (23m), a confidental letter to BA 747 aircrew from the airline's chief 747 pilot has revealed. The aircraft almost landed outside the airfield boundary (FI, November 29, 1989). "The 747 was inbound from Mauritius via Bahrain. The flight engineer and co-pilot were suffering from gastroenteritis and the copilot had to rest in the cabin for three hours during the flight. "The weather was bad and a Cat 3 landing was needed, the copilot was new and had not completed his initial Cat 3 training detail, so the captain obtained BA permission for the copilot to fly to all-weather minima. "The aircraft, with A autopilot set, intercepted runway 27R ILS. At 13 nm "Land" was selected and the B autopilot engaged. The aircraft captured altitude, then localizer at 10 nm, at which point the engineer called a steady red warning on the B autopilot. The Flight Data Recorder shows that shortly after, both autopilots were disconnected and the aircraft flown manually in the "heading" mode. "Dual Green/Flare Arm annunciators were not obtained from either autopilot. To obtain these, both flight directors (DFs) must annunciate Flare Arm. Each FD can only do this when the aircraft is elow 1500 ft. radio altitude (R), the ILS localizer "on course" conditions have been met for 5 seconds, and "Land" is selected. B autopilot was selected as the centerline was crossed so the conditions were not met. Had the aircraft been flown manually to localizer alignment, then autopilots re-engaged, the aircraft would have captured the ILS and achieved an autoland. "Without the annunciations, autoland was impossible at at 1000' (300m) R the crew should have abandoned the autoland and either gone around or continued to Cat I minima. They continued the approach but did not change their minima. "After deviating to the left, the 747 re-crossed the centreline at 577ft, heading 280 degrees and continued to deviate at an angle of about 5 degrees. At 500' the ILS deviation lights illuminated but the aircraft was allowed to continue to deviate to beyond ILS full-scale deflection and descended to 250' before the autopilots were disconnected. Some 17 seconds elapsed between the ILS deviation lights coming on and autopilot disconnection. "After the autopilots were disconnected the 747 continued to descend for another 7 seconds until power was applied at 120ft and the aircraft began to pitch up very slowly at less than 1 deg/sec (at least 3 deg/sec is normal). The minimum radio altitude recorded was 75 feet. "The captain, who later resigned, subsequently made a successful auto approach and manual landing using B autopilot. In checks the A autopilot was serviceable, the B system roll computer failed." From kls Thu Mar 25 00:08:43 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 727 deep stall (Re: tip vortices *do* exist!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Mar 93 00:08:43 PST In article you write: >In jonathan@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Thornburg) writes: > >>On this same trip, coming in to Salt Lake City over >>the Wasatch mountains, I could clearly see the spoilers being deployed >>several times, *without* their being any perceptable roll. The 727's spoilers can be used as speed brakes in-flight. >>I believe >>the Salt Lake City approach path is somewhat notorious for requiring >>rapid altitude loss. (Indeed, one of the early B-727 deep stall crashes >>was on such an approach, I think.) > >Do you have a reference for this crash (how about Robert or Karl?)? > >I wasn't aware that any 727s had been lost to deep stall. There haven't. >I was actually >under the impression that 727s were somewhat immune to deep stall They are. :-) The horizontal stabilizer surface area is larger and the tailplane itself is higher than the BAC-111. >and that >the designers had spent considerable effort getting this T-tail bugaboo >out. They did. :-) The 727 followed the 111, and the designers were certainly aware of the problems the 111 had. >I've seen several videos of 727s in stall testing - seemed pretty >straight-forward. Very gentle. See Paul Havis' "Test Flying and Building the Boeing 727 & 747" for some manufacturer stall footage. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Thu Mar 25 00:08:46 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) Subject: Re: 727 deep stall (Re: tip vortices *do* exist!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Mar 93 00:08:46 PST In article greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes: >In jonathan@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Thornburg) writes: > >>the Salt Lake City approach path is somewhat notorious for requiring >>rapid altitude loss. (Indeed, one of the early B-727 deep stall crashes >>was on such an approach, I think.) > >Do you have a reference for this crash (how about Robert or Karl?)? > Years ago the 727 accident report was published in Aviation Week. As I remember, they hung this one on the pilot. He had set up a high rate of descent inside the Final Approach Fix, and I don't recall that terrain was mentioned as a contributing factor. Might have been a failure to stabilize the approach. Anyway, one of the measures he took to get back down to the glide slope was to retard the thrust levers below a recommended minimum setting. This setting exists because turbine engines (particularly turbojets, as those installed in that 727) get sleepy at low thrust settings---they become very slow to respond to throttle changes. One reason is that automatic fuel controls are acting to keep from cooking the turbine. This in turn is one reason that landing jets have to hang out all sorts of drag-generating laundry to keep approach speeds reasonable while the engines are still pushing. The pilot finally caught the glide slope in close to the airport. When he pushed the levers forward to check the descent rate, almost nothing happened until too late. Result: "Failure to arrive at the airport prior to arrival at the ground." If a stall or deep stall was mentioned, it was only as a terminal effect of the previous actions. From kls Thu Mar 25 00:08:49 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Quagga Subject: Bayerische Motoren Werke Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Mar 93 00:08:49 PST Say there. Some years ago I had a vivid dream of taking an airliner trip over lovely puffy clouds over Monument Valley... looking back, I noticed a big 'ol BMW logo on the engine. Some months later BMW and Rolls-Royce announced they were going to produce aircraft engines... Anything ever come of this? Cheryl Douglas Design Engineer Cybervid Corporation Nashua NH USA quagga@trystro.uucp Equus Quagga, Unnofficial Mascot, Nellis AFB Nevada USA "My other car does Mach 8!" From kls Thu Mar 25 00:08:52 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Bayerische Motoren Werke References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Mar 93 00:08:52 PST >I noticed a big 'ol BMW logo on the engine. Do you mean the prop blur looked like a BMW logo? (For those who don't know, BMW made aircraft engines well before they got into the automobile business, and the logo is a sylized propeller with the blue and white representing sky and clouds, respectively, as well as being the state colors of Bavaria. BMWs are another love of mine -- when the opportunity arises I enjoy humiliating Porsches at Nelson Ledges and Laguna Seca with my 323i. :-) ) The last BMW-powered aircraft that I'm aware of are a small number of experimental Messerschmidt Me-262s. (Most used Junkers engines.) >Some months later BMW and Rolls-Royce announced they were going to >produce aircraft engines... Anything ever come of this? The engine is called the BR700. Last I knew it was still looking for an airframe, with the most likely candidate being the 70-100 seat jet which Deutsche Airbus (DASA, then MBB) and I think Fokker were talking about. With the A319 likely to be launched and built in Germany, I suspect the odds of this aircraft being built are slim. I'm not sure where that leaves the BR700 -- perhaps growth versions of the Canadair RJ? -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Mar 25 12:37:24 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: h andrew chuang Subject: Re: 757-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Mar 93 12:37:24 PST Karl Swartz wrote: >airlines constantly driving prices down they'll do anything they can >to reduce costs, and if they can get away with operating an aircraft >that's less comfortable for passengers to do so, so be it. Depending on the market needs. For short-haul operations, cargo requirement is usually low, a narrow-body airplane serves the market requirement well. For long-haul operations, cargo requirement is often, but not always, high. Therefore, a wide-body airplane may be desirable. If an airline is targeting long-haul, tourist-oriented routes, then 757-300's lower cost should make sense. However, most airlines are more eager to attract higher yield full-fare economy-, business- and first-class passengers, 757-300's configuration definitely doesn't make sense. Just as an example, Singapore Airlines chose to replace its very young 757 fleet (~ 5-year old and only 4 planes) with the A310 a few years ago. If the 757 really has a significant cost advantage, that would not have happened! >H. Andrew Chuang wrote: >>Ironically, AA ordered a lot of PW2000's without ordering the 757, >>and later cancelled that P&W order. > >What on earth for? Did they buy them in anticipation of a 757 order >which did not, at the time, materialize? I've never heard of anyone >buying the engines before the airframe, though with Crandall at the >controls I suppose just about anything can happen. Yes, the engines were ordered for an anticipated order of 757's. That was definitely a first, and P&W even advertised that event as a breakthrough in the industry. I don't remember exactly why AA didn't follow through with the 757 order, I think they claimed the economy was bad but they still ordered the 767 then. >>IMHO, GE is very lucky that it only misses the 757 market, since the >>757 is probably the least successful Boeing program. > >While the 757 got off to an exceedingly slow start, deliveries caught >up with and surpassed the 767 about a year ago. > ..... >I'd think the 757 is doing quite nicely for Boeing. Well, I don't agree. The 757 owns the 180-passenger market by itself (that is, before the short-haul A321 was launched, but I don't think the A321 should be classified in the same class as the short- to medium-haul 757), while the 767 is competing directly with the A300/A310. Therefore, if one looks at the total sales of the 757 and the combined 767/A300/A310 sales, one must question how on earth did Boeing come up with the 180-passenger design, especially when it was supposed to replace more than a thousand 727's! (If I remember correctly, the 757 was designed based on the assumption that the airports would not expand as fast as the traffic would grow, therefore a higher capacity plane than the 727 was needed. Also, the total operating cost for one trip on a 757 would remain the same as a 727, so with the extra 40 seats on the 757, the cost per seat was reduced by more than 25%.) Moreover, from engine manufacturers' standpoint (IMHO), PW2000 would need a lot more 757 sales to make business sense, because PW2000 has only one commerical application (and the military application is not doing that well, either)! That's why I said GE was lucky, if GE did launch the CF6-32, the 757 pie is simply too small for three engine manufacturers! Therefore, I still think the 757 is the least successful Boeing jet program because it did not achieve what it was supposed to achieve (to replace 727). The 737 program became so successful, again IMHO, because of Boeing's inability to convince customers to replace their 727's with 757's. That was when Boeing literally resurrected the 737 program by modernizing the 737, and hit the jackpot. I think the 737 has replaced more 727's than the 757, and I don't really think that was Boeing's envision when they lauched the 757. (Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Boeing, I think Boeing is a great company building great airplanes, they just made a small mistake with their wrong-sized 757's. Nonetheless, they were able to maintain the market by improving the 737. That's why I think Boeing is a great company because Boeing was able to timely correct their mistakes.) -- --------------------------------------------------------------- | H. Andrew Chuang || Tel: (513) 774-5267 | | LEA || Fax: (513) 774-5171 | | GE Aircraft Engines || Email: chuang@hp659.crd.ge.com | --------------------------------------------------------------- personal opinions... not speaking for GE Aircraft Engines From kls Mon Mar 29 12:15:30 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 727 deep stall (Re: tip vortices *do* exist!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Mar 93 12:15:30 PST In article you write: >Years ago the 727 accident report was published in Aviation Week. As I >remember, they hung this one on the pilot. He had set up a high rate of >descent inside the Final Approach Fix, and I don't recall that terrain >was mentioned as a contributing factor. Might have been a failure to >stabilize the approach. There are several such crashes, but none were deep stall incidents. >Anyway, one of the measures he took to get back down to the glide slope >was to retard the thrust levers below a recommended minimum setting. >This setting exists because turbine engines (particularly turbojets, as >those installed in that 727) get sleepy at low thrust settings---they >become very slow to respond to throttle changes. One reason is that >automatic fuel controls are acting to keep from cooking the turbine. > >This in turn is one reason that landing jets have to hang out all sorts >of drag-generating laundry to keep approach speeds reasonable while the >engines are still pushing. A pilot can normally retard the throttles all the way back to idle without having to worry about the fuel controller or flaming out the engine. The thrust at this setting can range from 300 lbs to 1000 lbs per engine. The reason for all the "drag- generating laundry" is the need to slow from very *high* speeds to relatively *slow* speeds in short amounts of time, combined with the very *clean* design of most airliners--without such devices, they would accelerate. All jet engines have a spool-up time from idle, usually under 8 seconds. I've never heard of a "safety setting" intended to reduce this spool-up time: it would have to be at a relatively high thrust setting, which would help defeat the purpose. Lag times are simply a fact of jet engines that have to be contended with. >If a stall or deep stall was mentioned, it was only as a terminal effect >of the previous actions. Do you have an issue date? Again, allegations of a "deep stall" are some- what serious, since it suggests the airplane is in an aerodynamic condition it *can't* escape from. In the case of the BAC-111, for example, aerodynamic effectiveness of the elevators was almost nil. If the 727 is actually capable of such a stall, I'd like to hear about it! :-) --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Mon Mar 29 12:15:33 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gary@maestro.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga) Subject: Re: 727 deep stall (Re: tip vortices *do* exist!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: gbisaga@mitre.org Organization: The Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Mar 93 12:15:33 PST In article , rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: |> In article you write: |> >In jonathan@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Thornburg) writes: |> > |> >>On this same trip, coming in to Salt Lake City over |> >>the Wasatch mountains, I could clearly see the spoilers being deployed |> >>several times, *without* their being any perceptable roll. |> |> The 727's spoilers can be used as speed brakes in-flight. I believe this is only true in the 72s if you're using flaps 1 or less, maybe up only. I need to check with my 727 pilot friends to be sure. I don't know where the "Wasatch mountains" are so I don't know whether they'd have any flaps deployed at that point. But, as you said, spoilers are used in many airplanes in flight, for example when the FMS requests "add drag". -- Gary Bisaga (gbisaga@mitre.org) From kls Mon Mar 29 12:15:34 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Dorsett gets to correct himself again! (Re: 727 deep stall) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Mar 93 12:15:34 PST In article I wrote: >They did. :-) The 727 followed the 111, and the designers were certainly >aware of the problems the 111 had. No! The 727 (Feb, 1, 1964) was released before the 111 (April 6, 1965) or the Trident (March 11, 1964), although the Trident's design period predated the 727's by several years, which led to some bad feelings on British Aerospace's side. As for the stabilizer (from _Case Study in Aircraft Design: The Boeing 727_, AIAA Professional Study Series, Sept. 14, 1978, in the article "Requirements and Major Decision Outline: Total Program," by J. E. Steiner, pp. 3-4): "All previous Boeing jet airplanes had had low horizontal tails (except the B-47 mid-tail) and we were acutely aware of some of the problems that "T" tails can get one into. [...] "[... a] 'conventional' [tail] was aerodynamically attracitve, and [...] 'low horizontal' gave us serious problems with the installation of the third engine. We finally decided on the "T" tail despite its difficulties. "Among other things, we made very extensive flutter investigations with both low and high speed flutter models. This was our first experience with high speed flutter models [...]. Prevention of flutter is the reason for the 727's horizontal tail anhedral. "I noted earlier that we were familiar with "T" tail troubles and we were, more or less. However, the BAC-111 locked-in-stall accidents had not yet happened and neither we, no so far as we knew, had anyone else really tested at angles of attack approaching 40 degrees (we later did--both in the wind tunnel and in flight). However, we did have one previous experience with a configuration which tended to go to extreme angles of attack and coincident- ally very high rates of descent, and I like to believe that this guided our elevator size and power selection. The 727 never was capable of getting into the BAC-111 situation." --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Mon Mar 29 12:15:40 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Dorsett Subject: Honeywell ELS to use Apple Quadra 800 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Mar 93 12:15:40 PST Reply-To: rdd@cactus.org Moved over PR Newswire at 9:29 am PST on Friday, March 26, 1993. Contact: Betty Taylor Apple Computer, Inc. 408-974-3983 Jim Veihdeffer Honeywell/Air Transport Systems Division 602-436-2203 Honeywell Adopts Apple's Macintosh Technology for Aircraft Information Systems PHOENIX, Arizona--March 26, 1993--Apple Macintosh computer technology will be placed in the cockpit to drive information management systems for the commercial airline market under an OEM agreement announced today between Apple Computer, Inc. and Honeywell Inc. Under the agreement, Honeywell, the industry leader in design and development of integrated avionics systems, will manufacture an Electronic Library System (ELS) incorporating a ruggedized avionics version of Apple's recently introduced Macintosh Quadra 800 high- performance personal computer. Honeywell's ELS is a state-of-the-art information management system designed to provide airline personnel-- flight crew, cabin attendants and ground maintenance crew--with timely access to all the information necessary to operate and maintain an aircraft (excluding aircraft control). The electronic library includes functions such as "hypertext" document retrieval of aircraft flight manuals, operational manuals, navigation charts and maintenance manuals. "Honeywell and Apple are paving the way toward satisfying a growing aviation industry need for automated information systems that reduce the tens of thousand of printed pages of text and graphics contained in flight kits," said Don Schwanz, vice president of marketing for Honeywell's Air Transport Systems Division. "Combining our ELS with Apple's proven, easy-to-use computing technology gives our customers a cost-effective and timely way to update and revise flight information, thereby improving total operating efficiencies. This technology will also give our end users unparalleled applications versatility." With the adoption of Macintosh technology, Honeywell plans to provide its airline customers with the capability to easily integrate and manipulate graphics, audio and video elements, and use commercially available off-the-shelf software. "This provides airborne software application compatibility with computer systems on the ground, and should help to incorporate more fully the aircraft into an airline's overall information management system," said Mark Anderson, Honeywell's lead engineer for the ELS project. "In effect, the airplane will become another node on the airline's information management network." The agreement marks the first time Apple has licensed Macintosh computer technology under such an OEM agreement. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed. "Apple believes Macintosh personal computing technology can add great value outside the realm of the traditional personal computer market," said Fred Forsyth, senior vice president and general manager of the Macintosh Systems Division. "This agreement with Honeywell marks the first step in our plans to extend our existing technology into new markets by working with selected OEM partners. There is clearly opportunity to leverage our powerful, yet easy-to-use technology in new ways and provide customized applications for specialized markets." Honeywell's ELS will be based on the the newest member of Apple's high-performance Macintosh Quadra line, the Quadra 800. A highly expandable system powered by a 33MHz Motorola 68040 microprocessor, the Quadra 800 offers a superior high-speed graphical computing solution with integrated high-speed networking and accelerated video architecture. "We see the Macintosh platform--with its enhanced graphics, leadership in multimedia development capabilities, support for major networking standards and multi-platform, client-host systems integration solutions--as particularly well-suited for the highly interactive, graphical computing environment Honeywell seeks to implement in ELS," said Eric Sirkin, manager of OEM business for Apple. "Macintosh foundation technologies, such as QuickTime and WorldScript, make it possible for Honeywell to develop a very intuitive system that can access text, graphics and other visual information at the touch of a finger." A number of key technologies influenced Honeywell's decision to select Apple for the ELS project. QuickTime 1.5, Apple's multimedia architecture for the Macintosh personal computer, provides users with the capabilities to cut, copy, and paste video, sound, and animation with the same ease of use that Macintosh customers have come to expect from working with graphics, data, and text. Apple's WorldScript technology makes it possible for developers to quickly localize applications for international customers. Both QuickTime and WorldScript are part of Apple's latest version of the Macintosh operating system software, System 7.1. Honeywell has the opportunity to draw from emerging System 7 technologies such as the Apple Open Collaboration Environment, AppleScript, and QuickDraw GX, which are designed to extend the capabilities of System 7--providing new levels of ease of use and enabling new solutions in integrated communications, customization of the computing environment and automation of tasks. Honeywell also said it plans to use Apple's next generation Macintosh computing platform, based on the PowerPC RISC architecture, in future generations of their ELS product. Honeywell's Commercial Flight Systems Group, based in Phoenix, Ariz. is the recognized world leader in the design and development of integrated avionics systems. Major product lines include: Electronic Flight Instrument Systems; Flight Management Systems; Inertial Reference Systems; satellite communications (SATCOM) systems; collision avoidance and windshear avoidance systems; and global navigation systems. In addition to products and systems, Honeywell has become the leader in flight deck integration with programs such as the McDonnell Douglas MD-11, Boeing 777, Gulfstream IV and Dornier 328. Headquartered in Cupertino, Calif., Apple Computer, Inc. is a leading supplier of computers to consumer, education, business and government markets worldwide. A recognized pioneer and innovator in the personal computer industry, Apple has been named first in customer satisfaction among business computer users in the United States for the past two years by J.D. Power and Associates. -30- Apple, the Apple logo and Macintosh are registered trademarks; and Macintosh Quadra, System 7, AppleScript, QuickDraw GX, WorldScript and QuickTime are trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc. END From kls Mon Mar 29 12:15:41 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mrtaylor@access.digex.com (Mark Taylor) Subject: Piano on Hindenburg (Q) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Mar 93 12:15:41 PST Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA I recently saw a photograph taken inside the zeppelin Hindenburg. Promenent in this picture was a piano. Does anyone know about this instrument? From kls Mon Mar 29 12:15:44 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: 757-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Mar 93 12:15:44 PST Karl Swartz writes > >the 757 has some pretty long routes, and few people are happy > > about that. > > One wouldn't normally associate Southwest and comfort > either, but that doesn't seem to be keeping people from > stepping all over each other to help keep Southwest > solidly in the black. Yes, but Southwest doesn't fly long routes. And they do have very low prices. As I said in my post, you certainly can trade price for comfort. But you won't attract those business travellers airlines would so dearly like to see. H. Andrew Chuang writes > the 757 is probably the least successful Boeing program. Not if you go by airframes sold. 757 production is up to about 520, while 767 production is in the 480 range. I think undelivered orders are in about the same ratio, but with all the order reshuffling going on that's hard to keep track of. Ciao, Stefano --- Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Mon Mar 29 12:15:45 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) Subject: Shortened Boeings (was: The Sporty Game -- Boeing 757) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Mar 93 12:15:45 PST kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >The 720 was the first shrunken Boeing, if you'll accept that it was a >707 shortened and modified for medium-range work. A small nit here. The first shrunken Boeings -- in terms of physical size if not intended range -- were the special short-body 707-120s built for QANTAS. They were actually shorter than the the 720. These were the airplanes I mentioned awhile back which had provision for carrying a fifth engine as external freight, under the left wing between #2 and the fuselage. I've only seen one photograph of a QANTAS 707 actually carrying an engine this way, oddly enough, and unfortunately I don't remember where I saw it. I don't know whether this version had any special designation aside from the identity provided by the customer dash number. Geoff -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Menlo Park, California -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- From kls Mon Mar 29 12:15:46 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mmr47784@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Rogers ) Subject: Re: 757-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Mar 93 12:15:46 PST >Who cares? As Richard Ferris, former head of United, allegedly said >to Boeing with regard to the 767: > "Don't bug me about double-aisle or seven-abreast. I want the > most efficient airplane. Just guarantee the seat-mile perform- > ance. As for customer preference, I couldn't care less." I would be very a wary to support any of my arguments with quotes from Dick Ferris, considering what he did to United in the mid 80's. I think that United has significantly changed its tune in the past 8 years, and very much for the better. : I believe the current management does believe that customers matter. :) >Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com >1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls Mark Rogers mmr47784@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu From kls Mon Mar 29 12:15:47 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 757-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Mar 93 12:15:47 PST Mark Rogers writes: >I would be very a wary to support any of my arguments with quotes from >Dick Ferris, considering what he did to United in the mid 80's. I >think that United has significantly changed its tune in the past 8 >years, and very much for the better. : I believe the current management >does believe that customers matter. I suspect you could find similar thoughts running around Crandall's head too, though he'd calculate down to the penny the tradeoff in squeezing the passengers a bit more vs. operational efficiency. And keep in mind that Ferris' comment was in the context of 2-3-2 versus 2-4-2 seating. I'll bet most passengers (members of this group notwithstanding) couldn't tell the difference between a 767 and an A300/A310, and it certainly wouldn't factor into their decisions on which airline to fly. Extending that argument to a single-aisle aircraft versus double aisle is, perhaps, going a bit too far, I'll admit, though I think there are still many cases where it still holds. Back to Ferris, I think he had some very interesting and customer- oriented ideas in Allegis. But the competetive environment and the inability of most U.S. companies to pursue real long-term goals (the airliner manufacturing business being a notable excepton) made his plans unimplementable. Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Mon Mar 29 12:15:49 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 757-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Mar 93 12:15:49 PST In article h andrew chuang writes: >Depending on the market needs. For short-haul operations, cargo requirement >is usually low, a narrow-body airplane serves the market requirement well. >For long-haul operations, cargo requirement is often, but not always, high. Good point. I recall reading that even with a large number of open seats on 747SP flights between SFO and NRT United would smile all the way to the bank as they just filled up on cargo. >Therefore, a wide-body airplane may be desirable. If an airline is >targeting long-haul, tourist-oriented routes, then 757-300's lower cost >should make sense. However, most airlines are more eager to attract higher >yield full-fare economy-, business- and first-class passengers, 757-300's >configuration definitely doesn't make sense. Yes, but I think you may be thinking of the "757-300" as the long haul 757. It's not at all clear to me that this is the case -- they may be working on a longer-range 757-200 for the charter operators, while the 757-300 is aimed at shorter work. Both require increased weights but for different reasons, somewhat like a DC-8-61 vs. DC-8-62. I could see the stretched 757 being somewhat interesting for a variety of moderate length, heavily travelled routes. Chicago to New York for one, perhaps some of the eastern shuttle routes, and maybe vacation travellers to Florida. >Just as an example, Singapore Airlines chose to replace its very >young 757 fleet (~ 5-year old and only 4 planes) with the A310 a few >years ago. If the 757 really has a significant cost advantage, that >would not have happened! There's more to cost than just operating cost. Singapore already had the A310 (six A310-222s delivered about the same time as the 757s) in its fleet so the additional A310s (A310-324) which appear to have replaced the 757 could also represent fleet simplification, with what may be for them a more versatile aircraft coming out the winner. Of course Airbus may have sweetened the deal too, especially since they were trying to win an A340 *after* Singapore had signed for the MD-11. (Singapore cancelled the MD-11 order and ordered the A340.) The A310, with a mixture of JT9D and PW4000 engines, also represents greater fleet commonality for Singapore since their 747 fleet also uses these engines, though not the same exact version. The 757's PW2000 was something of an orphan. >>While the 757 got off to an exceedingly slow start, deliveries caught >>up with and surpassed the 767 about a year ago. >> ..... >>I'd think the 757 is doing quite nicely for Boeing. >Well, I don't agree. The 757 owns the 180-passenger market by itself (that >is, before the short-haul A321 was launched, but I don't think the A321 >should be classified in the same class as the short- to medium-haul 757), >while the 767 is competing directly with the A300/A310. Therefore, if one >looks at the total sales of the 757 and the combined 767/A300/A310 sales ... If size of market is your criteria then you must consider the 747 a dismal failure -- ten years after first delivery only about 400 had been delivered, versus over 500 for the 757 at the same point. The airliner manufacturers will slit their own throat to beat out a competitor for a sale. Given that attitude, if I were in the business, I'd be *far* happier having a moderate-sized market to myself than a portion of a larger market. Obviously we're working from different standards of success here -- mine is simply the bottom line, and I'd bet Boeing's profits from the 757 prorgam are ahead, probably well ahead, of those from the 767. BTW, while I'd agree that the A321 isn't serious competition for the 757 is most markets, don't ignore Tupolev and their Tu-204. With both RB.211-535 and PW2000 engines in the works and Russia's need for hard currency driving some aggressive marketing and deals, this could be a good plane to watch. (Perhaps we could get some of the Boeing folks to say something publicly about their views of the Tu-204? 8-) ) >one must question how on earth did Boeing come up with the 180-passenger >design, especially when it was supposed to replace more than a thousand >727's! For political reasons Boeing wanted the British Airways order, and BA wanted a 180-seat aircraft. Nobody else wanted it nor could they understand why BA did, but Eastern reluctantly went along with it as the financial incentives were the only way they could afford any new aircraft. So, to get BA's order, Boeing built too large an aircraft. >from engine manufacturers' standpoint (IMHO), PW2000 would need a lot more >757 sales to make business sense, because PW2000 has only one commerical >application (and the military application is not doing that well, either)! What's the military app? The C-17? >the 757 pie is simply too small for three engine manufacturers! Agreed. It's not clear that it's even big enough for two given that the PW2000 isn't used on much else. >Therefore, I still think the 757 is the least successful Boeing jet program >because it did not achieve what it was supposed to achieve (to replace 727). By that metric perhaps you're right. But what about the 720? That seemed to do fairly poorly at meeting its goal as well. (We'll be kind and not drag out some real disasters like the 757 Combi!) >The 737 program became so successful, again IMHO, because of Boeing's >inability to convince customers to replace their 727's with 757's. That >was when Boeing literally resurrected the 737 program by modernizing the >737, and hit the jackpot. Interesting observation. The 737-300 has certainly replaced a lot of 727-100s. I'm not sure how well the 737 has fared in replacing the 727-200 though. >I think the 737 has replaced more 727's than the 757, and I don't >really think that was Boeing's envision when they lauched the 757. Without looking up numbers I'd suspect Delta and later American and United have really driven the 757, perhaps even accounting for the majority of 757 orders. Delta's 727s were pretty new, while the other two kept even their older 727-200s until very, very recently, so I'd have to agree that a lot of 757 orders were for fleet expansion and not for 727 replacement. (Actually United's first 30 757 were for replacement, but of the DC-8-71 and not the 727.) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Mon Mar 29 12:27:53 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sharpes@c-17igp Subject: Re: tip vortices *do* exist! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Mar 93 12:27:53 PST > jonathan@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Thornburg) writes: >A final point: We had some discussion in this newsgroup a few >months ago on in-flight use of spoilers. As I recall, the consensus >seemed to be that they're used for roll control, but not usually for lift >dumping as such. The C-17 uses spoilers at least six ways, one of which is roll control, another being, of course, ground spoilers. Spoilers are symmterically deflected with flaps in the cruise configuration for speedbrakes (an average of 14 degrees spoilers and 8 degrees of flap at max deflection). The outboard spoiler is coupled to the ailerons for precise speed control while under the tanker (it's gonna be a sweet flyin' thing!). During landing approach, spoilers are coupled to the throttles to take out the engine response time delay and, lastly, spoilers are used to enhance ground effects (yes, enhance ground effects! It's called SAGE - Spoiler Enhanced Ground Effects). When the Globemaster III is making a steep approach (about 5 degrees glidepath), the spoilers are uprigged nine degrees. At the appropriate height, the spoilers retract and the lift they dumped comes back to reduce sink rate. _____________ Dan | "Opinions expressed Sharpes | are mine alone, and _|_ not another's" From kls Tue Mar 30 10:04:57 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: Shortened Boeings (was: The Sporty Game -- Boeing 757) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 93 10:04:57 PST Geoff Miller wrote: > A small nit here. The first shrunken Boeings -- in terms > of physical size if not intended range -- were the special > short-body 707-120s built for QANTAS. They were actually > shorter than the the 720. These were the airplanes I mentioned > awhile back which had provision for carrying a fifth engine as > external freight, under the left wing between #2 and the fuselage. > I've only seen one photograph of a QANTAS 707 actually carrying > an engine this way, oddly enough, and unfortunately I don't > remember where I saw it Just as a bit of trivia, both the DC-10 and the L-1011 have the capability of carrying an additional engine on a pod (inboard of the main engines), and the DC-8 also had it. I'm not sure that this capability was limited to Qantas' 707s, either; I suspect it was potentially available to any 707. This is not a capability that has seen widespread use, however. Can anyone fill in any details? -- - Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Tue Mar 30 10:04:58 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 727 deep stall (Re: tip vortices *do* exist!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 93 10:04:58 PST In article gbisaga@mitre.org write: >|> The 727's spoilers can be used as speed brakes in-flight. >I believe this is only true in the 72s if you're using flaps 1 or less, >maybe up only. I need to check with my 727 pilot friends to be sure. No, there's no restriction. The spoiler system is comprised of a panel of seven spoilers per wing. These are arranged in groups of four spoilers outboard and three inboard. They are all hydraulically actuated. The five outer spoilers are "flight spoilers." They are used to command maximum roll rates, when needed. They are also user-selectable from 0 to 45 degrees (full up) via a single speed-brake lever in the cockpit. They can be used in any flight configuration, and often are used during initial let-down. The two inner spoilers are "ground spoilers." These have a two-step actuator. When on the ground, if the speed brake lever is selected, these will deploy along with the flight spoilers if the Air/Ground switch is set. Many (most? all?) airplanes come with an automatic speed brake system. When placed in the ARM detent, all spoilers will automagically spring to maximum when the A/G switch is set. This reduces some fumbling in the cockpit on roll-out. You may be thinking of the leading edge devices, which are fully deployed by flaps 5, and remain deployed until flaps-up are commanded. Note that there's no Flaps 1 on the 727, only Flaps 2, 5, 15, 25, 30, 40. All of the above only applies to the 727. Sources: various technical publications. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Tue Mar 30 10:04:59 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: niemelai@CONVEX.CSC.FI (Kari Niemel{inen) Subject: Re: Piano on Hindenburg (Q) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Finnish Academic and Research Network Project - FUNET Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 93 10:04:59 PST In mrtaylor@access.digex.com (Mark Taylor) writes: >I recently saw a photograph taken inside the zeppelin Hindenburg. >Promenent in this picture was a piano. >Does anyone know about this instrument? Yes, there really was a piano aboard Hindenburg. It was made from wood and aluminium. Live music was in fashion during the time and how could the upper class do without piano music B-) From kls Tue Mar 30 10:05:00 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: watson@win.tue.nl (Bruce W. Watson) Subject: Re: 727 deep stall (Re: tip vortices *do* exist!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 93 10:05:00 PST In article rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: >A pilot can normally retard the throttles all the way back to idle >without having to worry about the fuel controller or flaming out the engine. >The thrust at this setting can range from 300 lbs to 1000 lbs per engine. > >The reason for all the "drag- generating laundry" is the need to slow from >very *high* speeds to relatively *slow* speeds in short amounts of time, >combined with the very *clean* design of most airliners--without such devices, >they would accelerate. > >All jet engines have a spool-up time from idle, usually under 8 seconds. >I've never heard of a "safety setting" intended to reduce this spool-up time: >it would have to be at a relatively high thrust setting, which would help >defeat the purpose. Lag times are simply a fact of jet engines that have to >be contended with. > On a couple of the turbine aircraft I've flow, there was a minimum spinup (aka spool-up) value on final. This was usually measured as one of the turbine parameters (on some turbines it was 55% on N1). The idea was both to be able to get quicker time to full (in the event of a go-around, or to cope with some sort of wind shear situation), but also to get rid of some of the throttle lag on the approach. This last use is particularly important to avoid making large throttle movements, chasing the glide slope all over the place. >Again, allegations of a "deep stall" are some- >what serious, since it suggests the airplane is in an aerodynamic condition >it *can't* escape from. In the case of the BAC-111, for example, aerodynamic >effectiveness of the elevators was almost nil. If the 727 is actually capable >of such a stall, I'd like to hear about it! :-) > >--- >Robert Dorsett >rdd@cactus.org >...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd I didn't catch the original part of this 727 deep stall thread, but I _think_ I remember a 727 deep stall accident (the following is entirely from memory, but I read about it some years ago in my Canadian aviation safety bulletin): One some cargo flight, the Captain and FO decided to allow the (type-rated but rusty) FE flight the departure. As it turned out, they somehow forgot the pitot heat. During the climbout, the pitot iced up, and with the static source open the ASI began to act as an altimeter. With the airspeed ever-increasing, and passing through the structural limits for flaps extended, the FE (flying) continued to pitch up, while retarding the throttles. The end result was that, by the time someone had managed to cross-check, the wind noise had died down and they were indeed deeply stalled at a low throttle setting. I think the way it ended, was with only a partial recovery, killing all 3 aboard. If anyone else knows the whole story (perhaps it was fiction ;-) I'd be happy to see the corrections. Later, Bruce From kls Wed Mar 31 01:14:47 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: 757-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 93 01:14:47 PST In article spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) writes: >Karl Swartz writes >> >a 757 is still a narrow body, and a narrow body configuration for >> >long haul operations will simply irritate airline passengers! Not if they are configured appropriately. A three-class, international flag carrier configuration is about 155 seats. Pretty cush all things considered. >> The 757 already operates some pretty long routes, including trans- >> Atlantic charters and U.S. to Hawaii. In choosing to operate the >> 757 on the latter routes, United noted that most of the traffic >> would be vacation travellers who were more interested in low >> fares than in comfort -- United's DC-8s served well on these >> routes until quite recently. UAL retired their DC-8s December of '91, if memory serves. >Yes, the 757 has some pretty long routes, and few people are happy >about that. The latest issue of Frequent Flyer (the magazine that >comes with the pocket OAG) had a long article complaining about the >use of 757s on long routes. >757s might work on routes like mainland-Hawaii where, as you note, >people place price over comfort, but I suspect that on most routes >widebodies would have a competitive edge. Widebodies like the 767 do have a competitive edge in terms of passenger preference, but not in operating economics. Twin-engined, single-aisle aircraft will be seen more and more on these longer routes simply because they offer less risk to the carrier - in financial terms if nothing else. And given the current economic conditions, financial considerations outweigh just about any other consideration. -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Wed Mar 31 01:14:49 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: 757-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 93 01:14:49 PST In article ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes: >HAC> == H. Andrew Chuang >KS> == Karl Swartz > >Arguably, the 737-500 is a shortening of the -300; yes, yes, I *know* it's >the same size as the -200, but it's in the "new generation" 737 series. The -500 is really a 58" stretch of the -200, which itself was a stretch of the -100 (32 built). >Certainly that model seems to be doing well (or maybe it's just that >Southwest is buying them all :). Actually, Southwest buys the -300 exclusively. Without EFIS I might add. > HAC> However, this will be feasible only if a derated PW2000 or RB211-535 > HAC> is available. Or a CFM56-5, or an IAE V2500. > KS> There really does seem to be a gap in engine offerings here. > >True. But if a derated engine did become available, wouldn't it have >really good MTBF numbers? (Isn't that one of the big advantages of >derating?) This would imply that a theoretical 757-100 with, say, derated >RB211s would have the dispatch reliability and time-between-maintenance to >serve in many of the current 727 "feeder" and "shuttle" roles. (But can it >land at LGA? If so, other advantages, especially with derating, could >include quieter engines and faster [therefore noise-abating] takeoffs.) Derating does give better engine maintenance costs, longer engine life, etc. The rate of increase is less than the rate of increase in extra fuel burned to haul around all that extra engine capability that isn't used. Besides, you will find that most of the 757s mechanical dispatch reliability problems stems from the navigation boxes, not the engines. At any rate, it is already as good as, or better than a 727-anything. (Yes it can land at LaGuardia - it can land anywhere a 737 can) Derating the engine does not help with noise. Lighter takeoff weights do. > KS> (Seriously, it's good to see someone from one of the engine > KS> manufacturers contributing to the group. Welcome!) > >Agreed; the amount of real expertise here (both professional and `amateur') >is incredible. I think a great deal of the thanks must go to our moderator >as well (and I'm not just saying this so he'll post my message :) I'll add my welcome, too! Hope you guys make lots of money... :-) >(Note also that I am *not* a real expert of either type, so I can't claim >that what I've said about derated engines is correct. But I hope to be >corrected by those who *do* know, and learn therefrom.) I'm not a specialist either, but my job does require a certain familiarity with all the stuff discussed above. And we just went through a lot of this recently. :-) -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Wed Mar 31 01:14:50 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Bayerische Motoren Werke References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 93 01:14:50 PST In article Quagga writes: >Say there. Some years ago I had a vivid dream of taking an airliner trip over >lovely puffy clouds over Monument Valley... looking back, I noticed a big 'ol >BMW logo on the engine. Some months later BMW and Rolls-Royce announced they >were going to produce aircraft engines... Anything ever come of this? Yes, the BR700 family of engine designs. The core is currently under construction, has been for about a year now I think. The 737-X is looking at the BR720 (25,000+ SLST). I have personal doubts that anything will come of it. The family seems to be aimed at the new crop of small (<100 seats) regional jetliners. Perhaps Fokker will offer a BR700 on their stretch of the F 100 (the F 130). The other paper engine is the RTF180. A Pratt and MTU (?) partnership I think. I'd guess it will never see the light of day. The German's don't have the cash to support two engine development programs, particularly given their precarious economic condition. >Cheryl Douglas >Design Engineer >Cybervid Corporation >Nashua NH USA > >quagga@trystro.uucp > >Equus Quagga, Unnofficial Mascot, Nellis AFB Nevada USA > >"My other car does Mach 8!" > -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Wed Mar 31 01:14:52 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kannan91@iastate.edu Subject: List of Airliners with Engine options Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 93 01:14:52 PST This is a general question. Is anyone aware of any reference material which lists airline fleets and their corresponding powerplant specifications. For example British Airways 767-300ER *with RB211-524H engines*.,This information is normally provided routinely whenever an airline buys or leases new aircraft, or if an airframe is damaged or destroyed due to engine related causes. Kannan From kls Wed Mar 31 01:14:54 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: List of Airliners with Engine options References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 93 01:14:54 PST >Is anyone aware of any reference material which lists airline fleets >and their corresponding powerplant specifications. Sounds like what you want is a current copy of JP Airline-Fleets International. It's organized by country, sorted by ICAO country prefix (e.g. N for the U.S.), and within each country each airline is listed in alphabetical order. After a few lines of summary info on the airline comes a fleet list, one line per aircraft, more or less in increasing MGTOW. A typical entry, for a plane I flew on earlier this month, wrapped to two lines as I can't select a smaller font: N146UA Boeing 747SP-21 21547/325 N537PA 0078 0286 4 PW JT9D-7A reg'n type of aircraft cn / sn ex/ex mfd del powered by 318422 F18C62Y164 8646 mtow kg config selcal name/fln/specifications/remarks These are published every spring, so a new one is due real-soon-now. The U.S. distributor is World Transport Press P.O. Box 521238 Miami, FL 33152 1-305/477-7163 1-800/875-6711 At about US$45 it isn't cheap but it's got loads of information. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Mar 31 01:14:55 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: United DC-8s (was Re: 757-300?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 93 01:14:55 PST Terrell D. Drinkard writes: >UAL retired their DC-8s December of '91, if memory serves. Close -- the final revenue flight was UA 40 SFO-KOA (with an unscheduled stop and equipment change from N8088U to N8089U at LAX) on October 31, 1991. The Fall 1992 Airliners has a nice history of United's entire DC-8 fleet, written by one Stefano Pagiola, whom some of you may recognize as a contributor to this newsgroup. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Mar 31 01:14:58 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: 737 nits (was Re: 757-300?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 93 01:14:58 PST Terrell D. Drinkard writes: >The -500 is really a 58" stretch of the -200, which itself was a >stretch of the -100 (32 built). Is that a typo? Several references I have handy show the -500 as being about 18" longer than the -200. I'd also expect at least one extra row with a 58" stretch but they seem to end up with the same number of seats, e.g. Southwest packs 122 onto both while United actually has one less seat on the -500 with 108 seats. >Actually, Southwest buys the -300 exclusively. Perhaps you've forgotten that they were the launch customer for the 737-500? Still buying (or leasin) then, too -- as of about a year ago they planned on taking another ten -500s (plus three -300s) this year and the same in 1994. >Without EFIS I might add. I understand this is to minimize differences from their -200s. Are any other airlines still buying 737s without the video arcade? -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Mar 31 01:15:03 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: behunin@oodis01.hill.af.mil (Roland L. Behunin;OO-ALC/LILAM) Subject: Aerospatile to shut down Toulouse plant for 2 or 3 weeks in 1993. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 93 01:15:03 PST Hello Everybody, A friend of mine in Pau, France sent me an article out of their newspaper. The article was in French, and I made an attempt at reading it. It seems that Airbus (Aerospatile) in Toulouse, France has developed a new production plan for 1993, and will close the plant in Toulouse for 2 or 3 weeks during 1993. A week in June, and the week between Christmas and New Years, and if necessary, the week before Christmas. From what I could tell reading the article, the management people figured out a new production plan, then got the union's concurrence. I am afraid I do not know the name of the paper, or the date of the article, as my friend only sent the article. I think this might have something to do with the cancellation of orders from Norwest, but I am not sure. Roland Here is the original article in French: - QUART SUD-OUEST Toulouse: chomage partiel pour les salaries de l'Aerospatiale. Les salaries des usines Aerospatiale de Toulouse (division Avions) seront mis en chomage partiel durant deux, voire trois semaines, au cours de l'annee 1993. Ces mesures, annoncees au personnel a l'occasion d'un Comite d'etablissement, sont justifiees selon la direction par la revision du plan de production de l'entreprise, en raison d'annulations de commandes deja annoncees ou previsibles. Les elus du personnel et representants syndicaus, tous syndicats confoundus, ont donne un avis defavorable a l'application de ces mesures, et ont condamne la prise de positon de la direction locale, (qui oblige les salaries a prendre leurs conges a des dates imposees). Les usines toulousaines, qui produisent ou assemblent notamment les appareils Airbus et ATR, cesseront toute activite du 1er au 5 juin et du 26 au 31 decembre, ainsi que, si de nouveaux reports ou de nouvelles annulations intervenaient d'ic la, du 20 au 24 decembre. Pour leur part, les personnels des bureaux d'etude seront invites a prendre leurs conges du 1er au 5 juin. En 1991, Aerospatiale avait prevu de construire, tous modeles confondus, 191 appareils en 1993, 224 en 1994 et 230 en 1995. Le programme le plus recent ne prevoit pus desormais que 140 avions en 1993, 14 en 1994 et 179 en 1995. From kls Wed Mar 31 01:15:05 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) Subject: Re: Shortened Boeings (was: The Sporty Game -- Boeing 757) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 93 01:15:05 PST SP> == Stefano Pagiola SP> Just as a bit of trivia, both the DC-10 and the L-1011 have the SP> capability of carrying an additional engine on a pod (inboard of the SP> main engines), and the DC-8 also had it. As does the 747; see _Modern Commercial Aircraft_[*], p9. (The photo is of the prototype, so it's presumably from a test of that configuration.) [*] A 1987 coffee-table book with many nice photos; ISBN 0-517-63369-8. -- * Christopher Davis * * * [CKD1] * MIME * RIPEM * 226 Transfer complete. 17512509 bytes received in 5.2e+02 seconds (33 Kbytes/s) From kls Wed Mar 31 01:15:06 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jim@specialix.com (Jim Maurer) Subject: Re: Piano on Hindenburg (Q) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Specialix Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 93 01:15:06 PST mrtaylor@access.digex.com (Mark Taylor) writes: >I recently saw a photograph taken inside the zeppelin Hindenburg. >Promenent in this picture was a piano. >Does anyone know about this instrument? Yes, the Hindenburg had a piano. It was specially constructed out of Aluminum, for light weight. When the airlines were putting piano lounges on jumbo jets I don't think they had to do that, they just used a regular piano. I wonder if they had to be FAA approved? :-) From kls Wed Mar 31 01:15:09 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) Subject: Re: 727 deep stall (Re: tip vortices *do* exist!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 93 01:15:09 PST In watson@win.tue.nl (Bruce W. Watson) writes: >I didn't catch the original part of this 727 deep stall thread, but I _think_ >I remember a 727 deep stall accident (the following is entirely from memory, >but I read about it some years ago in my Canadian aviation safety bulletin): > One some cargo flight, the Captain and FO decided to allow the (type-rated >but rusty) FE flight the departure. As it turned out, they somehow forgot the >pitot heat. During the climbout, the pitot iced up, and with the static source >open the ASI began to act as an altimeter. With the airspeed ever-increasing, >and passing through the structural limits for flaps extended, the FE (flying) >continued to pitch up, while retarding the throttles. The end result was that, >by the time someone had managed to cross-check, the wind noise had died down >and they were indeed deeply stalled at a low throttle setting. I think the >way it ended, was with only a partial recovery, killing all 3 aboard. > If anyone else knows the whole story (perhaps it was fiction ;-) I'd be >happy to see the corrections. The story is true, with some minor corrections: The FE was not flying and the crew never realized that they were stalled. As you say, the crew neglected the pitot heat resulting in an iced-over pitot. As they climbed into the night, the airspeed indicator acted as an altimeter. The pilot's response was to increasingly pull back the stick in an attempt to arrest the speed. At about 20,000 the airplane began a pre-stall shudder which the crew misinterpreted as mach buffet. The airplane subsequently stalled as the pilot applied even MORE back pressure. The pilot continued with back pressure and the airplane eventually began to spin. During the spin and subsequent attempt to recover, one of the vertical stabilizers was torn from the airframe, making further attempts at recovery futile. There was no deep stall - had the crew realized the situation that they were in, and had they applied typical stall-recovery techniques in time (namely, lower the nose) they would have survived. greg -- Gregory Reed Travis D P S I Data Parallel Systems Incorporated greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!) Bloomington, IN greg@indiana.edu (For the others) From kls Thu Apr 1 04:07:49 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Formation of new society/discussion group Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 93 04:07:49 PST Society for the Promotion of Ergonomically Reasonable Measurement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Mellor, 1st April 1993 ---------------------------- This is to announce the formation of the above-named Society. Aims: ----- 1. To resist the use of meaningless scales of measurement. 2. To improve the friendliness of information systems. 3. To resist imposed uniformity. 4. To counteract official nonsense with unofficial nonsense. 5. To have a good piss-up at least once a year. 6. Err...that's it. Discussion of Aims: ------------------- There is a regrettable tendency today to make everything more friendly to computers, and less friendly to people. Even some recent changes which were intended to make calculations easier for humans have had unfortunate effects. For example, when measuring the height and weight of people, is it more meaningful to say: "Pete Mellor is 1.880 metres tall, and weighs 79.378 kilogrammes stripped." or: "Pete Mellor is 6' 2" tall, tips the scales at 12 and 1/2 stone, and looks quite striking in a pair of tight-fitting flared jeans."? Supporters of the aims of the Society would all agree that the second of these descriptions is easier to grasp, and conveys far more information that is likely to be of interest than the first. The Society therefore supports the use of scales of measurement that are scaled to people. So, for instance, the inch (length of top joint of thumb) is more informative than the millimetre when doing anything on a small scale. Going up one level of scale, the foot (distance from big toe to heel) and yard (distance from tip of nose to end of middle finger of outstretched arm) have served architects and furniture makers well for centuries. The metre, by comparison, is too large for small work, and too small for large. Nobody ever uses the decimetre or decametre anyway, so most of the metric system is immediately redundant. Similar remarks apply to grammes and kilogrammes versus ounces and pounds. The scales of measurement that have evolved with us are the ones that we find most natural to use. This applies even when it comes to measuring new things, like software. The Society therefore promotes the measurement of source code in hands (applied vertically up the side of a pile of print-out, in the same way that the height of a horse is measured). The Biblically minded may use the cubit for medium-scale measurement, otherwise the use of the rod, pole or perch is recommended. The system of units that the Society favours will be known as the "ton, furlong, fortnight" system. Political Allegiance: --------------------- In the UK, the society will seek the support of the Rainbow Alliance, and the personal patronage of Screaming Lord Sutch and Cynthia Paine. In Italy, it is hoped that La Cicciolina will be persuaded to sponsor us. In other countries, all suggestions welcome. Diversity: ---------- Any Eurocrap aimed at doing away with our essential differences is deprecated. For example, in the UK pillar boxes and telephones should be red, in Germany they should be yellow. The Society believes that books written in Britain should be spelt according to the Oxford Dictionary. Americans who do not wish to follow this standard are encouraged to use Mencken. The Society fully supports the Academie Francaise in its attempt to prevent its fine language from being corrupted by either American or English. In fact, it would like to see the Germans doing more, such as reintroducing Gothic script. The same goes for the Welsh, Irish, Russians, etc. The intention is to cause a fragmentation of knowledge across language boundaries. Since there is already far too much information around for anyone to use sensibly, this would be entirely beneficial. Any academic who really wants to know what is going on in artificial intelligence at the University of Beijing should have the dedication to learn Mandarin Chinese! Membership: ----------- The fee is 17s. 6d. per annum, payable to: "P. Mellor Ethanol Supplies Ltd." Annual meetings will be held in the King's Head, Upper Street, Islington, London, where beer is still sold at 1 pound 16 shillings per pint. (Dates to be arranged to suit members.) Paid-up members may charge for consultations on any matter regarding measurement, provided fees are quoted in the appropriate national currency, e.g., a UK member should quote a consultancy rate in guineas per fortnight. (Any attempt to quote in ECUs will result in immediate expulsion.) Other points: ------------- The use of metric sizes of nuts and bolts in the UK should be discontinued in favour of Whitworth. Aeroplane prices should be quoted in the currency of the country of origin. For example, British aeroplanes should be sold at so many pounds sterling per hundredweight, like everything else of a comparable size. If this causes a problem in purchasing an A320, it is recommended that the individual bits be bought independently from the various members of the Airbus Industrie consortium in the appropriate national currencies and that these are assembled by the buyer, rather like the purchase of a motorcycle in "kit" form. Since the Society opposes the use of acronyms, anything that you might have thought the initial letters of the Society's name might have spelt is irrelevant. -------------- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Sq., London EC1V 0HB, Tel: +44(0)71-477-8422, JANET: p.mellor@city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Thu Apr 1 23:08:58 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Yet MORE on 727 deep stall, plus references to iced pitot incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 93 23:08:58 PST Some time back, I wrote: >>All jet engines have a spool-up time from idle, usually under 8 seconds. It's actually 5 seconds, courtesy FAR 33.73(b). This has been effective since at least 1974; dunno about earlier engines. "From the fixed minimum flight idle power lever position when provided, or if not provided, from not more than 15 percent of the rated takeoff power or thrust available to 95 percent rated takeoff power or thrust in not over 5 seconds. The 5-second power or thrust response must occur from a stabil- ized static condition using only the bleed air and accessories loads necessary to run the engine. This takeoff rating is specified by the applicant and need not include thrust augmentation." Later, Bruce Watson wrote: > On a couple of the turbine aircraft I've flow, there was a minimum >spinup (aka spool-up) value on final. This was usually measured as one of >the turbine parameters (on some turbines it was 55% on N1). The idea was >both to be able to get quicker time to full (in the event of a go-around, >or to cope with some sort of wind shear situation), but also to get rid >of some of the throttle lag on the approach. This last use is particularly >important to avoid making large throttle movements, chasing the glide slope >all over the place. More neurons jogged loose: this is probably to keep the surge bleed valves closed. At low engine speeds, a surge valve opens, which is used to control engine loads during startup. Spool-up time from flight idle may have to include the time to clean up. On the 727, this should be around 40% N1, or ~65% N2. Okay, I stand corrected again! :-) >I didn't catch the original part of this 727 deep stall thread, but I _think_ >I remember a 727 deep stall accident (the following is entirely from memory, >but I read about it some years ago in my Canadian aviation safety bulletin): > One some cargo flight, the Captain and FO decided to allow the (type-rated >but rusty) FE flight the departure. As it turned out, they somehow forgot the >pitot heat. During the climbout, the pitot iced up, and with the static source This sounds like: Crash date: December 1, 1974 Type: Boeing 727-251 Operator: Northwest Airlines Where: Theills, New York Ident: N274US Report No: NTSB-AAR-75-13 Pages: 31 Date: August 13, 1975 About 1926 EST on December 1, 1974, Northwest Airlines Flight 6231, a Boeing 727-251, crashed about 3.2 nmi west of Thiells, New York. The accident occurred about 12 minutes after the flight had departed John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, New York, and while on a ferry flight to Buffalo, New York. Three crewmembers, the only persons aboard the aircraft, died in the crash. The aircraft was destroyed. The aircraft stalled at 24,800 feet MSL and entered an uncontrolled spiralling descent into the ground. Throughout the stall and descent, the flightcrew did not recognize the actual condition of the aircraft and did not take the correct measures necessary to return the aircraft to level flight. Near 3500 feet MSL a large portion of the left horizontal stabilizer separated from the aircraft, which made control of the aircraft impossible. The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the loss of control of the aircraft because the flightcrew failed to recognize and correct the aircraftUs high-angle-of- attack, low-speed stall and its descending spiral. The stall was precipitated by the flightcrewUs improper reaction to erroneous airspeed and Mach indications which had resulted from a blockacge of the pitot heads by atmospheric icing. Contrary to standard operational procedures, the flightcrew had not activated the pitot head heaters. ------------------------ No reference is made to the F/E in the F/O position, and the F/E didn't have a type rating. On page 14 of the report: "The B-727 longitudinal controls ystem is capable of developing the noseup pitching moments needed to obtain angles of attack much higher than those associated with stall. For an aircraft having the same weight, CG location, and stabilizer trim setting as N274US, the manufacturer's analysis showed that an angle of attack of approximately 37 degrees could be attained if a continuous pull force was exerted to hold the control column aft. "Like other aircraft which have horizontal stabilizers located near or on top of their vertical stabilizers, the B-727 does pass through a range of high angles of attack where longitudinal instability occurs. This instability causes the aircraft, when no control force is applied, to pitch to even higher angles of attack. Longitudinal instability is caused by downgraded horizontal stabilizer effectiveness when the aircraft's atttiude is such that the horizon- tal stabilizer is enveloped by the low-energy turbulent air in the wake from the wings. When these high angles of attack are reached, a push force on the control column is required to reduce the angle of attack. For a B-727 with an aft CG location and stabilizer trim in the cruise range, wind tunnel data show that a nosedown pitching moment will decrease the angle of attack and stall recovery can be attained by applying push forces to the control column." It goes on to note that the crew apparently thought they were in a stall all the way down, due to the erroneous airspeed indications, but DFDR data showed that they had actually recovered from the stall and were in an uncontrolled spiral. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Thu Apr 1 23:09:00 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: Aerospatile to shut down Toulouse plant for 2 or 3 weeks in 1993. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 93 23:09:00 PST Roland's translation was essentially accurate. The workers are being placed on "Chomage Partiel," = "Partial Unemployment," which is like a furlough. Two periods are planned, 1-5 June and 26-31 December, and another, 20-24 December, might be added if more cancellations take place. The Unions are NOT happy about this. The last paragraph states that predicted production for 1993 had been for 191 aircraft (all models; the article is unclear whether this includes the ATR42/72, which is also built at Toulouse; it probably does not include the A321), 224 in 1994, and 230 in 1995. Latest plans call for production of 140 aicraft in 1993, 14 (? a typo for 140?) in 1994, and 179 in 1995. -- - Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Thu Apr 1 23:09:01 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: behunin@oodis01.hill.af.mil (Roland L. Behunin;OO-ALC/LILAM) Subject: Re: Aerospatile to shut down Toulouse plant for 2 or 3 weeks in 1993. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 93 23:09:01 PST In Stefano Pagiola's message of 31 Mar 1993 at 0923 MST, he writes: > Roland's translation was essentially accurate. The workers are being > placed on "Chomage Partiel," = "Partial Unemployment," which is like > a furlough. Two periods are planned, 1-5 June and 26-31 December, > and another, 20-24 December, might be added if more cancellations > take place. The Unions are NOT happy about this. I have to admit the paragraph about the unions gave me a lot of trouble. I was not sure if the unions agreed, or if they did not like the action. Actually, all I could figure out was the paragraph was taking about the unions. I have only been studying French since September 1992, so I was not really sure how close I came to translating the article. > The last paragraph states that predicted production for 1993 had been > for 191 aircraft (all models; the article is unclear whether this > includes the ATR42/72, which is also built at Toulouse; it probably > does not include the A321), 224 in 1994, and 230 in 1995. Latest > plans call for production of 140 aircraft in 1993, 14 (? a typo for > 140?) in 1994, and 179 in 1995. Yes, I made a typo last night. I sometimes do that. (Actually more than I should!) Roland From kls Thu Apr 1 23:09:04 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) Subject: Re: Aerospatile to shut down Toulouse plant for 2 or 3 weeks in 1993. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: TMC Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 93 23:09:04 PST In article , behunin@oodis01.hill.af.mil (Roland L. Behunin;OO-ALC/LILAM) writes: |> It seems that Airbus (Aerospatile) in Toulouse, France has developed |> a new production plan for 1993, and will close the plant in Toulouse |> for 2 or 3 weeks during 1993. A week in June, and the week between |> Christmas and New Years, and if necessary, the week before Christmas. |> |> From what I could tell reading the article, the management people |> figured out a new production plan, then got the union's concurrence. |> |> Here is the original article in French: I'm not going to translate it all, just to add to what Roland already correctly deduced. |> Ces mesures, annoncees au personnel a l'occasion d'un |> Comite d'etablissement, sont justifiees selon la |> direction par la revision du plan de production de |> l'entreprise, en raison d'annulations de commandes deja |> annoncees ou previsibles. Those measures were justified, according to management, because of the changes in the production schedule brought about by cancellations of orders which had already been announced or had been expected. |> Les elus du personnel et representants syndicaus, tous |> syndicats confoundus, ont donne un avis defavorable a |> l'application de ces mesures, et ont condamne la prise de |> positon de la direction locale, (qui oblige les salaries |> a prendre leurs conges a des dates imposees). The personnel representatives and the unions had given a *negative* advice on this, and have condemned the position taken by local management, (which has forced white-collar personnel to take their vacations on these dates). |> En 1991, Aerospatiale avait prevu de construire, tous |> modeles confondus, 191 appareils en 1993, 224 en 1994 et |> 230 en 1995. Le programme le plus recent ne prevoit pus |> desormais que 140 avions en 1993, 14 en 1994 et 179 en |> 1995. In 1991, Aerospatiale was expecting to build 191 aircraft in 93, 224 in 94, 230 in 95. The most recent schedule has 140 in 93, 14 (?!) in 94, 179 in 95. Daan Sandee sandee@think.com Thinking Machines Corporation 1010 El Camino Real, Suite 310 Menlo Park, CA 94025 (415) 329-9300 From kls Thu Apr 1 23:09:05 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: brianm@boar.tansu.com.au (Brian Martin) Subject: Re: Shortened Boeings (was: The Sporty Game -- Boeing 757) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Reply-To: brianm@boar.tansu.com.au Organization: AOTC - CSSC Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 93 23:09:05 PST In article 288@ohare.Chicago.COM, Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes: >[QANTAS 707-120s] were >the airplanes I mentioned awhile back which had provision for carrying >a fifth engine as external freight, under the left wing between #2 and >the fuselage. I've only seen one photograph of a QANTAS 707 actually >carrying an engine this way, oddly enough, and unfortunately I don't >remember where I saw it. I'm no expert, but I think QANTAS at some time in the past used to carry out maintenance for some non-Australian airlines (Singapore ?) & occassionally used the 5th engine method to carry a (non active) engine to/from Australia for maintenance beyond the capabilities of local ground crew. Brian Martin From kls Thu Apr 1 23:09:07 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pete@frosty.rational.com (Pete Coe) Subject: Re: Shortened Boeings (was: The Sporty Game -- Boeing 757) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: Rational Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 93 23:09:07 PST ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes: >SP> == Stefano Pagiola > SP> Just as a bit of trivia, both the DC-10 and the L-1011 have the > SP> capability of carrying an additional engine on a pod (inboard of the > SP> main engines), and the DC-8 also had it. >As does the 747; see _Modern Commercial Aircraft_[*], p9. (The photo is of >the prototype, so it's presumably from a test of that configuration.) >[*] A 1987 coffee-table book with many nice photos; ISBN 0-517-63369-8. >-- The 747 definitely has this feature. Years and years ago I took a British Airways (probably BOAC then) flight from New York to London, which included a fifth engine. It was located inside of the working engines on the left side of the plane. -- -- Pete Coe -- Rational -- Object-Oriented Products From kls Fri Apr 2 05:36:09 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Spare engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 02 Apr 93 05:36:09 PST In article pete@frosty.rational.com writes: >The 747 definitely has this feature. Years and years ago I took a British >Airways (probably BOAC then) flight from New York to London, which included >a fifth engine. It was located inside of the working engines on the left >side of the plane. It's had the capability designed into it, and has been available since certification. The fifth engine is mounted inboard of the #2 engine. There are additional knick-knacks, such as a tail plug, and nose inlet shield and deflector cone, which are sometimes used. The engine obviously isn't "hooked up" to anything, and doesn't produce any power. The extra drag throws a lot of performance data out of the window, so besides the physical installation, the airplane/engine combination has to be certified. In addition, due to the different geometry of the various types of engines, they all have different certification standards. There isn't just a standard "pod" one can stick an engine in and forget about. For example, a CF6 can only be carried if the first stage rotor and hydraulic pump are removed; an RB-211 requires that plus the compressor splitter fairing, etc. There are "shielded" configurations, and windmilling configurations. Etc. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Fri Apr 2 05:36:11 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 727 deep stall References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 02 Apr 93 05:36:11 PST >At about 20,000 the airplane began a pre-stall shudder which the >crew misinterpreted as mach buffet. The airplane subsequently stalled >as the pilot applied even MORE back pressure. > >The pilot continued with back pressure and the airplane eventually began >to spin. During the spin and subsequent attempt to recover, one of the >vertical stabilizers was torn from the airframe, making further attempts >at recovery futile. At the risk of dragging this on even further: 1. The airplane did NOT spin. It was actually a spiral, much of it at relatively high airspeeds. 2. The left horizontal stabilizer failed under 3500'. Whether it would have made much difference at that point is debatable. Does anyone have a good scanner and OCR software? This is a fairly "popular" crash, and the report's only 21 pages, no illustrations, plus another 8 pages in appendices. My copy (blue-cover) is of very good quality. Any takers? :-) -- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd From kls Fri Apr 2 05:36:14 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: weiss@watson.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) Subject: Re: 727 deep stall (Re: tip vortices *do* exist!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 02 Apr 93 05:36:14 PST In article rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: >>Anyway, one of the measures he took to get back down to the glide slope >>was to retard the thrust levers below a recommended minimum setting. >A pilot can normally retard the throttles all the way back to idle >without having to worry about the fuel controller or flaming out the engine. >The thrust at this setting can range from 300 lbs to 1000 lbs per engine. Normally, yes. The 727 is an exception. Evidence of that can be seen in the angle of attack used on final. I doubt you'll see other aircraft with such high angles of attack on final. The specifics behind this are unclear to me, but I have heard exactly the same thing from an American Airlines 727 Flight Engineer and from my girlfriend's brother, who is an airline mechanic. >Do you have an issue date? Again, allegations of a "deep stall" are some- >what serious, since it suggests the airplane is in an aerodynamic condition >it *can't* escape from. In the case of the BAC-111, for example, aerodynamic >effectiveness of the elevators was almost nil. If the 727 is actually capable >of such a stall, I'd like to hear about it! :-) Perhaps the 727 is not, but the DC-9-80 (later renamed MD-80) got into a deep stall during FAA cert. The configuration of the 727 wing/tailplane is very similar to that of the MD-80, and deep stalls are a fact of life with high tailplane aircraft. -- \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | / - Michael weiss@seas.ucla.edu | School of Engineering & Applied Science - - Weiss izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu | University of California, Los Angeles - / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \ From kls Fri Apr 2 05:36:17 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: weiss@watson.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) Subject: Re: 757-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 02 Apr 93 05:36:17 PST In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >Interesting observation. The 737-300 has certainly replaced a lot of >727-100s. I'm not sure how well the 737 has fared in replacing the >727-200 though. Sadly enough, in many respects, the MD-80 has been replacing the 727-200s. It is also worth noting that the airline industry has changed since the 707/727/737 set were introduced. The introduction of deregulation allowed airlines to become more responsive to the market, and to introduce the hub and spoke system. Consequently, there became a need for different classes of aircraft: 1) Puddle jumpers, to go from the tiny airports to the nearest major airport. 2) Small, short haul aircraft, to handle SouthWest type airlines. The older DC-9s and all 737s fit this category. 3) Mid-size, medium- to long-haul aircraft. These are the major hub feeders, and since some hubs are far from centrally located, they need to be able to go the better part of cross-country. The 757 and MD-80 cover this class. 4) Large, long-haul aircraft. These run among major cities and hubs, and cover international flights. The widebodies fit here. Initially, the 707 was more of the 4th class aircraft. Today, an airplane of the 707's size has moved to the 3rd class, where the 727 used to sit. It is far more cost-effective today to have a 757 make the run if the flight is heavily traveled, and use an MD-80 if it is less traveled. >>I think the 737 has replaced more 727's than the 757, and I don't >>really think that was Boeing's envision when they lauched the 757. Only on routes where the MD-80 is overkill either on distance or on passenger capacity. -- \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | / - Michael weiss@seas.ucla.edu | School of Engineering & Applied Science - - Weiss izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu | University of California, Los Angeles - / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \ From kls Fri Apr 2 05:36:21 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hbreit@leland.Stanford.EDU (Henry Breitrose) Subject: New Soviet Aircraft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 02 Apr 93 05:36:21 PST This evening's Moscow television news showed pictures of the rollout of a new Soviet...whoops...Russian (hard to keep up with history) wide-body passenger jet, described as having been developed jointly with U.S. manufacturers. There were shots of a cockpit with CRT displays and references to Collins as an American partner. The aircraft was described as accomodating ca. 300 passengers and as having a range of 11,000 km. The engines were described as coming from Pratt & Whitney and I counted four...I think. The announcer indicated that they'd already made ca. 11 sales in former Soviet countries. Someone must know more about this. News from Moscow, with English translation is available on CSPAN-2 Monday through Friday at 9PM PST. -Henry Breitrose Stanford From kls Fri Apr 2 05:36:23 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Walter.Harms@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Walter Harms) Subject: Re: Bayerische Motoren Werke References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 02 Apr 93 05:36:23 PST In the last day there was a tv-report about a new manufacture near berlin. Rolls-Royce&BMW will build there new engines there. I am not an engenier but so far i understand they will build this trubines there. walter From kls Fri Apr 2 15:18:45 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: MD-11 Engine Sounds? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 02 Apr 93 15:18:45 PST Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Atlanta Customer Support Center I was recently on a flight from Chicago O'hare to London Heathrow aboard an American Airlines MD-11 trijet. Within two minutes of our initial ascent out of Chicago, the plane banked hard to one side, righted, then banked hard to the other side, then righted again. During these motions, I heard what sounded like one of the three engines spinning down - not being throttled back as usual in a take-off, but spinning down to idle or off, then spinning up, down, then up again and remaining running from then on. The pilot did not announce anything, and the flight continued on schedule to its destination without evident incident. The banks didn't seem to accomplish anything - I think they pretty much cancelled each other out (though that is a very hard determination to make while climbing through clouds, with no instruments in front of me). Any ideas on the engine sounds I think I heard? Thanks -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@alf.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation decwrl!alf.dec.com!libove Atlanta Customer Support Center Opinions? They're mine, mine, all mine! Alpharetta, Georgia and D.E.C. Can't have 'em! From kls Sun Apr 4 15:01:03 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: C2983HR@UVBumr.edu (Mike Howells) Subject: Tailplane icing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 04 Apr 93 15:01:03 PDT Organization: Univ of MO - Rolla There have been some articles recently about a newly(?) discovered phenomenon -- tailplane icing. It is interesting because the de-icing boots are unable to completely get rid of the ice on the horizontal stabilizer due to propeller wash cooling the tailplane by as much as 35 degrees F! There is MUCH more to the story here but I would be taking up valuable bandwidth. I am doing a technical paper on this subject and would GREATLY appreciate any helpful comments on this matter. Please remember to include your name so I may include you in my reference section. --Mike Howells Commercial Pilot Airplane Single & Multi-Engine Land Instrument Airplane From kls Sun Apr 4 15:01:07 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R Ebright) Subject: Terror at 41,000 feet... follow up References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 04 Apr 93 15:01:07 PDT Several months ago we had a thread on a 727 almost falling out of the sky (39,000 to 5,000 ft in 63 seconds). As I remember it, no one was able to identify the acutal incident. It took me about 20 minutes on Nexis to find it... but I did! It seems to fit into the discussion of the ongoing 727 slats thread :) Aviation Week, April 16, 1979; October 5, 1979 and The Washington Post, May 13, 1979... April 4, 1979 TWA 841, a Boeing 727-100 (N840TW) left JFK for Minneapolis. At about 21:48 EST while at 39,000 ft near Saginaw, MI the aircraft "entered an uncontrolled maneuver". To quote from AvWeek's NTSB report ... "the uncontrolled maneuver began about 21:47:47 with isolation of the aircraft's No 7 leading edge slat (on it's right wing) in the extended or partially extended position. During the preceding 14 sec. the aircraft had rolled slowly to the right to about 35 deg. of right bank and was returned to near wings level flight. Thereafter, the aircraft rolled again to about 35 deg. of right bank in about 4 sec. About 21:47:51, the right roll was stopped near 35 deg. of bank for a few seconds. At that time, the aircraft reached a condition wherein Mach number, angle of attack, and sideslip combined to reduce the aircraft's lateral control margin to zero or less, and the aircraft continued to roll to the right in a decending spiral. During the following 33 sec. the aircraft completed 360 deg. of roll while decending to about 21,000 ft. The aircraft enter a second roll to the right during which the No 7 slat was torn from the aricraft. Control of the aircraft was regained about 21:48:55 at an altitude of about 8,000 ft. "The safety board [NTSB] determines that the probable cause of this accident was isolation of the No 7 leading edge slat in the fully or partially extended position after an extension of the Nos. 2,3,6, and 7 leading edge slats and the subsequent retraction of the Nos. 2,3, and 6 slats, and the captian's untimely flight control inputs to counter the roll resulting from the slat asymmetry. "Contributing to the cause was a preexisting misalignment of the No. 7 slat which, when combined with the cruse condition airloads, precluded retraction of that slat. Ater eliminating all probable individual or combined mechanical failures, or malfuncitions which could lead to slat extension, the safety board determined that the extension of the slats was the result of the flightcrew's manipulation of the flap/slat controls. Contributing to the captian's untimely use of the flight controls was distraction due probably to his efforts to rectify the source of the control problem." The aircraft landed at Detroit Metro with only 3 of the 89 pax injured. The aircraft exceed 500kts and experienced 4-5gs during pullout. (PHEW!) To regain control of the aircraft during the nose down dive, the captain had to lower the landing gear to create sufficient drag to slow the aircraft. The investigation was hampered by the erasure of the cockpit voice recorder by the captain (Harvey G. Gibson) upon landing in Detroit. The captian was given 4 days of training review by TWA. The co-pilot and flight officer were given 1 day each. All returned to regular service when no evidence could be found to indicate "the flightcrew's maniupulation of the flap/slat controls" was a deliberate act as some of the rumors posted in the original thread in sci.aeronautics.airliners indicated. (??!?) "Just the facts, mam, just the facts." -- Sgt. Joe Friday --Jim -- Information farming at... For addr&phone: finger A/~~\A THE Ohio State University jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu ((0 0))____ Jim Ebright e-mail: jre+@osu.edu \ / \ (--)\ From kls Sun Apr 4 15:01:13 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jimakinen@cc.helsinki.fi Subject: Re: New Soviet Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: University of Helsinki Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 04 Apr 93 15:01:13 PDT In article , hbreit@leland.Stanford.EDU (Henry Breitrose) writes: > This evening's Moscow television news showed pictures of the rollout of > a new Soviet...whoops...Russian (hard to keep up with history) wide-body > passenger jet, described as having been developed jointly with U.S. > manufacturers. There were shots of a cockpit with CRT displays and > references to Collins as an American partner. The aircraft was described > as accomodating ca. 300 passengers and as having a range of 11,000 km. > The engines were described as coming from Pratt & Whitney and I counted > four...I think. The Russians have been talking about their Ilyushin Il-96-300 for a long, long time and knowing the financial situation of the country I don't believe they're going to make any totally new planes in near future. So, although I've not seen this program I suppose the plane is Il-96-300M: -It has already now CRT displays and FBW, but because the quality of the Russian electronics is relatively poo they have been looking for western technology. The Collins avionics will propably be used in Tu-204 and Il-104 -The contract between Ilyushin Design Bureau and P&W was signed already during the last Paris Air Show (1991) and Il-96 will make is debyt with P&W during next Paris Air Show next June. -The Russians have been showing the photos and films about the new widebody Ilyushin from mid-eighties, it was aimed to enter service in 1990, but they just keep on showing photos... So, this is surely no exeption. > The announcer indicated that they'd already made ca. 11 sales in former > Soviet countries. Someone must know more about this. Originally the international department of the Aeroflot ordered more than a hundred Il-96's, but everything has changed since; hopefully somebody else knows more about the current status of Ilyushin order book, but I remember junt that Aeroflot (the ruins of it) and some other now private airliners is Russia have been interested in bying Il-96-300 with P&W engines just because then thay can have a new state-of-the-art airliner paying majority in roubles and just the western parts in hard currency. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jari Makinen Aerospace Editor, Astronomer Univ. of Helsinki Tel/Fax: +358 0 490 219 Finland E-Mail: Jari.I.Makinen@Helsinki.FI ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Tue Apr 6 04:59:29 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: h andrew chuang Subject: Re: 757-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 06 Apr 93 04:59:29 PDT I think the 757-100/-300 issue has dragged on for too long, and I promise this will be my last posting on the 757. In article Karl Swartz writes: >>Just as an example, Singapore Airlines chose to replace its very >>young 757 fleet (~ 5-year old and only 4 planes) with the A310 a few >>years ago. If the 757 really has a significant cost advantage, that >>would not have happened! > >There's more to cost than just operating cost. Singapore already had >the A310 (six A310-222s delivered about the same time as the 757s) in >its fleet so the additional A310s (A310-324) which appear to have >replaced the 757 could also represent fleet simplification, with what >may be for them a more versatile aircraft coming out the winner. Of Actually, the old -222 replaced the 757, not the new -324. And definitely, fleet standardization was the major reason that SIA retired its 757 fleet, but what I was trying to point out was that if the 757 had a !!SIGNIFICANT!! cost advantage, then the retirement would not have happened. Especially, when considering that SIA's 757's were mainly used on S'pore-Kuala Lumpur shuttle service, and S'pore-Penang service that have little cargo traffic, hence, the larger, wide-body A310 doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. (Note: earlier, Karl suggested that the proposed 757-300 should have a cost advantage over the 767-200, but I just don't beleive that the 757-300 will have a significant cost advantage to justify Boeing to build an airplane to cut into its own 767 market.) (Just something aside, Karl mentioned in another posting that most carriers use fully depreciated planes for shuttle services, obviously that's not the case in Singapore and Malaysia. Malaysia uses relatively new 737's and (old) A300's on the shuttle service. But their shuttle flights are more like regular scheduled flights.) >course Airbus may have sweetened the deal too, especially since they >were trying to win an A340 *after* Singapore had signed for the MD-11. NO! The decision for the fleet replacement was made years before SIA replaced its MD-11 order with the A340 order. However, I definitely believe that Airbus had done something "big" to win SIA's A340 order. Ironically, MD lost SIA's order because of MD-11's performance shortfall, but it seems that the A340 has a significant performance shortfall, too! >If size of market is your criteria then you must consider the 747 a >dismal failure -- ten years after first delivery only about 400 had >been delivered, versus over 500 for the 757 at the same point. Yes and no. The 747 was a disaster when it first came out. It was too big, especially for the US market, and the original JT9D-3A engines had a dismal reliability. However, the market caught on very soon. Moreover, a 747 has a MUCH LARGER profit margin than a 757. I remember reading somewhere that for a program to be profitable, the manufaturer has to recover its development cost within ten years. The 747 definitely met the criteria, the 757 probably barely met that criteria. It is widely known in the industry that the 747 program has been subsidizing the 757/767 programs. >bet Boeing's profits from the 757 prorgam are ahead, probably well >ahead, of those from the 767. I am not saying the 767 is a hugh success, but the 767 did a lot more than the 757 to recover the development costs for Boeing in the early years WHEN IT REALLY COUNTED. (Simple economics: ten dollars in 1980 worth a lot more than ten dollars in 1990, and the costs that are not recovered will incur further interests that become additional costs.) Moreover, the 767 program was strategically important for Boeing, because the 767 was fairly successful in blocking out Airbus' A300/A310 from the North American market. Without the 767, Airbus could possibly be the number one airframe manufacturer, that would be a terrible blow for Boeing as well as the US economy since Boeing is the number one exporter of the U.S. [a lot of discussions on 757's failure/success deleted] The real failure is that Boeing did not come up with the right design to replace the 727 in the late 70's. Fortunately, the 737 derivatives saved Boeing from losing the 727 customers. Nonetheless, to have a complete family ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ of airplanes, Boeing needs the 757 now. Also, it was fortunate that Boeing ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ had some successful programs to sustain the 757/767 programs in the early years. If the 757 program were Lockheed's, it would probably have the same fate as the L1011, and not lasted long enough to see the flurries of 757 orders in the late 80's and early 90's. >>from engine manufacturers' standpoint (IMHO), PW2000 would need a lot more >>757 sales to make business sense, because PW2000 has only one commerical >>application (and the military application is not doing that well, either)! > >What's the military app? The C-17? Yes, the Air Force uses the F-117 designation for the PW2000. >By that metric perhaps you're right. But what about the 720? Well, the 720 is really a derivative, and development cost was minimal compared to the 757's. Otherwise, both the 720 and 747SP were much bigger flops than the 757. >Interesting observation. The 737-300 has certainly replaced a lot of >727-100s. I'm not sure how well the 737 has fared in replacing the >727-200 though. Aren't most of the 727-200 (at least the Advanced model) still flying? And the 737 may be too out-of-date to replace the newer 727's when they are ready to be retired. The 7J7 would probably be a good candidate for replacing both the 727 and 737, but the program was cancelled because it used an expensive and unproven engine technology (GE's UnDucted Fan, and P&W/Garrett's Propfan [? sorry, I forgot what it was called]) in which the airlines were not very interested. It seems all the discussions on the net always lead back to the need for Boeing to have a 727/"757-100"/7J7-sized airplane. I really wonder what is the reason why Boeing is not talking about such a plane, are we missing something? The only thing that comes close to it is the 737-600, but does it make sense to continue the production of a mid-60's plane into the next century? >Without looking up numbers I'd suspect Delta and later American and >United have really driven the 757, perhaps even accounting for the >majority of 757 orders. Delta's 727s were pretty new, while the other Unfortunately, the 757 is doing well only among US airlines of which most are losing big-time money. British Airways is the only significant and profitable 757 airline customer outside the US. Also, it is practically not used by any of the booming East Asian airlines other than Air China, Shanghai, Royal Brunei, and Royal Nepal, and none of them has a sizable 757 fleet. (Nonetheless, narrow body airplanes simply are not widely used on the Asian side of the Pacific Rim.) Arguably, the 767 has a better customer base worldwide than the 757. (But I also have to point out that the 727 was not very successful outside the U.S. I guess the 727 and 757 were designed mostly for the US market.) >have to agree that a lot of 757 orders were for fleet expansion and >not for 727 replacement. (Actually United's first 30 757 were for >replacement, but of the DC-8-71 and not the 727.) That's exactly one of my points. Although, the 757 has created a new market which is only becoming sizable in the recent years, it definitely did not replace the 727 that Boeing had originally planned. I just wonder, if the 737/CFM combination came a few years earlier, would Boeing still build the 757 AT THAT TIME? IMHO, if weren't for the commonality between the 757 and 767, Boeing would have been better off launching the 757 around mid-80's. By the way, on the subject of ordering engines before ordering airframes: In an earlier posting, I pointed out that AA ordered the PW2000 before ordering the 757 and later cancelled the order. Interestingly, someone just digged out some old information on AA's 1988 order of up to 200 CF6-80C2/80E engines before ordering any airplanes. Luckily for GE, AA has not cancelled that order, yet! :-) I will refrain from making any more comments on the 757, but before I do that, I want to make a very personal comment. When I was a kid, I always liked the shapes of all the Boeing jets and hated the "blunt-nose" Douglas planes (DC-8/DC-9). When I first saw the 757, I was wondering why Boeing designed a "blunt-nose" airplane as ugly as the DC-8. Perhaps, the real reason that I consider the 757 being the least successful Boeing jet is because subconsciously I just don't like the airplane! :-) Coincidentally, the 757 is the only Boeing jet that I have never flown in! -- --------------------------------------------------------------- | H. Andrew Chuang || Tel: (513) 774-5267 | | LEA || Fax: (513) 774-5171 | | GE Aircraft Engines || Email: chuang@hp659.crd.ge.com | --------------------------------------------------------------- personal opinions... not speaking for GE Aircraft Engines From kls Tue Apr 6 04:59:32 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Soviet Aircraft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Atlanta Customer Support Center Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 06 Apr 93 04:59:32 PDT When I flew through Shannon airport recently, I noticed a Soviet plane (I don't know what model, but I'll guess at an Ilyushin-86 because that was the aircraft type I was told flies the Miami to Shannon route, and would have landed shortly before my flight did). What I found interesting was that the plane had four jet engines, all at the tail, attached with two on either side; on either side of the tail would be one engine, attached to the tail, and then attached to that engine was another engine. I had never seen this configuration before. What are the pros and cons of putting engines in pairs like this on the tail, versus putting them under the wing (as on the 747)? Thanks -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@alf.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation decwrl!alf.dec.com!libove Atlanta Customer Support Center Opinions? They're mine, mine, all mine! Alpharetta, Georgia and D.E.C. Can't have 'em! From kls Tue Apr 6 04:59:34 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Soviet Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 06 Apr 93 04:59:34 PDT Jay Vassos-Libove writes: >When I flew through Shannon airport recently, I noticed a Soviet >plane ... the plane had four jet engines, all at the tail, attached >with two on either side That's an Ilyushin Il-62, the Soviet version of the Vickers VC-10 and the backbone of Soviet long-range operations for many years, long after the West had traded in the VC-10 and its contemporaris on new equipment, mostly the 747, DC-10, and L-1011. The VC-10 in BOAC colours is one of my favorite aircraft, visually. >What are the pros and cons of putting engines in pairs like >this on the tail, versus putting them under the wing (as on >the 747)? The pros are that it permits a cleaner overall aerodynamic design because it allows for a wing with fewer compromises, and it tends to produce a quieter cabin since the engine noise is in the back. It also reduces constraints on landing gear height which may be a great advantage for smaller aircraft intended to service fields with stairs instead of jetways and such. Boeing had to work a lot harder on the 737 than McDonnell-Douglas did on the DC-9 to get the fuselage close to the ground, for example. The biggest con is that those engines are heavy and when operating produce some tremendous forces. A lot more structure has to go into a fuselage to suport aft-mounted engine(s) than into the wings to handle wing-mounted engines, and that structure adds weight to the airframe. This is probably why all of the recent designs use wing-mounted engines. (The MD-90 isn't really new, being just a reheated DC-9, and it would be pretty hard to put the #2 engine on an MD-11 anywhere *but* the tail!) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Tue Apr 6 04:59:36 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: behunin@oodis01.hill.af.mil (Roland L. Behunin;OO-ALC/LILAM) Subject: DOD reverse engineering projects and undocumented commerical spares Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 06 Apr 93 04:59:36 PDT H: DOD reverse engineering projects are a major contributing factor to the problem of undocumented spares in the commercial aviation inventory. I think a lot of people on this list read Aviation Week & Space Technology. A recent article said even the FAA fleet had about 37% substandard or undocumented parts on them. DOD has done a lot with reverse engineering of aircraft parts. I am wondering if the companies that produce parts for the military think they are qualified to make parts for commercial aviation because they have passed some sort of testing for military aviation? Roland From kls Thu Apr 8 15:37:57 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: Soviet Aircraft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 08 Apr 93 15:37:57 PDT Karl Swartz wrote: >>... the plane had four jet engines, all at the tail, attached >> with two on either side > > That's an Ilyushin Il-62, the Soviet version of the Vickers VC-10 > [lots more deleted] Do you (or anybody) have any evidence to back this claim? I am continually hearing that such and such Soviet airliner is a `copy' of that or the other Western airliner (Il-62/VC-10, Tu-134/DC-9, Tu-154/727, Tu-144/Concorde). Why do we assume this? Is the Boeing 727 a `copy' of the British Trident? Is the Boeing 767 a `copy' of the Airbus A300? Are the DC-8 and CV-880/990 `copies' of the 707? Are the DC-9 and F28 `copies' of the Caravelle? Or is it simply that similar requirements and similar technology leads to broadly similar solutions? Look at how close to each other Douglas' and Lockheed's designs for tri-jet widebodies came out, and yet neither can be claimed to be copies of each other since they were developed simultaneously. There is a finite number of configurations that airliners can take, and it seems to me fairly likely that if one manufacturer's engineers find that a particular approach solves a given set of problems, that other engineers can also come to the same conclusion. Of course, if a particular configuration has already been adopted by company A, company B might be encouraged to give that configuration a closer look in its own design studies. Does it make the two resulting aircraft copies of each other? If you look at the VC-10 and Il-62, I think you'll find that at the time they were designed, there was no getting around the need for four engines in a long-range aircraft (both for total thrust and for reliability reasons on overwater segments). Many manufacturers (Boeing, Douglas, Convair) addressed this by placing the four engines in pods under the wings. One placed them in the wing roots (De Havilland). At the time, there was also considerable debate over the advantages of having a nice clean wing (such as on the Caravelle--which made it, BTW, a superb glider) and of placing the engines in the tail (lower cabin noise, better ground clearance and hence protection from FOD damage). That some manufacturers should try to bring these advantages to long-range aircraft, and therefore place the necessary 4 engines together on the rear fuselage is not surprising. As Karl's post pointed out, this arrangement does have disadvantages. In particular, one needs a pretty heavy structure to handle 4 rear-mounted engines, and the possibilities for growth are limited. This may well explain why neither aircraft was very successful. But that still doesn't make the two aircraft copies of each other. I think it is time that we lay this old canard about soviet airliners being copies of Western designs to rest, unless somebody can come up with some convincing evidence. Simple sequence in time is not evidence (if it were, then christmas card sales would `cause' christmas). Neither is knowledge by one manufacturer of another's design (after all, why did Ilyuschin not copy Boeing or Douglas?) -- - Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Thu Apr 8 15:37:58 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mmr47784@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Rogers ) Subject: Re: 737 nits (was Re: 757-300?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 08 Apr 93 15:37:58 PDT >number of seats, e.g. Southwest packs 122 onto both while United >actually has one less seat on the -500 with 108 seats. I noticed that the -500 only has 2 seats on each side in row 9 (the window exit row). Is this something that is now federally mandated for an easier escape path?... or what is Boeing's reason for this? ... just wondering.... Mark. mmr47784@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu From kls Thu Apr 8 15:38:01 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: UAL, BOEING Agree To Restructure Deliveries Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: Boeing Computer Services Research & Technology, Bellevue, WA USA Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 08 Apr 93 15:38:01 PDT BOEING MANAGEMENT INFORMATION BULLETIN 93-33 4-8-93 UAL, BOEING AGREE TO RESTRUCTURE DELIVERIES United Airlines and Boeing have agreed to restructure United's orders while ensuring the launch of the 777 as planned. The restructuring will not change airplane production and employment rates set earlier this year. "When we set those rates, we took into account our ongoing discussions with United and others," said Dean Thornton, president of Boeing Commercial Airplane Group. "We wanted to cover all of them with one adjustment, and we did." In the agreement, 49 United orders, listed at $2.7 billion, will be reclassified as purchase options. However, United will forfeit significant security deposits if it chooses not to take delivery of the aircraft before the year 2000. The agreement is designed to help United strengthen its financial position by significantly reducing its near-term obligations to buy airplanes. At the same time, Boeing stays strongly positioned to deliver more airplanes to United over the long term, when the carrier's financial strength returns. "It's in our best interest to help our customers regain their financial health," Thornton said. "We have faith in the future of our industry, and in United's place in it. When prosperity returns to the airline industry in the next few years, United will be well positioned to accept new Boeing airplanes." The 49 airplanes included in the agreement comprise all Boeing models currently in production, except for the 777. United's orders for the 777 remain at 34 with 34 options. The airline will take delivery of the first 777 in May 1995 and 10 more by the end of 1995. United and Boeing have agreed to modify the carrier's 1996 deliveries for the 777. Four "A" model 777s, developed for routes up to 5,000 miles, will be converted to longer-range "B" models, two for delivery in 1998 and two in 1999. The 49 airplanes covered by the agreement are: UAL ORDERS MODEL CONVERTED 737 31 747 8 757 2 767 8 Boeing's commercial airplane backlog totaled $82.6 billion at the end of 1992. From kls Thu Apr 8 15:38:06 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Soviet Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 08 Apr 93 15:38:06 PDT Stefano Pagiola writes: >> That's an Ilyushin Il-62, the Soviet version of the Vickers VC-10 >> [lots more deleted] >Do you (or anybody) have any evidence to back this claim? I am >continually hearing that such and such Soviet airliner is a `copy' of >that or the other Western airliner You're reading more into the words than was intended, though given the common assumptions to which you allude that isn't entirely unreasonable. Still, had I said that a DC-8 was Douglas' version of the 707 or that the L-1011 was Lockheed's version of the DC-10, would you have reacted the same way? I doubt it. > Is the Boeing 727 a `copy' of the British Trident? Is the Boeing > 767 a `copy' of the Airbus A300? Are the DC-8 and CV-880/990 > `copies' of the 707? There does appear to be some evidence that the 727 was significantly influenced by the Trident, though I doubt many would go so far as to claim that Boeing copied the Trident. And the 767 varies significantly in a number of regards from the A300, fuselage width perhaps being one of the most dramatic differenes between the basic designs. The DC-8 and 707 seem more logical extrapolatons of then-contemporary designs in the industry, tied with similar requirements. That last sentence probably contains the keys. A while ago, someone, Robert Dorsett if I'm not mistaken, noted that aircraft design has become almost a cookbook approach -- the problems are sufficiently well understood that two independent teams working on a common target will produce remarkably similar designs. The second point is that manufacturers are often working on the same set of requirements from the same set of airlines. This latter point is perhaps nowhere clearer than in the DC-10 and L-1011. In the case of the various Soviet aircraft which bear remarkable similarity at a superficial level, do these rules still apply? While the Soviets had (and the CIS countries still have, a fact worth noting and not forgetting) some very talented aircraft designers, it is not clear that they were working from the same technological base. In particular, similar or even identical engine choices (e.g. DC-10 and L-1011 again, or 707 and DC-8) have pushed designs closer together, whereas my impression has been that engine technology was where the Soviets were furthest behind the West, with the possible exception of avionics, which until recently hasn't had that dramatic an influence on airframe design. (Based on some sources even A320 may not be much of a departure from the norm in this regard.) As far as requirements, it seems to me that the Soviets were working from a rather different set in most cases, certainly from a different set of customers. Economical North Atlantic operations has not had nearly the influence for the Soviets that it has with the West, and I'd suspect that the same goes for comfort. Is it still reasonable to explain the Il-62 and VC-10 as being similar simply because of common design rules and requirements, if they are in fact that similar? (Buran and the U.S. Space Shuttle are remarkably similar in appearance but seem to be just as remarkably *different* in detail.) I don't know, though it doesn't seem obvious to me. Even less so for the Tu-144 and Concorde, whereas the Tu-154 seems signifi- cantly more divergent from the 727 and Trident. (Perhaps notably, the Tu-154 was a much later development, whereas the others were nearly concurrent.) None of which answers your real question. No, I don't have any hard evidence, though I have vague recollections that there was a large amount of copying documented in at least one case, probably the Tu-144. Can anyone else cite anything more concrete, pro or con, on this matter? -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Apr 8 15:38:09 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 737 nits (was Re: 757-300?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 08 Apr 93 15:38:09 PDT Mark Rogers writes: > I noticed that the -500 only has 2 seats on each side in row >9 (the window exit row). Is this something that is now federally >mandated for an easier escape path? I suspect this has more to do with positioning of the seats relative to where the window exits are located. For example, United has only 2 seats at this row on the 737-500, as you mention, but also does so on the much older 737-200, whereas on the relatively new 737-300 there are 3 seats at the exit row. Probably the seatback would block the exit on the first two, whereas the exit would be adjecent to or forward of the armrest in the 737-300 (and the row in front of the exit probably has a non-reclining seat). Anybody with hard numbers care to comment on the rules? -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Apr 8 15:38:10 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Virgin Atlantic buys A340s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 08 Apr 93 15:38:10 PDT Last month there was a discussion of Airbus approaching United about buying A340s, allegedly offering a very good deal on the cancelled Northwest orders which were already far along in production. Well, it looks like Airbus found a buyer in the guise of Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic. Yesterday, Virgin agreed to buy four A340-300 aircraft for about $453 million. Based on estimates that "list" price for an A340 (not that there really is such a thing) is about $120 million each, this doesn't seem like all that great a deal, though the delivery times certainly are: one in each of the last three months of this year, with the fourth to come in October, 1994. This is an interesting departure for Virgin, which in the past has said they were inclined to stick to a single-type fleet by buying either new 747-400s or more used 747s. The single-type fleet has done wonders for Southwest, and departure from that strategy has in part nearly killed America West. I wonder what the effect will be on Virgin Atlantic? -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Apr 9 15:03:02 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: siddiqi@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (Shahid Siddiqi) Subject: Re: Soviet Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA, USA Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 93 15:03:02 PDT In article spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) writes: >Karl Swartz wrote: >> [lots more deleted] > >Do you (or anybody) have any evidence to back this claim? I am >continually hearing that such and such Soviet airliner is a `copy' of >that or the other Western airliner (Il-62/VC-10, Tu-134/DC-9, >Tu-154/727, Tu-144/Concorde). Why do we assume this? Is the Boeing >727 a `copy' of the British Trident? Is the Boeing 767 a `copy' of >the Airbus A300? Are the DC-8 and CV-880/990 `copies' of the 707? I think these were cold war propaganda biases - the politically correct aeronautics viewpoint to have up to now. In the case of the TU-144 & Concorde the record shows that the TU-144 first flew about 4 or 5 months before the Concorde did. The Concorde was a success operationally (debatable economically) while the TU144 was not. In my opinion one fo the reasons for this was that the Soviets went out on the risk limb in engines as well - they tried a small mixed burning cycle enginge - it was a turbo fan while the concorde's olympus engine is a turbojet. The Kuznetsov engine I heard burned fuel in the fan stream as well as the core. The engine gave them trouble. From kls Fri Apr 9 15:03:04 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: 727 lineage (Re: Soviet Aircraft) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 93 15:03:04 PDT In article kls@ohare.chicago.com writes: >> Is the Boeing 727 a `copy' of the British Trident? Is the Boeing >> 767 a `copy' of the Airbus A300? Are the DC-8 and CV-880/990 >> `copies' of the 707? > >There does appear to be some evidence that the 727 was significantly >influenced by the Trident, though I doubt many would go so far as to >claim that Boeing copied the Trident. Do you have any references for that position? I'm aware that the Brits complained bitterly that the Trident influenced the 727 (probably because it trounced the Trident), but literature from Boeing (1) and Len Morgan's book (2) suggest it was far more mission-driven. They needed an airplane to carry an Electra size load (the -100 and Electra cabins are about the same size), one which would have a higher dispatch reliability in the (then) regulatory environment, and one that could compete with other jet transports. The 727's fuselage cross-section is, consequently, identical to the 707's, and wider than the Trident's. Three engines were used to ensure the dispatch requirement. The other requirements mandated the new engine, hence the JT8D. The positioning of the engines was, according to (1), a bitter debate, producing configurations ranging from twins to quads to airplanes strongly resembling the L-1011 to, even, one strongly resembling the Electra itself. Positioning and design of virtually all systems were themselves influenced by the mission requirements, as (1) makes clear. (1) notes that the three-engine configuration owed its existence to a compromise proposal between UAL's desire for a four-engined plane and EAL's desire for a twin, more than any other factor. No doubt Boeing was well aware of the Trident program, but the R&D process didn't seem to be unduly influenced by it. (1) "A Case Study in Aircraft Design: The Boeing 727," American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics Professional Study Series, September 14, 1978. (2) "The Boeing 727 Scrapbook," by Len and Terry Moragan, Aero Publishers, 1978. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Fri Apr 9 15:03:08 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 727 lineage (Re: Soviet Aircraft) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 93 15:03:08 PDT >>There does appear to be some evidence that the 727 was significantly >>influenced by the Trident, though I doubt many would go so far as to >>claim that Boeing copied the Trident. >Do you have any references for that position? I'm aware that the Brits >complained bitterly that the Trident influenced the 727 (probably because >it trounced the Trident) ... Primarily several references which suggest that Boeing's ideas for what was to become the 727 became dramatically more focused within a remarkably short time after Boeing visited de Havilland and made a close inspection of the DH.121 (original designation for the Trident) plans with the idea, at least in de Havilland's thoughts, of a possible joint effort. Most recently I've read this in the Airliners article on the Trident (Spring 1992) but I've read similar comments elsewhere, I believe in some of the books on Boeing. Influenced may well be too strong here. Assuming some connection it might be better to say the Trident (er, 121) acted, to some degree, as a catalyst for Boeing's ideas. >The 727's fuselage cross-section is ... wider than the Trident's. Frightening, seeing as how a few Tridents flew with seven-abreast seating! >(1) notes that the three-engine configuration owed its existence to a >compromise proposal between UAL's desire for a four-engined plane and EAL's >desire for a twin, more than any other factor. Yes, but various Boeing histories that I've read claimed that the three-engine format was widely regarded, by airlines and by some Boeing folks, as too weird. In particular I believe the S-duct configuration was a point of extensive debate. If the stories vis a vis de Havilland have some basis in fact, seeing another group of engineers with perhaps more advanced research on the same area concluding that the design would indeed work could easily have a catalytic effect. Kind of a concurring second opinion. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Apr 9 15:03:10 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: Soviet Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 93 15:03:10 PDT Karl Swartz writes > Stefano Pagiola writes: >>>That's an Ilyushin Il-62, the Soviet version of the Vickers VC-10 >>Do you (or anybody) have any evidence to back this claim? I am >>continually hearing that such and such Soviet airliner is a `copy' >>of that or the other Western airliner > You're reading more into the words than was intended, though > given the common assumptions to which you allude that isn't > entirely unreasonable. Still, had I said that a DC-8 was > Douglas' version of the 707 or that the L-1011 was Lockheed's > version of the DC-10, would you have reacted the same way? I > doubt it. If you had claimed that the L-1011 was Lockheed's version of the DC-10, I would probably have chided you by E-Mail for sloppy language. That assertion would simply be false as stated; saying something like `the L-1011 is Lochkeed's response to the requirements that also lead to the DC-10' would have been accurate. In this case, I am quite confident, given your knowledge of aviation, that you didn't literally mean that the Il-62 was a `copy' of the VC-10. But the statement reflected a common enough misperception in the aviation world that I thought it was worth addressing directly. > A while ago, someone, > Robert Dorsett if I'm not mistaken, noted that aircraft design has > become almost a cookbook approach -- the problems are sufficiently > well understood that two independent teams working on a common > target will produce remarkably similar designs. My point exactly. One thing I would add to that, though, is that particular design teams often develop extensive experience in certain parts of those cookbooks, so that aircraft from a given team often tend to meet even quite different requirements with similar designs. Notice how all of DeHavilland Canada's designs are high-winged. Initially, this was necessary for good rough-field performance. But the Dash 8, for example, has no rough-field capability (someone correct me?) and yet retains a distinctive family resemblance to the earlier DHC designs. Similarly, the Tupolev 134 and 154 are quite obviously siblings; indeed the resemblance between them is to my mind much greater than any superficial resemblance they might share with the DC-9 and 727, respectively. The other nuance to consider is that the high cost of developing new designs means that historical choices can condition design for decades and more. Witness Douglas' MD-90 and MD-11. > The second point is that > manufacturers are often working on the same set of requirements > from the same set of airlines. This latter point is perhaps > nowhere clearer than in the DC-10 and L-1011. > In the case of the various Soviet aircraft which bear remarkable > similarity at a superficial level, do these rules still apply? > While the Soviets had (and the CIS countries still have, a fact > worth noting and not forgetting) some very talented aircraft > designers, it is not clear that they were working from the > same technological base. In particular, similar or even > identical engine choices (e.g. DC-10 and L-1011 again, or 707 > and DC-8) have pushed designs closer together, whereas my > impression has been that engine technology was where the > Soviets were furthest behind the West, with the possible > exception of avionics (...) > As far as requirements, it seems to me that the Soviets > were working from a rather different set in most cases, > certainly from a different set of customers. To the extent that these points (different technology for fundamental components such as engines and different requirements) are correct, then it becomes all the more evident that any resemblance of soviet designs to western designs is purely coincidental, since by the first point they _could not_ have copied western designs, and by the second would not have _wanted_ to. The Il-86 is, I believe, an example of where soviet designers simply could not copy western designs. While everybody in the West was designing and/or building big widebody twins, Soviet designers simply did not have powerful/reliable enough engines to power a large twin. Their response to the kind of requirements that lead to the A300/A310 and 767, therefore, is a four-engined aircraft. > None of which answers your real question. No, I don't have > any hard evidence, though I have vague recollections that > there was a large amount of copying documented in at least > one case, probably the Tu-144. Yes, we can argue general principle all we want, but it would be nice if somebody could actually inject some evidence into the debate. I do remember an article on the Tu-144 somewhere in my aviation library. I'll look it up and report next week. -- - Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Fri Apr 9 15:03:14 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: weiss@turing.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) Subject: Re: Soviet Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohareChicago.COM Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles Sender: kls@ohareChicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 93 15:03:14 PDT In article libove@libove.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) writes: >What are the pros and cons of putting engines in pairs like >this on the tail, versus putting them under the wing (as on >the 747)? I had seen pictures of this aircraft before. Strange appearence, eh? I see two major cons: 1) The deep stall problem of the high T-tail (the same as in the DC-9 and 727) 2) Lack of double-redundancy in the engine pylons Let me elaborate on #2 (since we have discussed to death #1). On the 747, if an engine pylon fails, you lose one engine. If the pylon attaching an engine to the fuselage fails on the Il-62, you lose TWO engines. Continuing on this theme, damage to the controls running through the pylon would behave the same. In that case, it's much like the problem with the DC-10's hydraulic system, where something that would damage one system would likely damage all systems simply due to proximity. I can't see too many pros, aside from the one that led designers to put the engines on the tail in the first place, namely noise. You can keep the rest of the airplane quieter by concentrating the noise to the rear. Nonetheless, the advantage was not sufficient to keep the design for the 737, so I'm inclined to believe that switching to turbofans (especially high-bypass turbofans) reduces noise to the point that it's just not a big deal to have the engines on the wings. -- \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | / - Michael weiss@seas.ucla.edu | School of Engineering & Applied Science - - Weiss izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu | University of California, Los Angeles - / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \