From kls Tue Oct 5 01:10:26 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ohare!bounce-back From: Andy Ruina Subject: Efficiency of commercial planes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Oct 93 01:10:18 PDT Organization: Cornell University How efficient are planes? The number I would like to know is the total passenger miles of the airline industry divided by the total number of gallons of fuel used. That is, how many passenger miles per gallon to planes actually get on average. But other breakdowns would be interesting, say by length of flight. How good are the best planes running optimal distances with full passenger load? etc. Also, how small a fraction of the average fuel cost per passenger is the incremental fuel cost of adding a passenger? I was told by a reasonably credible person that planes get about 15 passenger miles per gallon (worldwide average) but that Lufthansa gets about 25 passenger miles per gallon. I find this interesting because it meanse that flying, on average, is as fuel intensive as driving a fuel-hog car alone. But is this true? Thanks for any info. -Andy Ruina, TAM, Cornell, Ithaca, NY 14850 607-255-7108 From kls Tue Oct 5 01:10:26 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ohare!bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Efficiency of commercial planes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Oct 93 01:10:26 PDT Organization: Chicago Software Works >The number I would like to know is the total passenger miles >of the airline industry divided by the total number of gallons >of fuel used. That is, how many passenger miles per gallon to >planes actually get on average. I can't help with totals, but I do have some info on specific aircraft which may at least get you in the right ballpark. The basic 737-500, for example, has a range of 2,500 nm. I assume that's maximum fuel, with payload up to the MTOW. Empty weight of the aircraft is 68,180 lbs. Maximum fuel is 5,311 U.S. gallons, which at 6.7 lbs per gallon brings the total up to 103,760 lbs. MTOW is 115,500 lbs so that gives a payload of 11,740 lbs; at an average of 180 lbs each that's about 65 passengers. Ignoring fuel reserves, that's 30.6 passenger miles per gallon. Similar figures for a maxed-out 767-300(ER) are 6,650 nm and 24,140 gallons, empty weight of 196,100 lbs, MTOW of 400,000 lbs, giving a payload of 42,120 lbs or 234 pasengers. Bottom line in this case works out to 64.5 passenger miles per gallon. Shorter distances should produce better fuel consumption, up to a point, though I'm not sure how large the effect would really be. Of course even a maximum-range flight isn't going to run the tanks dry, which would improve the numbers above. On the other hand, I ignored crew weight, which would drag the numbers down slightly. These are also modern aircraft. When talking about the overall fleet you must consider all the old "gas guzzlers" which are still flying. For a real-world example, in March of '92 I flew on a United 747-238B from LAX to LHR. Figuring a full house -- and we were close to it -- that's 353 passengers, carried 5,456 nm. The captain posted a number of interesting figures, including fuel: 38,418 gallons. Once again ignoring reserves, that works out to 50.1 passenger miles per gallon. >Also, how small a fraction of the average fuel cost per passenger >is the incremental fuel cost of adding a passenger? Considering that the payload in the 737 and 767 examples above is only about 10% of the takeoff weight, the marginal cost per passenger is pretty small. On my London flight, over a third of the takeoff weight was fuel. The airframe itself is an even greater percentage, nearly half the MTOW! >I was told by a reasonably credible person that planes get >about 15 passenger miles per gallon (worldwide average) but >that Lufthansa gets about 25 passenger miles per gallon. Hmmm ... if you consider passengers flown, rather than passengers who *could* have been flown, then I could easily see this. Load factors, at least for domestic U.S. flights, are around 65%. With marginal cost per passengers being miniscule, that essentially knocks the Pmi/gal of the 737-500 (at max range) down to a bit over 20. With a large number of gas guzzlers out there 15 doesn't seem unreasonable at all. Lufthansa has a fairly young, hence more efficient, fleet, which would bring their numbers up some. On average, they probably also have larger planes flying longer routes, which would seem to be better too. -- 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 Oct 5 01:10:26 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ohare!bounce-back From: sokay@cyclone.mitre.org (Stephen J. Okay) Subject: Re: Huge capacity aircraft and accidents References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean, VA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Oct 93 01:10:29 PDT In article pypbf@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr D M Procida) writes: > >Would an airline be able to survive a crash that killed 600 of its >customers? What sort of insurance prospects would an airline with such >aircraft face? Well, it wasn't exactly 600 dead, but quite a few were killed in the Tenerife accident in 197(6?) when 2 747s collided. Both of those airlines are still around I believe.( I forget exactly who they were...Lufthansa and somebody else?) ----Steve -- ------------ The Jetdillo Project:2000 lbs of steel,20,000 lbs. of thrust. 1 pair of very dark shades.The world's first fully cybernetic, SSTO-capable armadillo. Coming soon from Armadillo Labs. The Dasypian Future begins tommorrow... From kls Tue Oct 5 01:10:26 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ohare!bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Early 737s Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Oct 93 01:10:31 PDT The Boeing 737-100 (and -200) as originally flown, had thrust reversers borrowd from the 727. Because they were under the wing (as opposed to behind the wing) it was found that they were VERY ineffective (story has it that the aircraft would actually speed up when the reversers deployed). The reason for this problem was that the reverser, when deployed, would create a high pressure region under the wing, and reduce the downforce on the main wheels, thereby reducing braking effectiveness. This problem was eventually fixed by extending the tailpipe aft of the wing trailing edge, where it exited into a thrust reverser taken from the Douglas DC-9. I have pictures showing that quite a few 737s were delivered to customers with the original thrust reverser. Does anybody know how many were delivered configured this way and when was the last one finally retrofitted with the later thrust reverser? -David Lednicer From kls Tue Oct 5 13:18:15 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: holcomb@ctron.com (Edgar W. Holcomb II) Subject: Re: Huge capacity aircraft and accidents References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cabletron Systems Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Oct 93 13:18:15 PDT In article sokay@cyclone.mitre.org (Stephen J. Okay) writes: In article pypbf@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr D M Procida) writes: > >Would an airline be able to survive a crash that killed 600 of its >customers? What sort of insurance prospects would an airline with such >aircraft face? Well, it wasn't exactly 600 dead, but quite a few were killed in the Tenerife accident in 197(6?) when 2 747s collided. Both of those airlines are still around I believe.( I forget exactly who they were...Lufthansa and somebody else?) ----Steve This accident occured in 1977. It involved a 747 from KLM and on from Pan Am. KLM is still around, but we all know what happened to Pan Am. I wonder if this accident simply added more debt to an already debt-ridden airline, thereby contributing to its demise. I don't know if KLM is still paying insurance claims. KLM lost more passengers than Pan Am. And, I believe, the pilot for KLM was found to be more at fault than that for the Pan Am plane. -Edgar -- :):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):) "I hope if dogs ever take over the world, and they chose a king, they don't just go by size, because I bet there are some Chihuahuas with some good ideas." :):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):) From kls Tue Oct 5 13:18:19 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: carvalho@phoenix.princeton.edu (T A Carvalho) Subject: Sonic Boom Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kindergarten Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Oct 93 13:18:19 PDT I subscribe to the newsgroup rec.travel.air and we've been having a discussion about using the Concorde in other markets besides the North Atlantic. I am posting here in hope that this more technical crowd be able to answer the following question posted there: krzystek@carson.u.washington.edu asks: >>P.S. Can somebody please elaborate on the original question: does the sonic boom arise only on passing through the sound barrier, or during the whole supersonic flight? I am also willing to know what is it like having a Concorde at Mach 2 flying over my head 60000ft high. Thanks for any help. From kls Tue Oct 5 13:18:21 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: Huge capacity aircraft and accidents References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: spagiola@leland.Stanford.EDU Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Oct 93 13:18:21 PDT Stephen J. Okay writes > >Would an airline be able to survive a crash that killed 600 of its > >customers? What sort of insurance prospects would an airline with > >such aircraft face? > > Well, it wasn't exactly 600 dead, but quite a few were killed in > the Tenerife accident in 197(6?) when 2 747s collided. Both of > those airlines are still around I believe.( I forget exactly who > they were...Lufthansa and somebody else?) KLM and Pan Am. Back to the original question, Japan Air Lines lost one of their high-density 747s used on internal Japanese routes in 1985, killing about 500+ in one go, if memory serves. -- - Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Tue Oct 5 13:18:22 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cstacy@ai.mit.edu (Christopher C. Stacy) Subject: Re: Efficiency of commercial planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Christopher C. Stacy Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Oct 93 13:18:22 PDT Shorter distances, depending on what you mean by that, may not yield better fuel efficiency, because the machines don't operate very efficiently at low altitudes. From kls Tue Oct 5 13:18:23 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Efficiency of commercial planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Oct 93 13:18:23 PDT >Shorter distances, depending on what you mean by that, may not yield >better fuel efficiency, because the machines don't operate very >efficiently at low altitudes. That's why I said "up to a point." More important than low altitudes, takeoff and climb use a tremendous amount of fuel, while cruise uses relatively little in comparison. But, in my 737-500 example, at maximum range it can only carry about 65 passengers, well under its 100-130 seat capacity. Trading enough of that 2,500 nm range to bring the passenger count up to capacity will undoubtedly produce a poorer fuel/nm figure, but you get to amortize it over quite a few more passengers. I don't have numbers to prove it but my guess would be that the best performance in terms of passenger miles per gallon will be found near the longest flight with a full payload, at least for most aircraft. Anyone have hard numbers to substantiate 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 Wed Oct 6 03:50:44 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: emw@netcom.com (Ed Wilkinson) Subject: info on Burnelli planes wanted Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Oct 93 03:50:44 PDT Reply-To: emw@ima.com Organization: International Messaging Associates I've heard that this form of aircraft is much safer than current designs. e.g. Boeing, Airbus, etc. Anyone got any info on how, why it hasn't been used, etc? Thanks, Ed -- Ed Wilkinson emw@ima.com From kls Wed Oct 6 03:50:46 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Dorsett Subject: Re: Efficiency of commercial planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rdd@cactus.org Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Oct 93 03:50:46 PDT In article you write: >But other breakdowns would be interesting, say by length of >flight. How good are the best planes running optimal distances >with full passenger load? etc. In general, it's not as efficient to fly short-haul distances as long- haul distances. Most fuel is consumed during take-off and climb; therefore, short distances are better served by turboprops, which have a better lifting and climb capability than jets (but lower passenger- acceptance, which is probably why they aren't terribly popular in the US). >I was told by a reasonably credible person that planes get >about 15 passenger miles per gallon (worldwide average) but >that Lufthansa gets about 25 passenger miles per gallon. I >find this interesting because it meanse that flying, on average, >is as fuel intensive as driving a fuel-hog car alone. But is this >true? I dunno. But for argument's sake, here are some figures: that, and I need the practice. :-) Let's say we look at a late-model 727 Advanced. Figure a MLW of 160,000 lbs, max. fuel load (heavy-lifter). Take-off weight of around 210,000 lbs. Fuel load of 56,000 lbs (aux tanks), or 8358 gallons at a density of 6.7 lbs/gallon. This yields max-range cruise, about 2700 nautical miles, including fuel used for takeoff, climb, cruise, and the reduced fuel demands. of descent and approach, plus IFR reserves. If we figure 150 seats, this yields 466,000 seat-miles with an efficiency of 466,000/8358 = 56 seat-miles/gallon. This provides a basis on which to calculate average load factors for that *particular* route. For another set of figures, look at a shorter-range flight. For a target of 1500 nautical miles, the fuel load to get there will be about 34000 lbs, or 5074 gallons. That's 258,750 seat-miles, which gives a yield of 51 seat-miles/gallon, or 10% worse. Now, let's compare this to a more modern airplane, the 757. For a 2700-nautical-mile trip, it'll require about 47000 lbs of fuel. Figure an average seat-density of 200 seats, that's (200 * 2700 * 1.15) / (47000/6.7) = 89 seat-miles/gallon, or about 58% better than a 727. So a 757 could be used on a similar 727 long-range route with up to 85% of an old 727 load factor, or 63% full. A smaller airplane like a 737 can do better, and that's what's used. The major question, though, as Karl points out, is how many seats are actually filled. Many state-run airlines run almost empty. I understand European carriers don't maintain very high load factors, when compared to similar routes in the United States. So the question then is routing: a charter from London to Madrid will be crammed full of passengers, but a 737 from Hamburg to Dusseldorf probably won't be. In terms of practical limits, therefore, it's entirely conceivable that some flights run at 15 passenger-miles/gallon, but I'd suspect that most don't, which means we're back to the original question of what the industry load averages are, and I've just wasted your time. Just showing what's possible. But then again, this is all pretty pointless. Sure, a car can make a trip more cheaply: so can a DC-3. But a DC-3 will take 5 times as long, a car 10-15 times as long--provided either could even manage the more interesting geographic hurdles. We pay a premium for flying fast, but it's one that most people are prepared to accept. Plus, it's safer. :-) --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Wed Oct 6 03:50:47 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: siddiqi@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (Shahid Siddiqi) Subject: Re: Efficiency of commercial planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Oct 93 03:50:47 PDT The fuel efficiency of airplanes like the 747 & 757 is quite good if all the seats are full e.g. the 747-400 can deliver 80 seat miles per gallon and improve this to 90 if high density seating is used. The 757 gives around 60 or so. Intrestingly some of the experiomental general aviation kit planes also give high values. The Cirrus by virtue of its laminar flow wing & emmpenage gives 60 seat miles per gal while the Glasair II and Lancair will give about 50. The US passenger traffic annually is about 500 million passengers emplaned. Divide by the total gas consumed by all the airlines (which I don't know) gives you a figure. Incidently does anyone know how they count passengers? Do you get double counted going through a hub e.g. fly from Washington to LA via Ohare do you get counted twice because you changed planes at Ohare. From kls Wed Oct 6 03:50:49 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Efficiency of commercial planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Computer Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Oct 93 03:50:49 PDT In article , Andy Ruina wrote: >How efficient are planes? > >The number I would like to know is the total passenger miles >of the airline industry divided by the total number of gallons >of fuel used. That is, how many passenger miles per gallon to >planes actually get on average. I don't have the data to do this one. >But other breakdowns would be interesting, say by length of >flight. How good are the best planes running optimal distances >with full passenger load? etc. This one is a bit easier. :-) A good long range airplane will take you 5 or 6 thousand miles for about 50 miles per passenger per gallon. And that isn't at no measly 60 MPH either. A 757 cruises at Mach 0.80, a 747 cruises at Mach 0.85+. Do *that* in your VW Rabbit. :-) >Also, how small a fraction of the average fuel cost per passenger >is the incremental fuel cost of adding a passenger? It will vary pretty widely depending on the airplane, the engines, the condition of the engines, the range the airplane is intending to fly, and the weather (hotter is always worse). All that to say a precise answer is very difficult and will wobble a great deal. A good tire kicking number is to figure about half the weight of the passenger and bags. That is, if a 180 lb passenger+bags is added at the last minute, you can probably figure that on the average flight on the average airplane somewhere near 90 lb of fuel (more for longer ranges, older aircraft, etc). That is about 15 gallons. >I was told by a reasonably credible person that planes get >about 15 passenger miles per gallon (worldwide average) but >that Lufthansa gets about 25 passenger miles per gallon. I >find this interesting because it meanse that flying, on average, >is as fuel intensive as driving a fuel-hog car alone. But is this >true? Kind of depends on what all you are including in the worldwide average of planes. I don't think I've seen a passenger/MPG number under 30 for the latest airliners. The general aviation types bring the average down, as do the military types. I'd also like to reemphasize that this is done at speeds and energy levels much higher than your 'fuel-hog' car. Consider that doubling the speed requires eight times the power and that the average airliner cruises at speeds about ten times faster than your car and those numbers become much more impressive. Good luck! Fly lots! We could use the business... -- 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 Oct 6 03:50:51 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Sonic Boom References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Oct 93 03:50:51 PDT In article you write: >>>P.S. Can somebody please elaborate on the original question: >does the sonic boom arise only on passing through the sound barrier, >or during the whole supersonic flight? The sonic boom is a byproduct of a shock wave created as the airplane flies through the air. It travels with the airplane, leaving a series of "booms" in its wake. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Wed Oct 6 03:50:52 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mps1@cec1.wustl.edu (Mihir Pramod Shah) Subject: Re: Huge capacity aircraft and accidents References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Oct 93 03:50:52 PDT In article sokay@cyclone.mitre.org (Stephen J. Okay) writes: >In article pypbf@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr D M Procida) writes: >> >>Would an airline be able to survive a crash that killed 600 of its >>customers? What sort of insurance prospects would an airline with such >>aircraft face? > >Well, it wasn't exactly 600 dead, but quite a few were killed in the >Tenerife accident in 197(6?) when 2 747s collided. Both of those >airlines are still around I believe.( I forget exactly who they >were...Lufthansa and somebody else?) > >----Steve I believe the accident involved a KLM and a Pan Am 747. 582 people were killed in the accident, the biggest death toll in aviation history. Oh, and the exact date was March 27, 1977. Hope this helps. Mihir Shah mps1@cec1.wustl.edu From kls Wed Oct 6 03:50:55 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ditka!sgiblab!uunet.UU.NET!oracle!us.oracle.com!alaw (Alvin W. Law) Subject: Re: Huge capacity aircraft and accidents References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Oct 93 03:50:55 PDT spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) writes: >Back to the original question, Japan Air Lines lost one of their >high-density 747s used on internal Japanese routes in 1985, killing >about 500+ in one go, if memory serves. I think the casualty count was 515 dead and 4 injured. The plane was a commuter variation of a 747-2?? flying from Tokyo Haneda to Osaka. -- Alvin W. Law .............................................. Oracle Corporation Senior Applications Engineer .................. 300 Oracle Parkway, Box 659306 Manufacturing Applications .......................... Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Email: alaw@oracle.com ........... Voice: 1.415.506.3390 . Fax: 1.415.506.7299 From kls Thu Oct 7 00:54:15 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer) Subject: Re: Sonic Boom References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Oct 93 00:54:15 PDT In article rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: >In article somebody wrote: >>P.S. Can somebody please elaborate on the original question: >>does the sonic boom arise only on passing through the sound barrier, >>or during the whole supersonic flight? >The sonic boom is a byproduct of a shock wave created as the airplane >flies through the air. It travels with the airplane, leaving a series >of "booms" in its wake. Right. What causes the "boom" is that as the shock wave boundary passes by, the rapid change in pressure up and then down can generate enough force on certain structures (like large panes of glass) to cause damage. It really doesn't take much of a delta-p to exert some pretty big forces on a 4-foot by 7-foot sliding glass door or picture window. Although flying at FL600 (roughly 60,000 ft) definitely results in much less of a delta-p than flying at, say, rooftop height, I seem to remember that several "studies" done during the time that the Concorde was being developed showed that repeated exposure to even non-damage-causing sonic booms was bad for livestock, children, troop morale, and the foreign exchange rate of the U.S. Dollar. :-) Hope this helps. --Mike Michael T. Palmer | "Freedom suppressed and then regained bites with m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov | keener fangs than freedom never endangered." RIPEM key on server | Cicero, 106-43 B.C. From kls Thu Oct 7 00:54:17 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) Subject: Re: Sonic Boom References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TMC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Oct 93 00:54:17 PDT In article , carvalho@phoenix.princeton.edu (T A Carvalho) writes: |> |> krzystek@carson.u.washington.edu asks: |> |> >>P.S. Can somebody please elaborate on the original question: |> does the sonic boom arise only on passing through the sound barrier, |> or during the whole supersonic flight? A well-known misunderstanding. The sonic boom is not caused by the aircraft "breaking the sound barrier", but occurs anytime it flies at a speed exceeding Mach 1. |> |> I am also willing to know what is it like having a Concorde at |> Mach 2 flying over my head 60000ft high. It's not too bad. I've heard it on occasion, fifty miles off Cape Cod in the North Atlantic (me being on a boat, I mean). A dull, distant boom, not likely to cause any damage when overflying populated areas. The problem is mostly psychological : it upsets people. Daan Sandee sandee@think.com Thinking Machines Corporation 1010 El Camino Real, Suite 310 Menlo Park, CA 94025 (415) 329-9300 From kls Thu Oct 7 00:54:19 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pilon@aem.umn.edu (Anthony Pilon) Subject: Re: Sonic Boom References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Oct 93 00:54:19 PDT rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: >In article you write: >>>>P.S. Can somebody please elaborate on the original question: >>does the sonic boom arise only on passing through the sound barrier, >>or during the whole supersonic flight? >The sonic boom is a byproduct of a shock wave created as the airplane >flies through the air. It travels with the airplane, leaving a series >of "booms" in its wake. I'm doing my graduate research on sonic booms, and would like to clarify the above answer. The supersonic motion of the aircraft creates shock waves originating from the structures of the aircraft (wings, nacelles, tail, etc). As these shock waves propigate toward the ground they are overtaken by the two main shocks, those created at the bow and tail of the aircraft. When these shocks reach the ground they first cause a sudden rise in pressure from ambient conditions. This is followed by a decrease in pressure to a level significantly lower than ambient conditions. The tail shock then brings a sudden increase to approximately ambient conditions. This pattern of pressure rising, falling, and rising again is referred to as an "N-wave". Since shock waves are created whenever the aircraft moves supersonically this N-wave is felt on the ground at all times during supersonic travel. One way of reducing the destructive effects may be to modify to shape of the aircraft so that the shock waves created interfere with each other in such a way as to lessen the noise on the ground; If the aircraft is flying at the proper altitude. I hope this explanation was helpfull (and factually correct). Tony -- ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "It could be worse.... Anthony Pilon ...it could be rainin'" Aerospace Engineering, U of MN Igor pilon@aem.umn.edu From kls Thu Oct 7 00:54:21 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: 777 Pratt Engine Arrives at Boeing Field Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Oct 93 00:54:21 PDT The Pratt & Whitney engine for the 777 flying test bed arrived Monday at Boeing Field from the Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) in Tennessee. The engine will meet up with RA001 -- the first 747 ever built -- in late October, when the engine will be hung on the left wing of the airplane. Before flight testing begins in November, the engine's inlet and thrust reverser, along with extensive flight deck instrumentation, will be installed. From kls Thu Oct 7 00:54:22 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) Subject: Re: Huge capacity aircraft and accidents References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TMC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Oct 93 00:54:22 PDT In article , spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) writes: |> Stephen J. Okay writes |> > >Would an airline be able to survive a crash that killed 600 of its |> > >customers? What sort of insurance prospects would an airline with |> > >such aircraft face? |> > |> > Well, it wasn't exactly 600 dead, but quite a few were killed in |> > the Tenerife accident in 197(6?) when 2 747s collided. Both of |> > those airlines are still around I believe.( I forget exactly who |> > they were...Lufthansa and somebody else?) |> |> KLM and Pan Am. The KLM 747 was under charter. In fog, a KLM 747 at the end of its takeoff roll hit a Pan Am 747 backtracking the same runway after landing. The Pan Am plane saw it coming and veered slightly left, and 30-40 people in its forward section survived. The total death toll was 560 or so. The blame was mainly put on the KLM captain for taking off without clear instructions, and also on (Spanish) ATC incompetence. I don't know how much KLM (or the charter company) paid. Pan Am probably didn't have to pay, they may have got the money for their plane back from KLM. Seventeen years later, KLM is still around, while Pan Am is not. (Pan Am probably did a brisk business flying planeloads of tort lawyers to Tenerife.) |> Back to the original question, Japan Air Lines lost one of their |> high-density 747s used on internal Japanese routes in 1985, killing |> about 500+ in one go, if memory serves. Right. In this case the cause was determined to be faulty repair work from an earlier accident. Probably Boeing was mostly to blame rather than JAL. Daan Sandee sandee@think.com Thinking Machines Corporation 1010 El Camino Real, Suite 310 Menlo Park, CA 94025 (415) 329-9300 From kls Wed Oct 13 11:50:51 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barr@ash.mmm.ucar.EDU (Keith Barr) Subject: Airliner MPG References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 93 11:50:51 PDT I have a handy-dandy little fact card on aviation statistics from the Aircraft Owner's and Pilot's Association. It is dated 1992, and contains 1990 data. The fine print says: "primary sources of data include the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, and others. 1990 is the latest year complete information is available," so use at your own risk. Here are the Activity Estimates (all numbers in Millions) General Commercial Category Aviation Aviation Total -------------- ----------- ------------ ---------- Hours Flown 34.8 16.9 51.7 Miles Flown 4,196.5 5,041.0* 9,237.5 Departures 52.9 10.5** 63.4 Passengers 132.3*** 465.6**** 597.9 Fuel Consumed 1,241.0 16,254.0# 17,495.0 * Includes scheduled and unscheduled 121 & 135 ops. ** Includes sched. & unsched 121, and scheduled 135 ops. *** Based upon 2.5 passengers per general aviation departure **** Includes scheduled Part 121 only # Preliminary So, If we believe the numbers, we could create the following table: (the RX-7 numbers are derived experimentaly from my car :^) General Commercial Mazda Category Aviation Aviation Total RX-7 -------------- ----------- ------------ ---------- ----- Pasx./Dep. 2.5 44.3 4.98 2 Mi./Gal. 3.4 0.31 0.53 25 Pasx. Mi./Gal. 8.5 13.73 4.98 50 Since the commercial aviation number of passengers is only based upon Part 121 operations, and the number of departures is for both 121 and 135, the 44.3 enplanements per flight is obviously low, therfore the overall average pasx-miles/gallon is low. My gueess would be that the average Part 121 enplanement number would be around 150, so that would give a 45 pasx-mi/gal. number, which is consistent with other numbers I have seen posted. Apparently the car is somewhat more efficient, but I can't get the RX-7 to go 600 mph (even downhill). I think the average bus holds about 50 people, and gets 8 mpg, resulting in a whopping 400 pasx-mi/gal, by the way! _____________________________ _____ | Keith Barr \ \ \__ _____ | barr@ncar.ucar.edu \___________\ \/_______\___\_____________ | COMM/AS&MEL/IA/A&IGI / { /_/ ....................... `-. |_____________________________/ `-----------,----,--------------' _/____/O From kls Wed Oct 13 11:50:53 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ben@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Benjamin J. Sloan) Subject: Re: Sonic Boom References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Texas - Austin Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 93 11:50:53 PDT sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) writes: |> I am also willing to know what is it like having a Concorde at |> Mach 2 flying over my head 60000ft high. >It's not too bad. I've heard it on occasion, fifty miles off Cape Cod >in the North Atlantic (me being on a boat, I mean). A dull, distant boom, >not likely to cause any damage when overflying populated areas. The >problem is mostly psychological : it upsets people. I was out in about the remotest part of Texas, in the Trans Pecos, southeast of El Paso, last year when I encounteed a sonic boom. It was on a ranch between the Sierra Vieja mountains and the Rio Grande river. While facing down the valley, enjoying a cup of coffee and the sunrise, I was shocked to see a B1 bomber "appear" in my field of view about 2000 feet off the ground, headed away from me. About the time I realized what it was, the sonic boom thundered over the landscape, sending birds into the trees, rattling windows, and so forth. The rancher informed me that these very unpleasant low-altitude canyon runs take place several mornings per week, courtesy of the SAC base in Abilene. About six months after my introduction to the phenomenon, the papers reported the unhappy union of one of these aircraft and the Sierra Vieja mountains. Score one for Mother Nature. Yip-ee-ki-ya! Ben Sloan ben@emx.utexas.edu From kls Wed Oct 13 11:50:54 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: grichard@midway.uchicago.edu (Rich Benzinger) Subject: Re: Sonic Boom References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: grichard@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: University of Chicago Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 93 11:50:54 PDT >krzystek@carson.u.washington.edu asks: > > P.S. Can somebody please elaborate on the original question: >does the sonic boom arise only on passing through the sound barrier, >or during the whole supersonic flight? I've encountered what I think to be a fairly convincing (and possibly even marginally accurate) pop science analogy to sonic booms: Consider the spreading of waves in water. Specifically, consider a boat moving though the water. If the boat moves at a very low speed, waves will radiate from it in all directions, including directly ahead of it. As the boat speeds up, the waves in front become progressively compressed. As the boat exceeds the velocity of the spreading ripples, it will overtake them, leaving smooth water in front and a single large wave spreading triangularly behind the boat. (This is about the point where I usually fall off my water skis, but that's another story...) By analogy, the smooth surface of the water in front of the speeding boat implies that one does not hear a supersonic aircraft approaching. Further, the boat's triangular wake is the counterpart to the conic shock wave behind an aircraft at mach > 1. Thus the "boom" occurs as the wave passes over the rowboat, plate glass window, eardrum... Of course, I'm willing to be shot down by more learned authorities... Hope this helps. Rich Benzinger grichard@quads.uchicago.edu From kls Wed Oct 13 11:50:57 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: On bad weather Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 93 11:50:57 PDT "The technical world of our day has put a lot of impressive equipment on airplanes to combat weather and make flying the rough stuff easier; good radio and navigation gear, deicers and anti-icers, radar, Stormscope, auto flight systems that take us to zero-zero, instrument systems to help us fly shear, performance, range, antiskid for braking, reversers, systems to keep windshields clear, flight directors to think for us on ILS approaches, instruments like HSIs that pictorialize, flight management computers, and glass cockpits that think, at least to an automaton's capability. There is more coming. "But first, let us clearly and forcefully remember that all this equipment will not fly all the weather. Mother Nature will periodically dish out weather we simply cannot manage. "The equipment and smoothness of aircraft, the quiet shirt-sleeve environment, gives a false sense of security, a sense that we can handle anything. How very treacherous this impression is. "We've gained much; ability to land with no visiblity--if the airport is equipped and the airplane, too, we can top much of the weather we once bounced in and worried about because of its ice. There's a long list, but no matter how superbly equipped an aircraft is, the inside of a thunderstorm is still awesome, and severe sherar on landing--instruments or no--can do the airplane in. Running low on fuel for many reasons can menace flight. Landing in a hurricane can too-there's a long list and trying to say we've reached the age of "all weather" is akin to the folks who said the Titanic was "unsinkable." "With our equipment has come the need for the flight crew--pilot--to use it properly; program computers with the correct numbers, keep close watch that all is working as desired and the aircraft is headed in the right direction. This doesn't come easily because the sleekness of the airplane and its near perfection lull one into the feeling that nothing can be wrong. Here's where that overused but potent word, compacency, reaches its peak. The real fact is that our modern aircraft require more attention, not less, plus plenty of that old-time pilot's belief that things can and will go wrong and you'd better have a skeptical eye roving the cockpit and weather on a regular basis." -- From "Weather Flying," 3rd edition, by Robert N. Buck, Macmillan: New York, 1988, ISBN 0-02-518021-5. Pp. 302-303. From kls Wed Oct 13 11:51:00 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andy Goldfinger Subject: silver falcon Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: APL Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 93 11:51:00 PDT The first time I flew was in the mid 1950's on a twin engined aircraft that Eastern Airlines called a "Silver Falcon." Can anyone identify this airliner? From kls Wed Oct 13 11:56:37 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bmccarth@gulfaero.com (Bill McCarthy) Subject: Aviation Safety Release 415 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 93 11:56:37 PDT Organization: Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., Savannah GA, USA I was wondering if anyone could help me with a document identification. The subject is engine mount fire safety and the document refered to is Aviation Safety Release No. 415 (ASR 415). Could anyone tell me if this is an FAA document? Please respond to me directly. Thanks. -- bmccarth@gulfaero.com Bill McCarthy Systems Administrator Corporate Library Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Savannah, GA From kls Thu Oct 14 03:03:13 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: RR Trent 800 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Oct 93 03:03:13 PDT October 13, 1993 AVIATION DAILY - Rolls-Royce said the Trent 800, which will power the Boeing 777, made a successful first run at thrusts in excess of its 84,000-pound certification requirement within two hours of the start of testing in Derby. Certification is set for February 1995. The smaller Trent 700 for the Airbus A330 is scheduled to be certified later this year. Rolls said the Trent 800 has captured 22 percent of 777 sales and will enter service early in 1996 with Thai Airways International. A future version could reach 100,000 pounds of thrust. From kls Thu Oct 14 03:03:15 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: silver falcon References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Oct 93 03:03:15 PDT In article , Andy Goldfinger writes: |> The first time I flew was in the mid 1950's on a twin engined |> aircraft that Eastern Airlines called a "Silver Falcon." Can anyone |> identify this airliner? |> I would imagine it could be one of any of Eastern's twin engine types. Could even have been a DC-3. The Falcon was Eastern's symbol (later mutated into the ugly round thing that was on their airplanes). Their planes got called things like Silver Falcon---Eddie Rickenbacker imagined himself a marketing genius and plastered all sorts of things over his airplanes. Eastern also got called ridiculous things like "The Great Silver Fleet". Robert Serling has a book on Eastern (and on many other airlines besides). You might look that up, though much of it is the usual soft-brained paen to those aviation pioneers, who in his books always turn out to be wonderful people, even when they were rather defective in reality. RNA From kls Thu Oct 14 03:03:18 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: silver falcon References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: spagiola@leland.Stanford.EDU Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Oct 93 03:03:18 PDT Andy Goldfinger writes > The first time I flew was in the mid 1950's on a twin engined > aircraft that Eastern Airlines called a "Silver Falcon." Can > anyone identify this airliner? Probably a Martin 404. "Silver Falcon" doesn't help much -- that describes Eastern itself, not the aircraft (EA's logo was a falcon, and its aircraft were silver). -- - Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Thu Oct 14 23:57:11 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Lufthansa crash in Warsaw - Preliminary findings References: <1993Oct12.124849.26932@hydra.acs.ttu.edu> <29gfe1$e1p@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> <29ivkd$7kb@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Oct 93 23:57:11 PDT In article <29ivkd$7kb@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>, landmark@cs.tu-berlin.de (Torsten Kerschat) writes: {A320 crash in Poland) |> Ok. I thought you know, what problems can arise, when aquaplaning |> occurs. The thrust reversal only works, when the wheels are turning !! |> This is provided for security reasons ! The thrust reversal should |> only available on the ground. |> They commission said, aquaplaning can cause that. That's incredible, if it is true. Is this a feature of all thrust-reversing systems, or something that was built into the A320 fly-by-wire system? And if this is unique to the fly-by-wire system, does it take the blame for the crash? RNA From kls Thu Oct 14 23:57:15 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pilon@aem.umn.edu (Anthony Pilon) Subject: Re: Sonic Boom References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Oct 93 23:57:15 PDT grichard@midway.uchicago.edu (Rich Benzinger) writes: >>krzystek@carson.u.washington.edu asks: >> >> P.S. Can somebody please elaborate on the original question: >>does the sonic boom arise only on passing through the sound barrier, >>or during the whole supersonic flight? In short, during the entire supersonic flight. Acceleration and decelleration while supersonic can also cause amplification of the boom. > By analogy, the smooth surface of the water in front of the speeding >boat implies that one does not hear a supersonic aircraft approaching. >Further, the boat's triangular wake is the counterpart to the conic shock >wave behind an aircraft at mach > 1. Thus the "boom" occurs as the wave >passes over the rowboat, plate glass window, eardrum... > Of course, I'm willing to be shot down by more learned authorities... > Hope this helps. I'm not exactly sure how learned I am, but this analogy makes sense. The only thing it doesn't account for is the shock created at the tail of the A/C. In a boat there's a wake. For a supersonic A/C there is a shock wave. The two main shocks (nose and tail) are the cause of the "double bang" felt on the ground. Hope this helps instead of confuses. Tony Pilon pilon@aem.umn.edu > Rich Benzinger > grichard@quads.uchicago.edu -- ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "It could be worse.... Anthony Pilon ...it could be rainin'" Aerospace Engineering, U of MN Igor pilon@aem.umn.edu From kls Thu Oct 14 23:57:18 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Re: 777 Pratt Engine Arrives at Boeing Field References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Atlanta Customer Support Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Oct 93 23:57:18 PDT In article Stephen L Nicoud writes: The Pratt & Whitney engine for the 777 flying test bed arrived Monday at Boeing Field from the Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) in Tennessee. The engine will meet up with RA001 -- the first 747 ever built -- in late October, when the engine will be hung on the left wing of the airplane. Before flight testing begins in November, the engine's inlet and thrust reverser, along with extensive flight deck instrumentation, will be installed. Can somebody get us some specifications of this engine? Especially interesting would be comparisons between this new engine's specifications and the specifications of, say, the engines in use on existing 747's, MD-11's, large Airbus planes, 767's, etc... -- 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 Thu Oct 14 23:57:21 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 777 Pratt Engine Arrives at Boeing Field References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Oct 93 23:57:21 PDT >Can somebody get us some specifications of this engine? The PW engine is perhaps the least exciting of the 777 engines, at least if you're an airline executive, since it's just another PW4000, albeit one that's been stretched quite a bit beyond what's currently in service. United selected this engine, at least in part, because it's already flying on their 747-400 and 767-300(ER) fleet. Other aircraft flying PW4000-family engines include the A300-600, A300-600R, A330, and MD-100. Here are some specs for you: comp/turb aircraft engine thrust stages diam. length weight -------- ------ ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ A310-300 PW4152 52,000 16/6 97.2 153.6 9,400 747-400 PW4056 56,000 16/6 97.2 153.6 9,400 A300-600 PW4156 56,000 16/6 97.2 153.6 9,400 A300-600R PW4158 58,000 16/6 97.2 153.6 9,400 767-300(ER) PW4060 60,000 16/6 97.2 153.6 9,400 MD-11 PW4460 60,000 16/6 97.2 153.6 9,400 A330 PW4168 68,000 17/7 100.0 163.1 14,350 777-200 PW4084 84,000 18/9 112.0 191.7 13,700 In contrast, the GE90 is a completely new engine, the most notable feature of which is the enormous fan -- the 86,800 lbs. thrust version for the 777 will have a 158" diameter! I'm not terribly familiar with the Rolls-Royce offering for the 777, the Trent, but like the PW4000 it is a derivative of current offerings rather than a new design. -- 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 Oct 14 23:57:27 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@tom.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Ilyushin IL-62 details, history, etc? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Atlanta Customer Support Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Oct 93 23:57:27 PDT Can someone please provide details about the Ilyushin IL-62 aircraft? I know that it is a 4 engine jet, with two pairs of two engines, one pair mounted on each side of the tail, and that it is a single aisle plane, configured (by Aeroflot USA) 3-3. How old is it (when did it first start flying "commercially")? What is its safety record? How comfortable does Aeroflot make it for its USA - Europe/CIS passengers? Anything else of interest. 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 Thu Oct 14 23:57:30 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@tom.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Other Lockheed commercial passenger jets than the L1011 ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Atlanta Customer Support Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Oct 93 23:57:30 PDT I recently realized that, other than older planes like the Constellation, I am only aware of a single current large Lockheed commercial passenger jet - the L1011. Did Lockheed get out of the commercial passenger jet business? When did the L1011 start rolling off of the assembly lines? 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 Thu Oct 14 23:57:31 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Other Lockheed commercial passenger jets than the L1011 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Oct 93 23:57:31 PDT >Did Lockheed get out of the commercial passenger jet >business? When did the L1011 start rolling off of the >assembly lines? The L-1011 (aka TriStar) is the only commercial, passenger jet Lockheed has produced, though they actually introduced the first American-built passenger aircraft with jet power -- the turboprop L-188 Electra. They've also sold a few civilian versions of the C-130 Hercules as the L-100. It's really a shame, because all of them are technically quite impressive aircraft. The Electra, unfortunately, fell victim to some early accidents and to the arrival of pure jets, which very quickly made anything with propellors obsolete, at least as far as the public and the marketing types were concerned. The L-1011 feel victim to the murderous competition with the DC-10, which drove Lockheed from the market commercial market after costing many hundreds of millions of dollars. It's not clear that McDonnell Douglas did all that much better with the DC-10 -- many of their current problems are at least partly tracable to the competition with the L-1011. Furthermore, their battle paved the way for Airbus to enter the market. It was particularly unfortunate that Lockheed lost the battle given how poor a design the DC-10 was (see the newsgroup archives for many threads on this), while the L-1011 was quite advanced for its time. The first TriStar flew November 16, 1970. It was retained by Lockheed for development work until being broken up in 1986. The 250th and final L-1011 took flight just a bit over ten years ago, on October 3, 1983. It was delivered to the Algerian Government ten months later, and now flies for the Government of Saudi Arabia. -- 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 Oct 19 11:52:08 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: adam@kurdel.harvard.edu (Adam Dobrzycki) Subject: A-320 crash in Warsaw Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Oct 93 11:52:08 PDT The crash of Lufthansa A-320 at Okecie airport in Warsaw, 14 Sep. 93 -------------------------------------------------------------------- First, two important statements: 1. NONE of the information presented below comes from "official" sources. 2. Polish industry is not involved in Airbus consortium. There are no Airbuses registered in Poland or used by any Polish carrier. Okecie airport has two runways. There is a third one, but is not used any more. The plane landed on the shorter one, which is at least 2800 meters (~9200 feet) long (at least, because the latest information about it I have is from a 1980 publication, and it could have been extended since then). The plane happened to land during (or shortly after) a short, but very heavy rain. There were random gusts of wind. Some planes landed safely before the fatal A-320 though, and other landed later, after short (~30 min.) break caused by the crash. The plane was flown by the co-pilot (who was one of the two fatalities). The plane touched down very far into the runway, for unknown reason (gust of wind? pilot error?). The plane ended up with ~700 meters of space to brake. Now we're entering the most speculative part of the whole story. Apparently, under normal circumstances A-320 switches the reverse thrust on automatically by itself, when, among other things, the rotation rate of wheels reaches some value. It appears that the wheels were skidding, and the guess is that the pilot simply trusted the plane too much and waited too long for the reverse thrust to switch on, instead of either immediately taking off or overriding the automat and switching the reverse thrust on manually. (I stress that I don't know whether this is true -- I just repeat what I've heard.) The runway is limited with a busy Warsaw-Cracow railroad track. At the end of the runway there is an embankment (to protect the railroad?). The pilot tried to escape from hitting the embankment, turning right at the end of the runway, but hit it anyway, and the plane caught fire. Now another speculation: apparently, the plane left Frankfurt carrying fuel for the whole FRA-WAW-FRA trip, which contributed badly to spreading of the fire. Two people died (the co-pilot and one passenger). Most of other people on board were injured, but as far as I know, there were no really serious injuries. The airport emergency services responded very quickly. The traffic controller at the tower activated the alarm when he noticed how far into the runway the plane landed, even BEFORE the plane hit the embankment! Conclusions: ------------ It appears that all the following may have contributed to the crash: - Airplane design error. NB, is there anybody more knowledgeable than me who could verify whether this whole stuff with automatic switching on of the reverse thrust is true? - Pilot error: landing too far into the runway; trusting the automat too much; not aborting the landing procedure in bad weather. - Very bad weather. People keep repeating that this rain was incredibly heavy. A gust of wind may be responsible for pushing the plane too far into the runway. One bizarre thing is that the flight recorder was sent to France (hardly an impartial country!), supposedly because it has to be read with the use of a special equipment... From kls Tue Oct 19 11:52:11 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Dorsett Subject: Re: A-320 crash in Warsaw References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Oct 93 11:52:11 PDT In article adam@kurdel.harvard.edu (Adam Dobrzycki) writes: >The plane happened to land during (or shortly after) a short, but very >heavy rain. The initial DFDR analysis indicates they touched down at about 700 meters, or 1/4 down the runway. The normal touch-down zone is 300 meters. >There were random gusts of wind. Some planes landed safely >before the fatal A-320 though, and other landed later, after short >(~30 min.) break caused by the crash. Provided they were on the ground, I don't think the wind was particularly relevant in this crash. On the first day, an amateur organization in Germany ("Cockpit") was apparently defending the airplane against early suggestions that the plane had accelerated, taken off, and stalled out: in an unstallable airplane, windshear seems a likely culprit. It seems they jumped the gun. :-) >The plane was flown by the co-pilot (who was one of the two >fatalities). There were two pilots on board, a training captain and a captain who had been returning to service after a long illness (kidney stones, apparently). The training captain was in the right seat: the captain being re-qualified was in the left. He had passed his simulator tests fine. To the best of my knowledge, the captain has not yet made a public statement on the crash. >The plane touched down very far into the runway, for unknown reason >(gust of wind? pilot error?). The plane ended up with ~700 meters of >space to brake. As stated, the initial touch-down area was around 700 meters. Whether they bounced after touch-down is open to speculation, but reports also indicate that they were unable to deploy thrust reversers and spoilers until 1400 meters. This leaves just over 1400 meters to brake. It is an open question whether they had regular braking at this point. >Now we're entering the most speculative part of the whole story. >Apparently, under normal circumstances A-320 switches the reverse >thrust on automatically by itself, when, among other things, the >rotation rate of wheels reaches some value. No, reverse thrust must be manually selected. Safety interlocks are required: both engine control unit channels must be active, both air/ ground switches must be in the ground position, and the thrust lever must be in the "reverse" mode. Only when these conditions are satisfied are the doors unlocked. While the doors are in transit, the FADEC will not command mode than idle thrust. >plane too much and waited too long for the reverse thrust to switch >on, instead of either immediately taking off or overriding the automat >and switching the reverse thrust on manually. There is no way to override the reverse thrust interlocks. For a good reason of why not, look at the Lauda 767 crash near Thailand. In that case, the automatic interlocks failed, and ripped the engine off the airplane, *without* commanded reverse thrust, apparently causing catastrophic airframe damage in the process. I imagine the situation would be some- what worse on the A320, since Airbus doesn't believe in "break-away" engines. >Now another speculation: apparently, the plane left Frankfurt carrying >fuel for the whole FRA-WAW-FRA trip, which contributed badly to >spreading of the fire. This is not unusual. Fuel can be very expensive in certain areas. >Conclusions: >------------ >It appears that all the following may have contributed to the crash: >- Airplane design error. NB, is there anybody more knowledgeable than > me who could verify whether this whole stuff with automatic > switching on of the reverse thrust is true? I'll comment on this in a separate post. >- Pilot error: landing too far into the runway; trusting the automat > too much; not aborting the landing procedure in bad weather. That appears to be the most reasonable conclusion at present. I am concerned about the role of the braking computers, though, in control of both the spoilers and wheel braking. >- Very bad weather. People keep repeating that this rain was > incredibly heavy. A gust of wind may be responsible for pushing the > plane too far into the runway. I don't think that's likely. On the other hand, a tailwind of any magnitude can significantly cut down on reaction times, and can very easily destory a good landing. However, it's just a contributing factor: the decision of the pilot to continue a landing in such a case is more significant. >One bizarre thing is that the flight recorder was sent to France >(hardly an impartial country!), supposedly because it has to be read >with the use of a special equipment... -- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd From kls Tue Oct 19 11:52:13 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Lauda Crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Oct 93 11:52:13 PDT Robert Dorsett writes: >look at the Lauda 767 crash near Thailand. In that case, the >automatic interlocks failed, and ripped the engine off the airplane Are you sure that the engine was ripped off? I never saw anything about that in any of the reports, and I think I would have remembered something that dramatic. I also don't entirely see why an in-flight reverser deployment would necessarily cause an engine separation, and if it did, the aircraft should still be flyable. (Unless its a DC-10.) What I recall of the reports was that the asymmetric thrust produced by the in-flight reverser deployment on one engine led to a situation in which the aircraft was not controllable. Apparently this had been predicted some years ago as a situation that would be fatal to any of the large twins. The circumstances of this crash have led to some dispute previously in the group. Does anyone have the actual report handy so we can depend on more than just memories in the future? -- 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 Oct 19 12:49:37 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Dorsett Subject: Re: Lufthansa crash in Warsaw - Preliminary findings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Oct 93 12:49:37 PDT In article rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: >In article <29ivkd$7kb@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>, landmark@cs.tu-berlin.de (Torsten Kerschat) writes: >{A320 crash in Poland) > >|> Ok. I thought you know, what problems can arise, when aquaplaning >|> occurs. The thrust reversal only works, when the wheels are turning !! >|> This is provided for security reasons ! The thrust reversal should >|> only available on the ground. >|> They commission said, aquaplaning can cause that. > >That's incredible, if it is true. Is this a feature of all thrust-reversing >systems, or something that was built into the A320 fly-by-wire system? >And if this is unique to the fly-by-wire system, does it take the blame for >the crash? The A320 thrust reversers require both air/ground switches (mounted on the main gear struts) to indicate a "ground" signal, before they may be unlocked. The spinning of the wheels is not relevant. In this respect, the A320 is like every other airliner in use. -- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd From kls Tue Oct 19 12:49:38 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: slenk@hal.emba.uvm.edu (Carl A Slenk) Subject: Re: Lufthansa crash in Warsaw - Preliminary findings References: <1993Oct12.124849.26932@hydra.acs.ttu.edu> <29ivkd$7kb@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Oct 93 12:49:38 PDT In article , Robert Ashcroft wrote: >In article <29ivkd$7kb@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>, landmark@cs.tu-berlin.de (Torsten Kerschat) writes: > >{A320 crash in Poland) > >|> Ok. I thought you know, what problems can arise, when aquaplaning >|> occurs. The thrust reversal only works, when the wheels are turning !! >|> This is provided for security reasons ! The thrust reversal should >|> only available on the ground. >|> They commission said, aquaplaning can cause that. > >That's incredible, if it is true. Is this a feature of all thrust-reversing >systems, or something that was built into the A320 fly-by-wire system? >And if this is unique to the fly-by-wire system, does it take the blame for >the crash? > >RNA > Some thrust-revering systems were deployable in the air; however with the Lada air crash thought to have been caused by this happening, most (?) planes now have some prevision for preventing this. Perhaps instead of weight switches a combination of gear down/flaps down/ ground proximity detector detecting etc. could be used. -- Carl A. Slenk | "A computer lets you make more mistakes faster slenk@hal.emba.uvm.edu | than any other invention with the possible University of Vermont | exceptions of handguns and Tequila" - My opinions;get your own | Mitch Ratcliffe From kls Tue Oct 19 12:49:41 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: Lufthansa crash in Warsaw - Preliminary findings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: spagiola@leland.Stanford.EDU Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Oct 93 12:49:41 PDT Robert Ashcroft writes > {A320 crash in Poland) > > Ok. I thought you know, what problems can arise, when aquaplaning > > occurs. The thrust reversal only works, when the wheels are > > turning !! This is provided for security reasons ! The thrust > > reversal should only available on the ground. They commission > > said, aquaplaning can cause that. > > That's incredible, if it is true. Is this a feature of all > thrust-reversing systems, or something that was built into the > A320 fly-by-wire system? And if this is unique to the fly-by-wire > system, does it take the blame for the crash? I'm not sure about thrust-reversing, but I remember Piedmont lost a 737 at Charlotte some time ago when some combination of aquaplaning and floating in ground effect meant spoilers could not be deployed because releasing them requires the mainwheels to be firmly on the ground and to have begun turning. Just as it makes sense (most of the time) to prevent spoiler deployment in flight, it probably would make sense to have similar safeguards to prevent thrust reverser deployment in flight. Can anyone confirm whether/how its actually done? -- - Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Tue Oct 19 12:49:42 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Other Lockheed commercial passenger jets than the L1011 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Oct 93 12:49:42 PDT [history of the L1011---specifically, why it was unsuccessful] One other major reason why the L1011 was a commercial failure: The bankruptcy of Rolls Royce just as Lockheed was about to make its first deliveries. The L1011 only ever flew with RR engines, leaving Lockheed facing bankruptcy itself when engine deliveries were abruptly halted. At least one airline had to get DC10s as a stop gap to cover prior orders, and of course that made it harder to get subsequent orders. (The airline in question was Delta...). RNA From kls Tue Oct 19 12:49:44 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R Ebright) Subject: Re: Other Lockheed commercial passenger jets than the L1011 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Oct 93 12:49:44 PDT In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: [...] > >The L-1011 feel victim to the murderous competition with the DC-10, >which drove Lockheed from the market commercial market after costing >many hundreds of millions of dollars. It's not clear that McDonnell >Douglas did all that much better with the DC-10 -- many of their >current problems are at least partly tracable to the competition with >the L-1011. >Furthermore, their battle paved the way for Airbus to >enter the market. I don't understand the above conclusion. The widebody market at the time just wouldn't support three vendors and I am sure all three suffered. How does this effect the entry of Airbus? My read on Airbus is, like the Concorde, the Eurogovs were committed to using taxes to support an entry at almost any cost. Short term, this doesn't make much economic sense. Entering an already over built market makes even less sense. Or is the point the three original vendors were so weakened by their battle that the later entry of Airbus was possible because the two suvirvors could not commercially raise the resources to compete? -- 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 \ / \ Support Privacy: Support Encryption (--)\ From kls Tue Oct 19 12:49:46 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Other Lockheed commercial passenger jets than the L1011 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Oct 93 12:49:46 PDT In article rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes:>One other major reason why the L1011 was a commercial failure: The bankruptcy >of Rolls Royce just as Lockheed was about to make its first deliveries. The Rolls-Royce (and subsequent Lockheed) bankruptcy came well after most of the major airlines had made their commitments, so its hard to see how it had much effect on sales. The effect on profits was un- deniably bad, but a poor second-place in sales is what really killed the L-1011. >The L1011 only ever flew with RR engines Right, and that rather directly led to both aircraft being built -- United wanted the L-1011, but with GE engines because they didn't think Rolls-Royce could deliver. (Correctly, as it turned out.) At that time, McDonnell Douglas only had American's order, while Lockheed had Eastern, TWA and Delta. I believe Lockheed also had some European orders at that time. They felt they were in a good enough position to dictate the engine choice. Had United agreed, the DC-10 would have been cancelled. Had Lockheed hung GE engines on the L-1011 for United the DC-10 would have been cancelled. But history chose a different path. >At least one airline had to get DC10s as a stop gap to cover prior >orders, and of course that made it harder to get subsequent orders. >(The airline in question was Delta...). You just nullified your own argument -- Delta went on to acquire the largest L-1011 fleet in the world, buying them right up to the end of production and, in the used market, beyond. It's pretty hard to see how their five short-term DC-10s affected subsequent orders! -- 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 Oct 19 12:49:48 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Other Lockheed commercial passenger jets than the L1011 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Oct 93 12:49:48 PDT In article jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R Ebright) writes:>>Furthermore, their battle paved the way for Airbus to >>enter the market. >I don't understand the above conclusion. The widebody market at the >time just wouldn't support three vendors and I am sure all three suffered. The widebody market could easily have supported three vendors, unless you want to discount the 747 as being far too big for the market at the time. The problem is that everyone built the wrong plane -- a widebody twin. McDonnell Douglas should have let Lockheed have the trijet market and built the A300. Lockheed was looking forward to a TwinStar derivative of the TriStar (L-1011) but with the failure of the L-1011 it never had a chance. So, Airbus built the right plane. Their early problems were mainly AirWho? problems rather than market demand for such an aircraft. >How does this effect the entry of Airbus? ... >Or is the point the three original vendors were so weakened by their >battle that the later entry of Airbus was possible because the two >suvirvors could not commercially raise the resources to compete? Boeing, through luck as much as anything else, managed to stay above the problems. But McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed did serious damage to each other, effectively eliminating both as serious competitors in the market. Lockheed is obvious -- they're gone. MacDAC is perhaps less obvious, but they are very weak in many areas. Financially, many analysts have felt they've been near the brink for a long time. Their product range (in terms of commercial airliners) is weak, too -- the DC-10 was their last new aircraft, and in addition to a rather old lineup they have some serious gaps. With Lockheed gone and MacDAC reeling, Boeing was left without any serious competition. Airbus could have sold to the Europeans on its own, but would have had a difficult time in the U.S., which was (and is) a critical market, if they had two U.S. competitors. With only Boeing as a serious contender, the airlines desire for competition amongst airframe vendors gave Airbus the chance they needed. -- 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 Oct 22 01:04:56 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@tom.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: 727 lands at Meigs field! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Oct 93 01:04:56 PDT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Atlanta Customer Support Center Copyright 1993 by UPI Reposted with permission from the ClariNet Electronic Newspaper newsgroups. For more info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS." Since it was discussed here a while back, whether a jet had ever landed at Meigs field, here's an amusing article from the United Press International (reproduced WITH permission), about a 727 that landed at Meigs Field a year ago! (Impatient folks please look below for the lines beginning with > ). CHICAGO (UPI) - A United Airlines jetliner stopped traffic and drew throngs of onlookers Wednesday as it was towed across Lake Shore Drive to join a World War II submarine as a trademark exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry. About 2,000 curiousity seekers assembled to watch the Boeing 727, the largest vehicle ever to travel on the multi-lane highway, pulled about 100 yards from a barge on Lake Michigan to the parking lot of the museum -- the only building left from 1932 World's Fair. Moving the plane from barge to land took several hours because of heavy waves, which forced officials to back up traffic on the heavily traveled commuter route for longer than expected. ``When he's old enough he can come down here and say he was a part of it,'' said Dan Fox, who brought his kindergartener from Whitewater, Wis. , to witness the spectacle. ``It's neat the museum can do this.'' Chicago teacher Ronna Page used a cancelled jury duty day to view the historic event. ``Today's a great day to watch a 727,'' she said. The $20 million airplane was donated by Chicago-based United Airlines. The plane logged 28 million miles during its career, circling the globe more than 3,500 times between 1964 and 1991, United spokesman Tony Molinaro said. The 133-foot, 41-ton plane will become the centerpiece of an expanded transportation exhibit at the museum, entitled, ``Take Flight,'' scheduled for completion October 1994, museum spokesman Jason Harris said. A German U-505 submarine, one of the most popular exhibits at the South Side museum, has drawn some 25 million visitors since arriving in 1954. The walk-through airliner exhibit to be suspended from a museum balcony is expected to be a competitive attraction, Harris said. United delivered the aircraft with the cockpit intact. Other parts of the plane will be re-structured to provide an exhibit that recreates the flying experience and offers a view of technical operations, Harris said. ``It takes something this large and this impressive to show the resources of the museum,'' he said. ``Something of this magnitude is unique to the museum.'' > United delivered the plane more than a year ago to Meigs Field, where > it was recorded as the largest aircraft ever to land at the downtown- > area airstrip designed for commuter air traffic. ``The airplane's journey has been quite an extraordinary odyssey,'' Molinaro said. ``This ended up being a very productive and creative partnership between the museum and United Airlines.'' -- 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 Fri Oct 22 01:04:58 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@tom.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Airbus planes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Oct 93 01:04:58 PDT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Atlanta Customer Support Center What planes does Airbus have * under its belt (built, blown, whether or not still flying) * on the drawing boards ? What are the basic characteristics (narrow body/wide body, #engines, etc) of these craft? My father and I were arguing over whether the A300 was a wide body - I think that the A300 and A320 are narrow bodies, and the A310 and A330 are wide bodies (and I dunno about the A340 at all). 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 Fri Oct 22 01:05:00 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Oct 93 01:05:00 PDT >What planes does Airbus have >* under its belt (built, blown, whether or not still flying) A300, A300-600, A310, A320, A321, A330, A340. >* on the drawing boards A319 is the only one to speak of. An A322 has been mentioned but not a whole lot more than that. There's also the A2000 (?), the Airbus flag in the 650-seat breeze. Haven't heard much about it in a while, especially now that all of the major Airbus constituents (but not Airbus itself) seem to be collaborating with Boeing on another entry in the same game. >What are the basic characteristics (narrow body/wide body, #engines, >etc) of these craft? The A319/A320/A321/A322 are narrow-body aircraft, a few inches wider than the Boeing 737/757 though still typically 3-3 seating in coach. All of the others share a twin-aisle fuselage cross-section which nominally has 2-4-2 seating in coach, putting it midway between the 767 (2-3-2) and DC-10/L-1011 (2-5-2). Except for the A340, which has four wing-mounted engines, all of the Airbus offerings are twins. All but the original A300 models are still offered (including the A300-600). In very rough terms, and comparing to (mostly Boeing) offerings which may be more familiar, the various offerings are as follows: A300 Medium-range transport comparable in size and weight to the domestic Boeing 767-300. A310 Shortened A300 with a new wing, redesigned tail, two-man crew, and other refinements. Medium- to long-range; comparable to the 767-200 and -200(ER). A300-600 Slight stretch from A300 with aft fuselage from A310, which increases seating slightly, and other A310 features. Medium- to long-range, the A300-600 is comparable to the 767-300(ER). A320 Short- to medium-range, narrow-body twin. Comparable to the Boeing 737-400, or 727-200, or maybe even 757, depending on who you ask. :-) The A320's most noteworthy -- and contro- versial -- feature is its radical cockpit redesign and fly- by-wire system. A321 Stretched version of A320. Comparable in size to 757, but with *much* lower range. First flight was earlier this year. (A322 would be even more of the same, but they'd have to use different engines, which defeats a lot of the family advantage.) A319 Launched at the recent Paris Air Show, the A319 is a shortened A320, roughly the size of a 737-300. A330 Same fuselage cross-section as the A300/A310 but an entirely new aircraft, significantly longer and heavier than even the A300-600 with trans-Pacific range, at least in later versions. Shares cockpit and has common crew rating with A320 family. Main competitors are Boeing's 777 and McDonnell Douglas' MD-11. Due to enter service within the next few months. A340 Virtually identical to the A330 except for the engines, with the A340 having four smaller engines instead of the A330's two. Differences are confined to the engines and their attachment to the wings plus relevant control systems. The A340 has only slightly higher takeoff weight but substantially greater range and, with four engines, isn't subject to ETOPS restrictions. Hope this helps. -- 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 Oct 22 01:05:03 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Lufthansa crash in Warsaw - Preliminary findings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: New Large Airplane, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Oct 93 01:05:03 PDT In article , Stefano Pagiola wrote: >I'm not sure about thrust-reversing, but I remember Piedmont lost a >737 at Charlotte some time ago when some combination of aquaplaning >and floating in ground effect meant spoilers could not be deployed >because releasing them requires the mainwheels to be firmly on the >ground and to have begun turning. Just as it makes sense (most of >the time) to prevent spoiler deployment in flight, it probably would >make sense to have similar safeguards to prevent thrust reverser >deployment in flight. Can anyone confirm whether/how its actually >done? [Quoting from the Airplane Systems Familiarization book - an in-house Boeing publication] Thrust reversers require the following to deploy: 1) 28VDC power available 2) Engine fire switch in the normal position 3) Airplane on ground (squat switches activated) 4) Thrust lever in idle position 5) Reverse thrust in the reverse idle detent position Autospoilers require the following to deploy: 1) Hydraulic pressure to the truck tilt indicators 2) Both thrust levers at idle 3) Both truck tilt sensors detect a no-tilt condition (a/p on ground) 4) Speedbrake lever in the armed position [End of quotes] I can't imagine anyone using tire spin-up as an activation criterion for autospoiler or thrust reverser operation. Too much attention is paid to the icy runway scenario (which is one reason that thrust reversers are included even on the 737 where there is some concern about their cost/benefit ratio). Safety is of primary importance to Boeing, and I'm quite sure, to Airbus as well. No one benefits from an unsafe airplane. My suggestion is to wait for more information before coming to any conclusions about the contributing causes of the accident. Pilot error seems to be the primary cause given the weather. This bears some similarity to the Mokpo accident of a couple of months ago where the pilots attempted three times to land in really bad weather. Questions for Robert Dorsett: Could the pilots high levels of experience and presumed competence have contributed to a false sense of security which led to an error in judgement? If so, how can this be avoided in the future? Did the 'cocoon' effect of the A320 cockpit contribute to the possible overconfidence? Another idle thought: The descriptions of the weather at Warsaw seem to match the profile for microburst activity. Did the pilots and controllers not recognize this, or did I miss something? -- 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 Fri Oct 22 01:05:08 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rainer@ifr15.luftfahrt.uni-stuttgart.de (Rainer Ludorf) Subject: Re: A-320 crash in Warsaw References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Organization: Comp.Center (RUS), U of Stuttgart, FRG Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Oct 93 01:05:08 PDT > Provided they were on the ground, I don't think the wind was particularly > relevant in this crash. On the first day, an amateur organization in > Germany ("Cockpit") was apparently defending the airplane against early > suggestions that the plane had accelerated, taken off, and stalled out: > in an unstallable airplane, windshear seems a likely culprit. It seems > they jumped the gun. :-) Just a short note. The *amateur* organization is the *German Cockpit Association*, which is the representative body off all flight and cabin crews in Germany. It is not restricted to Lufthansa but open for all other German airline crews (LTU, NFD etc.) rainer From kls Fri Oct 22 01:05:10 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rainer@ifr15.luftfahrt.uni-stuttgart.de (Rainer Ludorf) Subject: Re: A.320 crash in Warsaw References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Organization: Comp.Center (RUS), U of Stuttgart, FRG Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Oct 93 01:05:10 PDT The latest release here in Germany identifies quite a different cause. Apparently the aircraft did not touch down late and started to reduce speed withn reverse thrust and full brakes applied. During the investigation the brake marks from the skidding wheels were found, only that they were not black, but white. More investigation into concluded that some sort of chemical reaction between the heated rubber and some left-over cleaning agent had occured. This detergent is said to be used to remove oil and grease from the runway and had been applied just recently. The result is quite comparable to aqua-planning. Shortly after touch down, the flight crew noticed that the a/c was beginning to skid sideways drifting off the runway. Starting through was thus impossible. rainer From kls Fri Oct 22 01:05:13 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wangermn@phoenix.princeton.edu (John Paul Wangermann) Subject: Re: A-320 crash in Warsaw References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Princeton University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Oct 93 01:05:13 PDT In article , Robert Dorsett wrote: >In article adam@kurdel.harvard.edu (Adam Dobrzycki) writes: >>The plane happened to land during (or shortly after) a short, but very >>heavy rain. > >The initial DFDR analysis indicates they touched down at about 700 meters, >or 1/4 down the runway. The normal touch-down zone is 300 meters. > > >>There were random gusts of wind. Some planes landed safely >>before the fatal A-320 though, and other landed later, after short >>(~30 min.) break caused by the crash. > >Provided they were on the ground, I don't think the wind was particularly >relevant in this crash. On the first day, an amateur organization in >Germany ("Cockpit") was apparently defending the airplane against early >suggestions that the plane had accelerated, taken off, and stalled out: in >an unstallable airplane, windshear seems a likely culprit. It seems they >jumped the gun. :-) > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The conditions as described (sudden downburst, strong gusting winds in changing directions) are usually strong indications of microburst activity. If a microburst is hit early in an approach, the aircraft will balloon above the glideslope (increassing headwind). Then as it passes the core the headwind becomes a tailwind, the aircraft loses airspeed and height rapidly. While in the past, crashes have occurred because aircraft came down early because of this effect, it is entirely possible that as the aircraft came in to land it was still in the headwind part of a microburst, hence ballooning above the intended trajectory to touchdown. Can you say why yoyu don't think the wind seems relevant in this case? Without better information, I'd say microbursts (windshear) seem a very prbable cause - at least of the very late touchdown. John ------------------------------------------------------------------- John P. Wangermann wangermn@phoenix.princeton.edu Dept of Mech and Aero Eng. (609) 258 5340 E Quad Olden St Princeton NJ 08544 USA ------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Fri Oct 22 01:05:15 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: greg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) Subject: Re: Lauda Crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indiana University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Oct 93 01:05:15 PDT In kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >Robert Dorsett writes: >>look at the Lauda 767 crash near Thailand. In that case, the >>automatic interlocks failed, and ripped the engine off the airplane >Are you sure that the engine was ripped off? I never saw anything >about that in any of the reports, and I think I would have remembered >something that dramatic. I also don't entirely see why an in-flight >reverser deployment would necessarily cause an engine separation, and >if it did, the aircraft should still be flyable. (Unless its a DC-10.) I'll second Karl's skepticism. After all, a number of aircraft ARE certified for in-flight use of thrust reversers - specifically the DC-8. I'll grant that the engines on 767 are substantially more powerful than those on a DC-8, but I still find it hard to believe that in-flight deployment of the cascade doors on a 767 would result in engine separation! If so, why aren't there 767 engines littering runways all over the place? The margin between power available in-flight vs. that on the ground can't be that great, or am I mistaken? greg -- Gregory Reed Travis D P S I Data Parallel Systems Incorporated greg@cica.indiana.edu From kls Fri Oct 22 01:05:16 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Other Lockheed commercial passenger jets than the L1011 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Oct 93 01:05:16 PDT In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: |> In article rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes:>One other major reason why the L1011 was a commercial failure: The bankruptcy |> >At least one airline had to get DC10s as a stop gap to cover prior [L1011] |> >orders, and of course that made it harder to get subsequent orders. |> >(The airline in question was Delta...). |> |> You just nullified your own argument -- Delta went on to acquire the |> largest L-1011 fleet in the world, buying them right up to the end of |> production and, in the used market, beyond. It's pretty hard to see |> how their five short-term DC-10s affected subsequent orders! I'm quite aware of how big an L1011 operator Delta turned out to be. What I meant is that this discouraged other airlines from picking the L1011. Imagine how embarrassing it was for Lockheed to have Delta flying DC10s on routes that it bought the L1011 for. I'd have loved to have been a McD-D salesman at that time. RNA From kls Fri Oct 22 01:05:17 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Other Lockheed commercial passenger jets than the L1011 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Oct 93 01:05:17 PDT In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: |> In article |> jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R Ebright) writes: |> >>Furthermore, their battle paved the way for Airbus to |> >>enter the market. |> |> >I don't understand the above conclusion. The widebody market at the |> >time just wouldn't support three vendors and I am sure all three suffered. |> |> The widebody market could easily have supported three vendors, unless |> you want to discount the 747 as being far too big for the market at |> the time. The problem is that everyone built the wrong plane -- a |> widebody twin. You must mean "no one built the right aircraft", or something similar. |> McDonnell Douglas should have let Lockheed have the |> trijet market and built the A300. Lockheed was looking forward to a |> TwinStar derivative of the TriStar (L-1011) but with the failure of |> the L-1011 it never had a chance. So, Airbus built the right plane. |> Their early problems were mainly AirWho? problems rather than market |> demand for such an aircraft. In fact McD-D had plans to build the DC-10 as a twin, but didn't think it had the prestige of the L1011. There was an excellent article on just this topic, in, of all places, the New Yorker, sometime during the last 5-10 years. It's one of those patented New Yorker articles that goes on for pages and pages and tells you absolutely everything you ever wanted to know about the subject. McD-D's decision, in combination with Lockheed's decision to only support RR engines on the L1011, has to be one of the worst things that ever happened to the commercial aircraft industry. RNA From kls Fri Oct 22 01:05:22 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) Subject: A320 braking methods Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Oct 93 01:05:22 PDT From: Robert Dorsett Reply-To: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu To: airliners@chicago.com,ata-watchers Subject: A320 braking methods The following is an overview intended to clarify some of my thoughts, and outline in one place the major issues at hand. There are two braking mechanisms in common use. In order of importance: Wheel brakes + Anti-skid + ground spoilers Thrust reversers Wheel brakes are how the airplane is stopped. Many people think the thrust reversers play a large role: it's marginal, not affecting roll-out distance by more than 10-20%. Most airplanes have automatic braking systems, which apply pressure after touch-down. Anti-skid significantly improves on braking distance in most runway conditions, wet or dry. Ground spoilers are used to dump lift: by destroying airflow over the wings, they force the entire weight of the airplane on the wheels, thus ensuring maximum friction with the available surface. Most airplanes have automatic spoilers: after touchdown, all panels will deploy. Thrust reversers are designed for failure: it is MUCH LESS desirable to have them deploy in flight, than have them fail on the ground. I am not aware of ANY airplane which has automatic thrust reversers. Landing distances are based on landing in 60% of the available runway length (plus touch-down zone distance, ~1300'), This figure provides the minimum field length of a landing. To this figure is applied correction factors for runway condition, winds, and whether anti-skid is available, all indexed by weight and airport elevation. Thrust reversers may NOT be used in anticipating landing distances. Specific to the A320: 1. Wheel brakes are modulated by a dual channel "Brake and Steering Control Unit." The A320's brakes and nosewheel steering may be considered "steer by wire." The primary actuation mechanism is through pedals located near the pilots' feet. The BCSU is a digital computer which modulates hydraulic valves to apply braking pressure to the carbon disc brakes. One of two hydraulic systems, green and yellow, may be used. The BCS uses inputs from the two ADIRS's (Air Data/Inertial Reference Sytem), and four wheel tachometers, to arrive at an integrated speed. If the ADIRS's are not valid, then the speed is limited to the maximum of the four main landing gear wheel speeds. If this value passes muster, then the gain is amplified, and the valves are modulated. The system automagically senses failure of the primary braking hydraulic system (green) and then switches to yellow. 2. The A320 has an automatic braking system. This system can command a high, medium, and low rate of braking. If the "low" mode is selected, braking commences gradually about 8 seconds after ground spoiler deployment, and the deceleration limit is set at 1.7 m/s^2. If the "medium" mode is selected, then the braking commences immediately after ground spoiler deployment, and the deceleration limit is set at 3.0 m/s^2. The "hi" mode provides maximum braking, and is normally armed only for take-off. I would speculate that this system would be OFF in a situation like Warsaw. 3. The A320 has an anti-skid system. This system maintains the brakes at the limit threshold of an impending skid. If the system detects that a wheel speed has dropped beneath 87% of what the system calculates the actual airplane speed is, the brake is released. THe maximum rate of deceleration is 1.7 m/s^2. The anti-skid system must be manually selected "on." The anti-skid system is a "modulation" applied to a braking command, either manual or automatic. A working anti-skid system can cut brake distances by up to 40%. 4. The A320 has ground spoilers. These consist of the flight spoilers, plus four inboard ground spoiler panels. The purpose is to destroy lift above the wing. An autoamtic ground spoiler system may be armed. When the speed brake lever is pulled into the armed position and the thrust reversers are at idle, or when reverse thrust is selected on either engine, the surfaces will extend to 45 degrees, IF the airplane is on the ground and airspeeds are greater than 66 knots. It seems this limitation also applies to manual selection of the spoilers. If the airplane is in the air, spoilers are retracted at high AOA, or in full landing configuration. This could be relevant if the plane was floating, or didn't sense it was on the ground. 5. Lastly, the A320 has thrust reversers. As stated before, thrust reversers are more of a guarantee than a primary braking mechanism: provided the airplane landed properly, on speed, thrust reverser failure would not be a factor. The thrust reversers are only available with both engine control units operating, both air/ground sensors showing the airplane in the GROUND configuration, and the thrust lever in the "reverse" detent. If all three criteria apply, the reverser doors are unlocked, and hydraulic pressure is used to move the doors. While the doors are in transit, the FADEC will command the engine to IDLE. Speculation: With all this in mind, I'm tending to think "failure to select automatic spoilers" at this point. Nervous pilot, foul weather, high workload, easy mistake. If it's assumed that they're set, and they're not, valuable time is lost: the spoiler lever is on the left hand side of the center pedestal (captain being qualified, and well aft, out of the normal scan (unlike Boeing or A300/A310 spoiler/flap levers, which are in the same area as the thrust levers). Also, it seems to be yet another damned Airbus push/pull interface, and the lever probably doesn't move when full spoilers are commanded. So if the spoilers don't get deployed quickly, the airplane floats, the A/G sensor may not click, the thrust reversers remain locked closed, the brakes don't work at maximum effectiveness (if they're enabled at all in the air with the gear lever in the down position), and the anti-skid is irrelevant. It takes time to recover from something like this. -- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd From kls Fri Oct 22 01:05:24 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Werner Uhrig Subject: Re: A320 braking methods References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Oct 93 01:05:24 PDT another one of Robert's excellent articles. Hard to get anything like that for money even, I bet. Someone with the right connections ought to get Robert some free-lance work writing (pretty soon someone would probably offer him "real money"... ;-) > Wheel brakes are how the airplane is stopped. Many people think the > thrust reversers play a large role: it's marginal, not affecting roll-out ^^^^^^^^^^ > distance by more than 10-20%. Robert, is that a quote or your opinion? The reason I ask is that this is the second time, I think, that I read this, and the earlier time already I had wondered to myself: how many accidents that had planes overrun the runway, could have been avoided with an additional "10 to 20" of ... (you know what I mean: breaking power, runway, whatever..) and how many "landings without incident" would have overrun the runway if the pilot did not have the 20% benefit of the reverse thrust, I wonder. my point is that I see no good reason to describe it as "marginal" and wonder if it is a good idea to do so (no criticism intende but rather plain puzzled) From kls Fri Oct 22 01:05:26 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: A320 braking methods References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Oct 93 01:05:26 PDT >> Wheel brakes are how the airplane is stopped. Many people think the >> thrust reversers play a large role: it's marginal, not affecting roll-out > ^^^^^^^^^^ >> distance by more than 10-20%. > > Robert, is that a quote or your opinion? The reason I ask is > that this is the second time, I think, that I read this, and > the earlier time already I had wondered to myself: Well, that specific figure was from Webb's _Fly the Wing_. But let's just consider empirical evidence. I'm an avid airplane-watcher. 737's at Mueller typically complete their turn-off within 25 seconds after touch-down. Figure a touch-down speed of 135 knots. That's 228 feet per second. Figure four seconds (typical) for selection and actuation of thrust reversal--pilot's first responsibility upon landing is to keep the nose pointed in the right direction; this takes time. So does smoothly spooling down, selecting reverse thrust, and advancing the throttles again. By the point of selection, our airplane's traveled at most 912 feet (at most, because wheel brakes are much more responsive, and would be applied within two seconds after touchdown). The engines must be cut down to idle, and then accelerated. That's another three to four seconds, and we're probably down to around 90 knots, up to ~1500 feet of pavement, 7 to 10 seconds. Probably takes another 7-10 to slow down to 40 knots. But thrust reversers are stowed at 65 knots, due to the danger of compressor stall and particle ingestion. So just with this back-of-the-envelope calculation, we're looking at an interval of 30-40 knots that the thrust reversers can "help out" on. How effective are they? Well, figure 30,000 lbs of thrust on a twin, landing weight of 120,000 lbs. Assume 80% power (I think Webb says 65%), at a 60% efficiency. That's a net yield of 16,800 lbs of thrust, or a deceleration rate of 4.48 ft/sec^2. Or 1.36 m/s^2, which is 80% of the brakes-only antiskid threshold of 1.7 m/s^2 on the A320. And you won't be getting 30,000 static lbs of power as a reference, since there's a power loss as the airplane moves through the air. Maybe 5% less, but we'll ignore this. But again, this is only in a 40-knot interval. Distance traveled, assuming uniform 3.4 m/s^2 deceleration during this interval, starting at 100 knots, ending at 60 knots, is only around 807', or 6 seconds of time. So out of a landing roll of 3000' or so (regulatory runway landing distance of (1500' + 3000)/0.6 = 7500', so this is probably a bit high), the thrust reversers are only responsible for around 50% of that 800', or 400', or 13%. On a wet runway, in this interval, the "contribution" figure MAY be a bit higher, with inop antiskid. Clearly, thrust reversers aren't HUGELY relevant. Some reverse thrust is going to be generated during the acceleration phase after door deployment, so let's double it's contribution: 26%. But this is all gravy: IF the airplane lands where it's supposed to, we have a large amount of runway left over for BRAKES-ONLY deceleration. The thrust reversers will merely serve to increase the margins, raising the "excess" pavement length by 26%. No thrust reversers? You still have 166% normal touchdown distance to complete your brakes-only roll-out. The penalty of NO thrust reversers is, therefore, nonexistent, as far as the standards go. This is all back-of-the-envelope, your mileage will vary. But this is all best-case, at sea level. Throw in a hot day, high altitude situation, and the influence of the thrust reversers will go way down. The effectiveness of braking won't change as much. > how many accidents that had planes overrun the runway, could > have been avoided with an additional "10 to 20" of ... > (you know what I mean: breaking power, runway, whatever..) How many accidents could have been avoided if 400% reverse power had been available after the pilot touched down 70% down the runway? Such questions aren't very relevant. Landing distances have generous amounts of error built into them. One might as well ask why we allow airplanes to brake under their own power, and don't just use arresting gear and tailhooks to stop the airplane within a few feet, no matter WHERE one lands on the runway. :-) Thrust reversers aren't magic cure-alls. They're meant to be used in specified ways, and are subject to both mechanical limitations and the laws of nature. I think a good chunk of your reasoning (and similar thoughts have been expressed on the net) is that thrust reversers make a HUGE difference in roll-out. They don't. They LOOK awfully impressive from seat 35A, along with the ground spoilers. But take along your stop-watch on your next flight. :-) > my point is that I see no good reason to describe it as "marginal" > and wonder if it is a good idea to do so (no criticism intende > but rather plain puzzled) I hope the above clarified things somewhat. Cheers, -- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd From kls Fri Oct 22 01:05:28 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: acm@SkyNet.GUN.de (Dietmar Hanke) Subject: Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SkyNet Informationssysteme Krefeld, FRG Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Oct 93 01:05:28 PDT Path: SkyNet!acm From: acm@SkyNet.GUN.de (Dietmar Hanke) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Sep 93 18:53:29 CET Organization: SkyNet Informationssysteme Krefeld, FRG I have recognized that more and more aircrafts used for transatlantic flights just have 2 engines, like the B-767, B-757, A300 ... What happens if one of the 2 engines of a B-767 fails somewhere over the atlantic? Which distance can this jet still fly by just using one engine. Is it possible to fly a B-747 when 2 of the 4 engines failed? Was it even possible when both engines on one wing woudn't work anymore? I allways prefer a flight on a B-747 when I have to get from Frankfurt to New York if there were also 2 engine jets on that route. Would you think the same way? Thanx for a response to my questions. From kls Fri Oct 22 01:05:31 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Oct 93 01:05:31 PDT In article acm@SkyNet.GUN.de (Dietmar Hanke) writes:>What happens if one of the 2 engines of a B-767 fails somewhere over the >atlantic? Which distance can this jet still fly by just using one engine. This question seems to be coming up a fair amount again ... If one of the two engines fails over the Atlantic (or Pacific, or vast unpopulated areas of Asia, or anywhere else lacking a handy airport) it must limp to safety on the remaining engine. The rules regarding operations over vast areas without convenient airports are known as EROPS (Extended-Range OPerationS) and the specific rules for twin- engined aircraft are often called ETOPS (Extended Twin OPerationS, or my favorite, Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim. :-) ) ETOPS ratings are generally discussed not in terms of distances but in flight time, on one engine, from the closest usable airport. The very earliest ETOPS ratings were for 90 minutes (60 minutes is just normal operations) which could make it across the Atlantic but with a rather long and inefficient route. Cancellations due to weather would be rather frequent, which points out one of the not-so-obvious facets of ETOPS -- having an airport within your limping range isn't any good if it's closed when you need it, so an ETOPS flight plan must pay close attention to weather forecasts on the ground at the approrpiate times in the future. 120-minute ETOPS was soon approved, and this made twin-engine flights across the North Atlantic fairly routine. Weather cancellations and deviations from the "optimal" path taken by aircraft with three or more engines are minimal. At least some authorities have approved another 15%, or 138-minute ETOPS, which eliminates the differences for virtually all conditions. Few routes required longer ratings than this, and really only one was in great enough demand to attract anyone's attention. That one makes for an interesting trivia question because it is covered by domestic, not international, regulations. Specifically, it's between the U.S. mainland and Hawaii, which is very nearly at the limits of 180-minute ETOPS. (I'm not sure about U.S. to Tokyo but I suspect the military bases in the Aleutians make this a somewhat easier route.) Various factors figure into ETOPS ratings. Proven engine reliability is one as is the engine/airframe combination. The airline and its maintenance program must also be certified. Backup power sources are important, too, e.g., Airbus had to certify the in-flight startup of the APU on the A300/A310 while Boeing opted to use an airflow-driven generator (a RAT, or Ram Air Turbine). Minimum equipment lists (MEL) are progressively more restrictive as distance from airport increases, i.e., one broken radio might not keep you from flying San Francisco to Chicago while it might well prevent an ETOPS flight. >Is it possible to fly a B-747 when 2 of the 4 engines failed? Was it even >possible when both engines on one wing woudn't work anymore? Sure. One example that comes to mind is the United 747 that blew a cargo door about an hour into a Honolulu to Australia flight in early 1989. The debris caused the failure of the #3 and #4 engines, but the plane limped back to Honolulu with just the #1 and #2 engines (the ones on the left wing). >I allways prefer a flight on a B-747 when I have to get from Frankfurt to >New York if there were also 2 engine jets on that route. Would you think >the same way? Some people would avoid the twins overwater, period. Personally, and this is just my opinion, I'd prefer more engines and thus would choose a 747 (or L-1011) given the choice. On the other hand, I'd take a 767 with only two engines over the Atlantic before I took a DC-10 or MD-11, despite their having three engines. Over the Pacific is another matter. Quite a few folks who wouldn't object to vehemently to a twin over the North Atlantic would not even consider a twin over the Pacific. -- 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 Sat Oct 30 22:33:38 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Thrust reversers, Caravelle (nonexistent) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Oct 93 22:33:38 PDT In article , drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: |> I can't imagine anyone using tire spin-up as an activation criterion for |> autospoiler or thrust reverser operation. Too much attention is paid to |> the icy runway scenario (which is one reason that thrust reversers are |> included even on the 737 where there is some concern about their |> cost/benefit ratio). One airliner that (in certain models at least) had no thrust reversers was the Caravelle. I was on a flight Goteborg to Stockholm in the winter of 73/74 where they were so worried about the Caravelle sliding down and off the end of the runway (ice) that they told us they might deploy the parachute in the tailcone of the airplane. They didn't have to, which at the time disappointed me mightily (I was all of 9 years old). RNA From kls Sat Oct 30 22:33:41 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Oct 93 22:33:41 PDT In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: |> Over the Pacific is another matter. Quite a few folks who wouldn't |> object to vehemently to a twin over the North Atlantic would not even |> consider a twin over the Pacific. The Air NZ/Qantas sectors from Honolulu to the West Coast are flights I would avoid, though both airlines have excellent safety records. Polynesian Airlines has a flight non-stop Los Angeles to Apia, Western Samoa, which is quite some distance beyond Honolulu. I would imagine that at some points you must be at least an hour and half away from even a very marginal alternate such as Christmas Island or Fanning, or Palmyra or some similar unoccupied atoll with an old (but huge) WWII strip. And then there is Air Nauru, that flies a 737 on a routing Tarawa-Christmas Island-Honolulu. Tarawa-Christmas Island is, I think, about 4 hours over some of the emptiest ocean in the world. The FAA wouldn't let them start this service until they built(!) an alternate on one of the other Line Islands (Christmas is one of this group). I suppose that on the bright side, weather is usually pretty good in the Central Pacific, except during hurricanes, and you generally know it when those are around. RNA From kls Sat Oct 30 22:33:43 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Oct 93 22:33:43 PDT In article , Dietmar Hanke wrote: > >I have recognized that more and more aircrafts used for transatlantic >flights just have 2 engines, like the B-767, B-757, A300 ... >What happens if one of the 2 engines of a B-767 fails somewhere over the >atlantic? Which distance can this jet still fly by just using one engine. This is a slightly more complex question that you might first guess. Currently, the 767 (with all the appropriate engines and auxilliary equipment and crew/maintenance training & certification) is certified to fly 180 minutes away from the nearest "suitable" airport. Distance is velocity multiplied by time, and the 767 is certified to fly at MMO (maximum operating mach number) on one engine. Interestingly, it can actually do that. :-) Some folks opt for the Maximum L/D speed which is somewhat slower. So, basically, find a speed you like, and multiply it by three. That would be your answer. Now. Not all operators are certified for 180 minute ETOPS (the above example). Some are allowed 120 minutes, some 90, some only 75. Some aren't allowed to fly ETOPS at all under any circumstances. :-) (Typically this is an economic decision made by the airline - not a reflection of relative safety - because of the onerous bookkeeping requirements.) >Is it possible to fly a B-747 when 2 of the 4 engines failed? Was it even >possible when both engines on one wing woudn't work anymore? Yes. (I just happen to have a 747 configurator right beside me.) >I allways prefer a flight on a B-747 when I have to get from Frankfurt to >New York if there were also 2 engine jets on that route. Would you think >the same way? No. :-) I'd go with the 767 because of the nicer seating arrangements. Or maybe an MD-11 so that I can check out the competition's stuff. Unless I could afford one of those cool upper deck seats. :-) >Thanx for a response to my questions. No charge. -- 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 Oct 30 22:33:44 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: John Rushby Subject: Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Oct 93 22:33:44 PDT There's an urban myth (who knows, it may be true) that the one-time chairman of Rolls Royce, a company that make aero engines, always flew the atlantic in 4-engined planes. When asked why, he replied "because there are no 5-engined planes." More seriously, ETOPS regulations include things like upgraded capability for the suppression of fires in the hold that make them safer, in that respect, than 3- and 4-engined planes. John Rushby ------- From kls Sat Oct 30 22:33:47 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ditka!sgiblab!uunet.UU.NET!ucsd!frosty.rational.com!pete (Pete Coe) Subject: Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rational Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Oct 93 22:33:47 PDT acm@SkyNet.GUN.de (Dietmar Hanke) writes: >Is it possible to fly a B-747 when 2 of the 4 engines failed? Was it even >possible when both engines on one wing woudn't work anymore? Hey! 747's have been known to fly with no engines. There was that British Airways 747 that flew into a volcanic ash cloud, and for 30 minutes or so became the world's heaviest glider. That incident, and others (e.g. Eastern Tristar losing all engines due to incorrect maintenance), leads me to think that as far as engines go, two is never enough. The statisticians can argue the point as long as they like, but the fact is that more has to be safer. I doubt that the two above incidents would be covered by ETOPS regulations, because they were not a fault of the engines, or airframe design. But in both cases, the flight crew only managed to save the day because they could get _some_ power from _all_ the engines (as opposed to all the power from one of the engines). If either had been a twin, we would have lost passengers to another 'unfortunate incident'. At the time of the BA 747's little problem, my father was project manager for 747's at BA. Up to that incident BA had been considering removing the air turbines from the planes as they were not used. At least that idea got canned. Incidentally, that plane has never been the same since. Sorry about the rambling. I just think twin engined aircraft are a bad idea, and while I consider them acceptable for short/medium haul routes, I think that Long over water ones are just an accident waiting to happen. The 777 gives me nightmares. How many people do we have to kill before the airlines stop this crazy quest. Although I am myself a professional in the aviation industry, I consider myself to be well informed. I have also clocked up well over 500,000 miles in the air. In that time I have had one engine lost to a bird strike (Conway), two in flight precautionary shut down's (RB211's), and one aborted take off (RB211 again) due to engine malfunction. I don't know how atypical these numbers are, but the incidents have been frequent enough for me to actively avoid the 767 on trans-atlantic flights. Now my statistics all end up being British engines, but that is because I usually fly B.A. I am sure the American manufacturer's figures will be equivalent. Rant mode off. -- -- Pete Coe -- Rational -- Object-Oriented Products From kls Sat Oct 30 22:33:48 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Oct 93 22:33:48 PDT Pete Coe writes: >There was that British Airways 747 that flew into a volcanic ash >cloud, and for 30 minutes or so became the world's heaviest glider. >That incident, and others (e.g. Eastern Tristar losing all engines >due to incorrect maintenance), leads me to think that as far as >engines go, two is never enough ... the fact is that more has to be >safer. The fact is that in neither of the cases you cite is there any great reason to beleive that more engines would have been better. Both were common mode failures, and except for a stroke of luck, such a case by definition isn't a function of number of engines. >I doubt that the two above incidents would be covered by ETOPS >regulations, because they were not a fault of the engines, or >airframe design. The pedants might point out that neither would have been covered by ETOPS regs since neither involved twins. Beyond that, the Eastern flight wouldn't have been ETOPS even if it was a twin since if memory serves it was operating from Miami to San Juan. >But in both cases, the flight crew only managed to save the day >because they could get _some_ power from _all_ the engines (as >opposed to all the power from one of the engines). I don't know about the BA flight, but this simply isn't true for the Eastern incident -- they limped back, and by the time they were within sight of land again they only had the #2 engine. In another case much like the BA 747, involving a KLM 747-400 and again a volcano, they got one, maybe two engines fired up to bring them back. >If either had been a twin, we would have lost passengers to another >'unfortunate incident'. If the Eastern flight had been a twin subject to ETOPS regulations, the incident probably would not have occurred at all because the regs would prohibit the same mechanic from doing the maintenance on all of the engines, thus removing the common cause. >I have also clocked up well over 500,000 miles in the air. In that >time I have had [3 engines lost and an aborted take off]. I don't >know how atypical these numbers are ... I've probably got around 750,000 miles behind me. No engine problems after push back of any sort in all those miles, though plenty of problems that were dealt with at the gate. I don't know how typical or not these numbers are either. >Now my statistics all end up being British engines ... Only about a half-dozen of my flights have been with British engines, but the failure rates just aren't that different. -- 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 Sat Oct 30 22:33:49 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: peter@bonche.sunmexico.Sun.COM (Peter Zadrozny - CS Manager Mexico) Subject: Re: A320 braking methods References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: peter@bonche.sunmexico.Sun.COM Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Oct 93 22:33:49 PDT Excellent explanation of Robert. But I still wonder, if there is no penalty, or to put it in another way, the thrust reversers are not really necessary, why bother having them? --- Ing. Peter Zadrozny Horacio 1855, Piso 6 Director de Servicios al Cliente Col. Polanco Sun Microsystems de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Mexico, DF 11570 peter.zadrozny@sunmexico.sun.com Telf. +52 (5) 580-5229 From kls Sat Oct 30 22:46:32 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.radio.shortwave,rec.radio.scanner,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: leej@austin.ibm.com () Subject: ICAO Identifiers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Oct 93 22:46:32 PDT Reply-To: leej@nickye.austin.ibm.com Organization: IBM, Austin I'd like a list of all the ICAO location identifiers, or a name, address, or phone number of ICAO, etc. Thanks in advance. From kls Sat Oct 30 22:46:34 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.radio.shortwave,rec.radio.scanner,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ICAO Identifiers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Oct 93 22:46:34 PDT Organization: Chicago Software Works >I'd like a list of all the ICAO location identifiers, or a name, >address, or phone number of ICAO, etc. International Civil Aviation Organization 1000 Sherbrooke Street West, Suite 400 Montreal, Quebec H3A 2R2, Canada Phone: 1-514/285-8219 FAX: 1-514/285-4722 -- 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 Sat Oct 30 22:46:36 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: h andrew chuang Subject: Re: Airbus planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Oct 93 22:46:36 PDT In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > A330 > Same fuselage cross-section as the A300/A310 but an entirely > new aircraft, significantly longer and heavier than even the > A300-600 with trans-Pacific range, at least in later versions. > Shares cockpit and has common crew rating with A320 family. > Main competitors are Boeing's 777 and McDonnell Douglas' MD-11. > Due to enter service within the next few months. Trans-Pacific? Not quite, unless one considers West Coast-Hawaii is Trans-Pacific. All the number that I can find shows both the A330-300 and the proposed A330-400X have a range of approximately 4000 nm. (Los Angeles-Tokyo is approximately 5500 nm.) On the subject of the A330 competing with the B777: I agree with Karl that they are very similar on paper, especially the A-Market B777. However, Thai Airways International and Cathay Pacific Airways of Hong Kong ordered both the A330 (Thai ordered 14, CPA ordered 10) and the B777 (8,11). Moreover, IMHO, B777 is really designed to be stretched to replace the B747-100/200's. The A330 simply does not have the wing to grow to that size, and none of the bigger engines (GE90/PW4x8x/Trent 800) will have enough ground clearance if they are to be hung on the A330 wings. (BTW, in a previous posting on engines, I believe that Karl used an incorrect Aviation Week data. The diameter of the GE90 is 123" not 158". With a 158"-diameter, the GE90 would be the best vacuum cleaner for airport runways.:-) From kls Sat Oct 30 22:46:38 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ditka!sgiblab!uunet.UU.NET!gorca!jnhall (Joseph N. Hall) Subject: Re: 727 lands at Meigs field! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GORCA Systems Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Oct 93 22:46:38 PDT In article libove@tom.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) writes: > CHICAGO (UPI) - A United Airlines jetliner stopped traffic and drew >throngs of onlookers Wednesday as it was towed across Lake Shore Drive >to join a World War II submarine as a trademark exhibit at the Museum of >Science and Industry. [...] The Franklin Institute here in Philadelphia used to have (I think it was) a 707. One of the most interesting parts of the exhibit was the description, somewhat like this one, of its journey through the city to the museum's downtown location. From kls Sat Oct 30 22:46:39 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ted@alnilam.cea.berkeley.edu (Ted Rodriguez-Bell) Subject: Re: Other Lockheed commercial passenger jets than the L1011 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: /etc/organization Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Oct 93 22:46:39 PDT In article , Robert Ashcroft wrote: >... >There was an excellent article on just this topic, in, of all places, >the New Yorker, sometime during the last 5-10 years. It's one of those >patented New Yorker articles that goes on for pages and pages and tells >you absolutely everything you ever wanted to know about the subject. It goes on for enough pages to fill a book. The book is: The sporty game / John Newhouse. 1st ed. New York : Knopf, 1982. HD9711.A2 .N48 1982 I'm not sure it told me absolutely everything, but it's entertaining and well worth reading. -- Ted Rodriguez-Bell ted@ssl.berkeley.edu From kls Sat Oct 30 22:46:42 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: campbjw@wkuvx1.bitnet Subject: altitude questions Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Oct 93 22:46:42 PDT In the Nashville, TN area where I live, Air Traffic Control usually assigns commercial flights to altitude levels of 28000 to 33000 feet - what is the highest common flight level used and what is the maximum flight level the average commercial plane can attain? Related to that, what are the limiting factors in altitude attainment for commercial planes? Are these altitudes typical for trans-oceanic flights? What are typical altitudes for European flights - I assume somewhat less since distances travelled are often less than in North America? Does direction make much difference in altitude assignments? Thanks, John --------------------- John Campbell (CAMPBJW@WKUVX1.BITNET) Western Kentucky University Bowling Green, KY (USA) From kls Mon Nov 1 14:04:40 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Two new Airbus PIREPS. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Nov 93 14:04:40 PST Both from Aviation Week & Space Technology, October 4, 1993: 1. "Airbus' New Twins Surprisingly Similar," by David Hughes, pp. 38-41. Overview of technology; comments on A330; specs of A330 and A321. 2. "A321 flight demonstrates design links to A330," by David Hughes, pp. 42-43. A321. Hughes describes himself as a C-5A pilot with the Air Force Reserve, last flying in '84. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Mon Nov 1 14:04:44 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: 21st Century Jet Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Nov 93 14:04:44 PST FYI. ------- Forwarded Message ------- "THE 21st CENTURY JET" TAKES TO THE AIR KCTS (Channel 9 in the Puget Sound area) this week aired the 777 documentary "The 21st Century Jet," an hour-long program about how Boeing is designing and building the new twinjet. Karl Sabbagh, the program's producer, is visiting Boeing this week, taping the progress of the 777 program for future segments of the documentary. His crew has captured the move for wing-to-body join (see story below), and will shoot interviews with Alan Mulally, 777 vice president and general manager, and Ron Ostrowski, director of 777 Engineering. The video crew also will tape activity in the 777 factory building, including progress on the nose section (41/43), the aft portion of the fuselage (46/47/48) and the horizontal stabilizer. ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud bcstec!bcsaic!stephen.nicoud This message does not represent the views of Boeing. I am not a Boeing spokesperson. I reserve the right to revise, extend and/or revoke my remarks. From kls Mon Nov 1 14:04:47 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: A320 braking methods References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Nov 93 14:04:47 PST In article peter@bonche.sunmexico.Sun.COM writes: >Excellent explanation of Robert. But I still wonder, if there is >no penalty, or to put it in another way, the thrust reversers are >not really necessary, why bother having them? They provide an additional *margin*. Just as airbags in a car won't be of much help except in a frontal collision, they provide a satisfactory margin, to supplement your seat belt. They can reduce landing distances by up to 20%, in certain circumstances, that's nothing to sneeze at. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Mon Nov 1 14:04:50 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: altitude questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Nov 93 14:04:50 PST In article campbjw@wkuvx1.bitnet writes: >In the Nashville, TN area where I live, Air Traffic Control usually >assigns commercial flights to altitude levels of 28000 to 33000 feet - >what is the highest common flight level used Controlled airspace extends to FL600. Above that, it's VFR. >and what is the maximum >flight level the average commercial plane can attain? 41,000' is a common "maximum operating" number. 31,000-39,000' is more typical for medium and long-range flight. I'd guess an absolute altitude for a commercial airliner around 50,000'. >Related to >that, what are the limiting factors in altitude attainment for >commercial planes? The cost in energy of getting up there (may not be worth the while), and pressurization limitations (Concorde needs a somewhat more robust pressurization system for its high-high altitude flight). If it's desired to keep an 8.5 differential, with a maximum cabin altitude of 8,000', the airplane is limited to around 40,000'. If you can raise the max. cabin altitude to 10,000', the airplane is limited to 50,000'. Whether it can get to either altitude is another issue entirely. > Are these altitudes typical for trans-oceanic >flights? What are typical altitudes for European flights - I assume >somewhat less since distances travelled are often less than in >North America? See above. You can use the same rule-of thumb as for short commuter hops in the US: Southwest, for example, tops at 21,000' in its 30-minute, 150- mile flight between Austin and Houston. >Does direction make much difference in altitude >assignments? Normally, aircraft are stacked at 2000' increments above FL290. In general, eastbound flights are stacked in 4000' increments starting at FL290. West- bound flights are stacked at 4000' intervales beginning at FL310. Many countries have variations on this; Eastern European countries do things in meters. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Mon Nov 1 14:04:55 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: altitude questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Nov 93 14:04:55 PST >Controlled airspace extends to FL600. Sure it isn't FL650? That's the number that comes to mind, though I'll admit to not having the references at hand. >41,000' is a common "maximum operating" number. 31,000-39,000' is >more typical for medium and long-range flight. For long-range flights they'll try to get as high as possible. I've flown LAX-LHR twice, first time was at FL390 and then earlier this year at FL410. In both cases we started off around FL350, climbing to our final cruise after several hours. I would assume this was due to inability to reach the higher altitude until some fuel had been burned off. >I'd guess an absolute altitude for a commercial airliner around 50,000'. What exactly do you mean by "absolute altitude?" Pilots on oxygen, light load, pushing it as hard as you can? In most cases, the "service ceiling" is determined by the need to maintain an 8,000' cabin altitude. Generally the fuselage structure and thus the pressure differential is the limiting factor, since a stronger fuselage (thus greater pressure differential) weighs more. Generally, longer range aircraft will have higher ceilings because the longer cruise gives more time recoup the added cost of the longer climb. Newer aircraft tend to have higher ceilings, too, both for efficiency and to get above more crowded airspaces. I've only got a couple of examples handy -- the 737 family (35,000') and the 757/767 (42,000'). I seem to recall that the 747 can go up to 45,000'. >See above. You can use the same rule-of thumb as for short commuter hops >in the US: Southwest, for example, tops at 21,000' in its 30-minute, 150- >mile flight between Austin and Houston. Though even on relatively short flights they can go remarkably high -- I've been on flights between SFO and LAX (337 miles) that got up to FL370, maybe even some at FL390. Cruise usually lasts less than ten minutes on these flights! BTW, it seems to me that all of these have been on 757s, which have impressive climb rates even with a decent load; on a short hop such as SFO-LAX they're truly amazing. -- 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 Nov 1 14:05:00 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: vince@halcyon.halcyon.com (Vince Skahan) Subject: Re: 727 lands at Meigs field! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Nov 93 14:05:00 PST ditka!sgiblab!uunet.UU.NET!gorca!jnhall (Joseph N. Hall) writes: >The Franklin Institute here in Philadelphia used to have (I think it was) >a 707. One of the most interesting parts of the exhibit was the >description, somewhat like this one, of its journey through the city >to the museum's downtown location. when you consider where the Franklin Institute is in Phila, can you imagine the look on the faces of the street people to see a plane rolling up the Ben Franklin Parkway ? I bet 'Ripple' sales went down 30 percent :-) -- ------------------- Vince Skahan ------ vince@halcyon.com ---------------- It reached a balmy 63 degrees F. in Seattle today, the 11th of July. There's a new movie out called '1993 - Summerless in Seattle' From kls Mon Nov 1 14:05:02 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mgriffin@access.digex.net (Michael D. Griffin) Subject: Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Nov 93 14:05:02 PST you of course heard about the 747 flight fm europe to nyc where... pilot "we've lost one engine, not to worry but, we'll be an hour late..." later pilot "we've lost the second engine, not to worry but, we'll be a total of 2 hours late..." later pilot "we've lost our third engine, not to worry but, we'll be a total of 3 hours late, hope we don't lose the forth one, we'll be up here all day." :-) From kls Mon Nov 1 14:05:04 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jkh@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard) Subject: Double asymmetrics [was Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lotus Development Ireland Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Nov 93 14:05:04 PST >>Is it possible to fly a B-747 when 2 of the 4 engines failed? Was it even >>possible when both engines on one wing woudn't work anymore? > >Yes. (I just happen to have a 747 configurator right beside me.) I assume this is given a failure at cruise speed? The Schipol cargo flight that suffered a double asymmetric ended up imbeded into a high-rise, despite the fact that its Israeli crew apparently did everything correctly (by the book, anyway). I remember the Boing rep on the scene saying that this kind of failure was very very rare, but once suffered almost impossible to recover from. How would you reconcile these two apparently different statements? Jordan -- (Jordan K. Hubbard) jkh@violet.berkeley.edu, jkh@al.org, jkh@whisker.lotus.ie I do not speak for Lotus, nor am I even a Lotus employee. I am an independent contractor. From kls Mon Nov 1 14:05:08 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Nov 93 14:05:08 PST In article , Pete Coe wrote: >acm@SkyNet.GUN.de (Dietmar Hanke) writes: > >>Is it possible to fly a B-747 when 2 of the 4 engines failed? Was it even >>possible when both engines on one wing woudn't work anymore? > >Hey! 747's have been known to fly with no engines. There was that British >Airways 747 that flew into a volcanic ash cloud, and for 30 minutes or so >became the world's heaviest glider. > >That incident, and others (e.g. Eastern Tristar losing all engines due to >incorrect maintenance), leads me to think that as far as engines go, two >is never enough. The statisticians can argue the point as long as they >like, but the fact is that more has to be safer. Your own anecdotes show that no matter how many engines the airplane had, it would not have been sufficient. As many of you may recall, when an airplane flies through a cloud of volcanic ash (which does not show up on radar by the way), it takes all of the engines it has with it through that cloud, none are excluded. I might also point out that a faulty maintenance procedure affects all of the engines, again regardless of their number. To throw a bit more light on the commercial aviations concern with safety, I would like to mention that many airlines immediately replace one of the engines on a brand new airplane to avoid problems such as mentioned above. A bit of corporate propaganda here, the first person to meet the BA 747 (which landed in Manila, I believe) was the Boeing service engineering representative. > I doubt that the two >above incidents would be covered by ETOPS regulations, because they >were not a fault of the engines, or airframe design. But in both >cases, the flight crew only managed to save the day because they >could get _some_ power from _all_ the engines (as opposed to all >the power from one of the engines). If either had been a twin, we >would have lost passengers to another 'unfortunate incident'. No, those two incidents could not have been covered by ETOPS because ETOPS is concerned with Extended range Twin engine OPerationS. ETOPS will not protect you from volcanic ash (there is an industry wide effort to track and report volcanic ash clounds, but their results have not been published yet, as far as I know). It will protect you from bad maintenance, however. Also, I fail to see how the absolute number of engines mounted on the airframe would have prevented those scenarios. The 747 carries 4. Only the An-225 has more (6). Your understanding of the hydraulic systems is somewhat less than desireable. All current production engines windmill and thereby produce standby hydraulic power. The number of hydraulic pumps on the airplane is driven by power requirements and fault-tree analysis, it is not some fortunate accident that the 747 was able to generate enough hydraulic power to maintain control until the flight crew could restart the engines - it was designed that way. It is a regulatory requirement to design that way. >At the time of the BA 747's little problem, my father was project manager >for 747's at BA. Up to that incident BA had been considering removing the >air turbines from the planes as they were not used. At least that idea >got canned. Incidentally, that plane has never been the same since. The 747 has never had ram air turbines. The system is not designed to need one. What exactly do you mean by 'that plane has never been the same since'? >Sorry about the rambling. I just think twin engined aircraft are a bad >idea, Yes, I gathered that. >and while I consider them acceptable for short/medium haul routes, >I think that Long over water ones are just an accident waiting to happen. Over the entire history of turbine powered airliners no twin engined aircraft has had a accident stemming from both engines shutting down for two unrelated reasons. Ever. I pray it never will happen, but I think many of the worst years are behind us. Things only seem to be getting better, ie, more reliable. >The 777 gives me nightmares. How many people do we have to kill before >the airlines stop this crazy quest. It might be useful to ask how many have already been killed in the quest for ETOPS. The answer is none. Not a single person. > Although I am myself a professional >in the aviation industry, I consider myself to be well informed. I would dispute that. > I have >also clocked up well over 500,000 miles in the air. In that time I have >had one engine lost to a bird strike (Conway), two in flight precautionary >shut down's (RB211's), and one aborted take off (RB211 again) due to engine >malfunction. I don't know how atypical these numbers are, but the incidents >have been frequent enough for me to actively avoid the 767 on trans-atlantic >flights. Now my statistics all end up being British engines, but that is >because I usually fly B.A. I am sure the American manufacturer's figures >will be equivalent. It is difficult to say how typical your experiences might be without some idea as to how many takeoffs and landings that putative 500,000 miles might encompass. Industry data are typically generated by hours or by cycles (takeoff and landing being a single cycle). But anecdotal data are no substitute for a serious study of the issues. >Rant mode off. > >-- > >-- Pete Coe >-- Rational >-- Object-Oriented Products -- 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 Mon Nov 1 14:05:12 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: ETOPS Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Nov 93 14:05:12 PST Does anyone know whether the routes from the mainland to the Caribbean and Bermuda require ETOPS. Are the aircraft ever more than 60 minutes from land? I was in SJU last week and noticed that Delta flew its 757s and 767's on flights to ATL and MCO (and, from their timetable, to Bermuda as well), USAir flew only 727's which do not require special certification. Is USAir keeping its 727's just to have a 3-holer to fly these routes or could they substitute another aircraft instead? Any comments about the A300? I liked the aircraft a lot...very smooth and stable. The fact that the aisles were sloped slightly in the rear and that they weren't straight didn't bother me at all, contrary to what Boeing's publicity would have you believe. Tobias Lutterodt From kls Mon Nov 1 14:05:15 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Nov 93 14:05:15 PST >Does anyone know whether the routes from the mainland to the >Caribbean and Bermuda require ETOPS. United flies to San Juan, Puerto Rico (from Miami), and used to fly to Bermuda (from Washington, DC), both with 737s. Since none of United's 737s are ETOPS these must not be ETOPS routes. As a rough guesstimate, just look at the block (scheduled) time. In both of these cases it's about two hours, or about 60 minutes at midpoint from either airport, which does not require ETOPS. This ignores lots of factors, e.g. alternate airports en route, reduced speed on one engine (not true for 757/767 but maybe for others), and the fact that some of the time in the schedule -- often much of it -- is screwing around on the ground. Still, it'll give you some idea of whether or not a given route might require ETOPS. >I was in SJU last week and noticed that Delta flew its 757s >and 767's on flights to ATL and MCO While Delta does have ETOPS 767s, none of their 757s are ETOPS rated. >Is USAir keeping its 727's just to have a 3-holer to fly these routes >or could they substitute another aircraft instead? It would be far too expensive to maintain a special type just for a few routes unless it was a *very* profitable route. USAir still has a fair number of 727s and uses them on a variety of routes. >Any comments about the A300? I liked the aircraft a lot...very >smooth and stable. The fact that the aisles were sloped >slightly in the rear and that they weren't straight didn't >bother me at all, contrary to what Boeing's publicity would >have you believe. I've never neard Boeing's publicity on the matter, but I've always thought the way the rear worked looked a bit peculiar. The one time that I flew on an A300 it seemed like a decent enough aircraft, however. Some of the details did seem a little odd, undoubtedly because I'm used to Boeing and McDonnell Douglas products and not anything inherently odd about the A300. -- 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 Nov 2 00:38:02 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: altitude questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Nov 93 00:38:02 PST In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>Controlled airspace extends to FL600. > >Sure it isn't FL650? That's the number that comes to mind, though >I'll admit to not having the references at hand. My Airman's Information Manual says FL600 for the US Continental Control Area. It has FL450 for the jet routes (which I believe may be obsolete or redefined; weren't these defined by VOR reception?). But it's three years old: this might have been adjusted by the recent airspace redesignation/ consolidation. >>41,000' is a common "maximum operating" number. 31,000-39,000' is >>more typical for medium and long-range flight. > >For long-range flights they'll try to get as high as possible. Often, this slot is not available. For example, there's tremendous contention over the North Atlantic. Out of, oh, 50 crossings in a 747-200, I don't think we ever got above FL390. >>I'd guess an absolute altitude for a commercial airliner around 50,000'. > >What exactly do you mean by "absolute altitude?" Pilots on oxygen, >light load, pushing it as hard as you can? Pretty much. Absolute ceiling is defined by a zero rate of climb. Service ceiling is a 100' rate of climb. It's basically a power issue: how much thrust your engines can produce in a steady state flight condition. As long as this exceeds your power required (drag), you'll climb. >In most cases, the "service ceiling" is determined by the need to >maintain an 8,000' cabin altitude. Generally the fuselage structure >and thus the pressure differential is the limiting factor, since a >stronger fuselage (thus greater pressure differential) weighs more. The fuselage of a typical jet is capable of withstanding about 150% of the overpressure relief, which is around 14.25 psi. But I must emphasize we're getting into "psycho test pilot" territory, here. :-) I also wouldn't recommend this on a 30-year-old, high-cycle 707. :-) >Though even on relatively short flights they can go remarkably high -- >I've been on flights between SFO and LAX (337 miles) that got up to >FL370, maybe even some at FL390. Cruise usually lasts less than ten >minutes on these flights! BTW, it seems to me that all of these have >been on 757s, which have impressive climb rates even with a decent >load; on a short hop such as SFO-LAX they're truly amazing. Yeah, I've heard a couple of 757 pilots gripe about how ATC's unable to fully accomodate their capabilities. I understand they can outclimb just about anything by a factor of two. :-) --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Tue Nov 2 00:38:06 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Nov 93 00:38:06 PST In article drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: > >Your own anecdotes show that no matter how many engines the airplane had, >it would not have been sufficient. As many of you may recall, when an >airplane flies through a cloud of volcanic ash (which does not show up on >radar by the way), it takes all of the engines it has with it through that >cloud, none are excluded. I might also point out that a faulty maintenance >procedure affects all of the engines, again regardless of their number. But in the specific case of volcanic ash, there have been numerous incidents where *all* engines have been lost, but only two or three were restarted. In addition, those two or three were usually severely damaged, operating at diminished power. >>At the time of the BA 747's little problem, my father was project manager >>for 747's at BA. Up to that incident BA had been considering removing the >>air turbines from the planes as they were not used. At least that idea >>got canned. Incidentally, that plane has never been the same since. > >The 747 has never had ram air turbines. The system is not designed to need >one I read his comment as referring to the air-driven pumps. These are distinct from the engine-driven pumps, which require windmilling action. In the case of flying through a volcanic cloud, the engine pumps may not be available: hence, the air-driven pumps provide sufficient back-up authority. I'm not aware of any plans to "remove them" from any -200's and -300's, though. As far as I know, each hydraulic system is required to have two power sources, primary and primary/alternate. >What exactly do you mean by 'that plane has never been the same >since'? Not to answer for him, but on the 747-400, two of the air-driven pumps have been removed, replaced with electric pumps. >>The 777 gives me nightmares. How many people do we have to kill before >>the airlines stop this crazy quest. > >It might be useful to ask how many have already been killed in the quest >for ETOPS. > >The answer is none. Not a single person. You can ask the same question about three and four-engined jets, too. And come up with the same answers. But the big change in this new ETOPS race (A330 vs. 777) is that the target market is the Pacific, not the relatively sedate North Atlantic. They don't call it the rim of fire for nothing. :-) WHEN we lose our first twin in some mid-oceanic disaster, we'll have to ask ourselves whether the long- term economic advantages were worth the lives of 200 or 300 innocent people. Personally, I would think long and hard before flying across the Pacific on a twin. I think that trijets are a much better compromise. It's a shame that the L-1011 flopped. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Tue Nov 2 00:38:12 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ktl@wag.caltech.edu (Kian-Tat Lim) Subject: 777 ETOPS certification Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Nov 93 00:38:12 PST The Los Angeles Times reports today (November 1, 1993) that Boeing is seeking 180 minute ETOPS certification for the 777 before it has flown one revenue passenger-mile, an unprecedented step. Typical ETOPS certification by the FAA requires a year or two of demonstrated capability, and the length of time allowed is increased slowly. "[Boeing] says it has devised about 70 new tests to prove the 777 engines' reliability, and that three test versions of the plane will fly 1,000 hours each -- about the same as a year of airline service. 'With the kind of testing that's going to take place, and the design, we're going to get a reliable product, service-ready, from Day 1,' said Joe Ozimek, the 777's chief engineer.' " The president of the Aviation Safety Institute and the Air Line Pilots Association both are skeptical that Boeing can get away without actual passenger service testing. Boeing appears to be pushing for early certification to improve marketability of the 777, allowing prospective ETOPS customers (including United, the launch customer) to place orders earlier, rather than waiting for operational testing. It is therefore not surprising that Airbus is turning up its nose at this -- a marketing analysis manager said "we [Airbus] still want to see a certain amount of service experience" for new planes. The Times reports that "The FAA is going to let Boeing take its best shot. The agency drew up conditions the 777 must meet during its tests; if they are met, the plane will probably be approved. But it is unlikely the FAA will decide the matter until Boeing is about to deliver the first 777 -- to United Airlines -- in May, 1995." An information box accompanying the article gives the following specifications: Range: Up to 7,600 miles * Passengers: Up to 440 * Price: Up to US$143 million each, depending on features Development cost: US$5 billion (though the text gives US$4 billion) Planes on order: 130 Weight: Up to 590,000 pounds * Parts: 3 million (including rivets and bolts) Subcontractors: 500 major suppliers; Japanese firms make 20% of airframe Engineering: Designed entirely on 3-D [CAD] systems Main wings: Each 90 feet long, weighing 14 tons Main landing gear: Two 14-foot-high legs, six wheels per leg -- largest ever for a Boeing jet Commands: Boeing's first fly-by-wire plane *: On later versions; amounts will be lower on initial model [An accompanying rear-quarter view picture reveals little about the plane other than a possible wet (fuel-containing) horizontal stabilizer, a surprisingly (to me) high aspect ratio wing, and likely no more than five exits per side (though one interruption in the light pattern may be a pair of exits and another seems to be in line with the fan blades). No winglets.] -- Kian-Tat Lim, ktl@wag.caltech.edu [RIPEM available] Materials & Molecular Simulation Center, Caltech Henry Spencer left-of-| signature fan From kls Tue Nov 2 00:38:19 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R Ebright) Subject: EMP and commercial airliners Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Nov 93 00:38:19 PST The military goes to a great deal of trouble to harden its jets against EMP (ElectroMagnetic Pulse, a burst of radiation across the radio spectrum generated by nuclear explosions)... for obvious reasons. How resistant are commercial airliners, especially the newer fly-by-wire airframes, to failure due to EMP? -- A/~~\A Greetings from Cowlumbus! Jim Ebright e-mail: jre+@osu.edu ((0 0))_______ "Education ought to foster the wish for truth, \ / \ not the conviction that some particular creed (--)\ | is the truth." -- Bertrand Russell From kls Wed Nov 3 23:30:06 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Seeking references on pressurization system models Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 93 23:30:06 PST I'm seeking any references, models, pointers, etc. on simulating the pressurization system for any type of airliner. Specifically, I'm looking for a model that considers: 1. Airflow entering the airplane. 2. Airflow exiting via an outflow valve. 3. Leaks. 4. Ambient pressure. 5. Cabin pressure. and can produce an average rate of climb or steady-state cabin pressure as a result of these factors... I've been beating my head against this problem for the last month, and can't come up with anything decent. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Wed Nov 3 23:30:15 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: altitude questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 93 23:30:15 PST In article , wrote: >In the Nashville, TN area where I live, Air Traffic Control usually >assigns commercial flights to altitude levels of 28000 to 33000 feet - >what is the highest common flight level used and what is the maximum >flight level the average commercial plane can attain? I can't answer that one. > Related to >that, what are the limiting factors in altitude attainment for >commercial planes? Two major factors spring to mind immediately. One is the cabin pressure differential. Typically around 8 psi. This limits most airliners to about 40,000 ft (DC-10s were designed for a higher cabin pressure differential - about 10 psi if memory serves). The other limit is the aircraft's certification altitude. The 757 for instance is certified to 42,000 ft last I heard, but there is nothing physically preventing the airplane from climbing higher (other than the cabin pressure consideration). The technical performance limitations are mostly wing area and engine thrust available. These can be broken down into aspect ratio, span, induced drag, or other factors/combination of factors depending on how one wishes to approach the problem, what variables are ground-ruled as fixed, etc. > Are these altitudes typical for trans-oceanic >flights? What are typical altitudes for European flights - I assume >somewhat less since distances travelled are often less than in >North America? Does direction make much difference in altitude >assignments? Actually, European flights (as defined by flights originating in and terminating in Europe) are very short compared to the average US flight length. We, Boeing, have had carriers who are strictly intra-European ask for airplanes with much less range than our airplanes are capable of right out of the box. For instance, SAS I believe showed average flight lengths somewhere near 300 miles. American has average flight lengths somewhere near double that. Interestingly, I think Southwest has a relatively short average flight length. Karl probably has all the great data and could give us real hard numbers. :-) Typical intra-European flight levels are around 27,000 ft, if the results of one study I worked on can be generalized to this extent. -- 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 Nov 3 23:30:19 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: ETOPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commerical Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 93 23:30:19 PST In article , Tobias Henry Lutterodt wrote: > >Does anyone know whether the routes from the mainland to the >Caribbean and Bermuda require ETOPS. Are the aircraft ever >more than 60 minutes from land? These routes are considered overwater, but not ETOPS. That is, they must comply with the regulations covering overwater operation, but not with ETOPS regulations. >I was in SJU last week and noticed that Delta flew its 757s >and 767's on flights to ATL and MCO (and, from their timetable, >to Bermuda as well), USAir flew only 727's which do not require >special certification. Is USAir keeping its 727's just to >have a 3-holer to fly these routes or could they substitute >another aircraft instead? No, I think there are 737s that run that route. Karl could look in his OAG and tell us. USAir is probably running 727s because they have them, these airplanes have the range, and are overwater equiped. >Any comments about the A300? I liked the aircraft a lot...very >smooth and stable. The fact that the aisles were sloped >slightly in the rear and that they weren't straight didn't >bother me at all, contrary to what Boeing's publicity would >have you believe. I rather liked the A300 I flew on. It is a good airplane. -- 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 Nov 3 23:30:22 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pete@frosty.rational.com (Pete Coe) Subject: Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rational Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 93 23:30:22 PST Oh joy! My first flame!!! drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: ...lots of my own stuff deleted... >Your own anecdotes show that no matter how many engines the airplane had, >it would not have been sufficient. As many of you may recall, when an >airplane flies through a cloud of volcanic ash (which does not show up on >radar by the way), it takes all of the engines it has with it through that >cloud, none are excluded. I wasn't trying to say that a 767 would have been worse of in this example. Just as with the 747 all engines would have failed. But would both engines, or even one, because I don't think that all 4 of the 747's were still running at touch down, running at very reduced power settings been enough to keep the plane in the air. This was a fairly unique occurence, an act of god so to speak, the only thing that kept the 300 people or so alive was that the plane had an adequate amount of redundancy for this situation. We will never know if a DC10, or a 767 would have been up to this scenario. >I might also point out that a faulty maintenance >procedure affects all of the engines, again regardless of their number. And isn't it part of ETOPS certification that both engines are maintained by seperate crews, to prevent common mode failure. This as a direct result of the Eastern L1011 incident. >To throw a bit more light on the commercial aviations concern with safety, >I would like to mention that many airlines immediately replace one of the >engines on a brand new airplane to avoid problems such as mentioned above. So what. >A bit of corporate propaganda here, the first person to meet the BA 747 >(which landed in Manila, I believe) was the Boeing service engineering >representative. Don't get me wrong I like Boeing aircraft, and I am fairly sure that the 747 is the only plane that could have survived this problem. >No, those two incidents could not have been covered by ETOPS because ETOPS >is concerned with Extended range Twin engine OPerationS. ETOPS will not >protect you from volcanic ash (there is an industry wide effort to track >and report volcanic ash clounds, but their results have not been published >yet, as far as I know). It will protect you from bad maintenance, however. I know what ETOPS stands for! As yet there has not been a case where an ETOPS aircraft has gone down, so I have had to take examples from other operations to illustrate the dangers. >Also, I fail to see how the absolute number of engines mounted on the >airframe would have prevented those scenarios. The 747 carries 4. Only Once again, nothing could have prevented them, but the extra backup of 4 or 3 engines allowed them to survive. >>At the time of the BA 747's little problem, my father was project manager >>for 747's at BA. Up to that incident BA had been considering removing the >>air turbines from the planes as they were not used. At least that idea >>got canned. Incidentally, that plane has never been the same since. >The 747 has never had ram air turbines. The system is not designed to need >one. What exactly do you mean by 'that plane has never been the same >since'? Oh just that ash got into places that were never imagined, so that the plane was never again as reliable as comparable aircaft in the fleet. >>Sorry about the rambling. I just think twin engined aircraft are a bad >>idea, >Yes, I gathered that. >>and while I consider them acceptable for short/medium haul routes, >>I think that Long over water ones are just an accident waiting to happen. >Over the entire history of turbine powered airliners no twin engined >aircraft has had a accident stemming from both engines shutting down for >two unrelated reasons. Ever. I pray it never will happen, but I think >many of the worst years are behind us. Things only seem to be getting >better, ie, more reliable. >>The 777 gives me nightmares. How many people do we have to kill before >>the airlines stop this crazy quest. Just to prove I am not playing favorites, the A330 worries me as well. >It might be useful to ask how many have already been killed in the quest >for ETOPS. >The answer is none. Not a single person. Good. But by the time it does happen it will be too late to turn back. The airlines and manufacturers are now a huge political lobby. When the first ETOPS plane ends up in the water 100's miles from the nearest land do you think ETOPS will be banned? Of course not! But if we said now that all long over water flights must be flown with 3 or more engines we might save a few hundred people. >> Although I am myself a professional >>in the aviation industry, I consider myself to be well informed. >I would dispute that. Opinions differ. Lets compromise on fairly well informed. >> I have >>also clocked up well over 500,000 miles in the air. In that time I have >>had one engine lost to a bird strike (Conway), two in flight precautionary Got that wrong, it was JT4, not a conway. >>shut down's (RB211's), and one aborted take off (RB211 again) due to engine >>malfunction. I don't know how atypical these numbers are, but the incidents >>have been frequent enough for me to actively avoid the 767 on trans-atlantic >>flights. Now my statistics all end up being British engines, but that is >>because I usually fly B.A. I am sure the American manufacturer's figures >>will be equivalent. >It is difficult to say how typical your experiences might be without some >idea as to how many takeoffs and landings that putative 500,000 miles might >encompass. Industry data are typically generated by hours or by cycles >(takeoff and landing being a single cycle). But anecdotal data are no >substitute for a serious study of the issues. I can tell you exactly, 171 cycles. Most of my flights have been London to LAX/SFO so in general are very long flights. Just to finish off. I have already said that ETOPS Is a bad idea. I am not enough of a tabloid reader to believe that if I set foot on a 767 transatlantic flight that I am automatically going to die. Its just that all things been equal I would rather be on an aircraft with more engines. It's the same as other people saying that they avoid DC10's. The statistics show that it is safer than crossing the street, we are jsut trying to minimise the risk. The story of the last 20 years of commercial aviation is one of relentless cost cutting in the face of competition. Some examples that worry me: ETOPS Two man cockpits on long haul flights Blocking over wing exits to add more seating Fly by wire Reduction of cabin air recirculation With the exception of fly by wire I would think that all of these have been driven by the airlines not the manufacturers. So I do not blame Boeing or Airbus, they are just trying to gain market share. It is up to us as customers to vote with our feet, but as most people neither know nor care how many engines their plane has I know that the trend will continue. I guess I had better say that these opinions are all mine. -- -- Pete Coe -- Rational -- Object-Oriented Products From kls Wed Nov 3 23:30:25 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Subject: Reliability 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 Date: 03 Nov 93 23:30:25 PST I've been a controller at Cleveland ARTCC for 25 years and am continually amazed at the reliability of turbine engines. In all those years, I've never had to deal with a "real" emergency due to engine failure. There have been a few (perhaps 4) precautionary shutdowns in all those thousands of flights. I would not hesitate to fly anywhere in a twin engined aircraft. Over land or over water. Fact is, I'd fly a TBM700 (a single PT6) across the pond without concern. -- Rush Limbaugh for President! From kls Wed Nov 3 23:30:28 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lesher Subject: 777 Doors Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 93 23:30:28 PST The recent PBS show _21st Century Jet_ covered the door design on the 777. It looked to me as if the new doors are _not_ of the plug-type design I'm used to seeing. True? If so, what substitutes for inherent safety factor of the plug approach? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.....wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu & no one will talk to a host that's close............[301] 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Wed Nov 3 23:30:31 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 777 Doors References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 93 23:30:31 PST >The recent PBS show _21st Century Jet_ covered the door design on the >777. It looked to me as if the new doors are _not_ of the plug-type >design I'm used to seeing. I haven't watched my tape of the show yet, but from what I've seen elsewhere the 777 doors appear to open in a pattern similar to other Boeing doors, though the mechanism itself is quite different. This would imply a plug design. Terry, do you know for sure? -- 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 Nov 3 23:30:33 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@tom.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Re: 777 ETOPS certification References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Atlanta Customer Support Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 93 23:30:33 PST In article ktl@wag.caltech.edu (Kian-Tat Lim) writes: ..... An information box accompanying the article gives the following specifications: Range: Up to 7,600 miles * Passengers: Up to 440 * Price: Up to US$143 million each, depending on features Development cost: US$5 billion (though the text gives US$4 billion) Planes on order: 130 Weight: Up to 590,000 pounds * Parts: 3 million (including rivets and bolts) Subcontractors: 500 major suppliers; Japanese firms make 20% of airframe Engineering: Designed entirely on 3-D [CAD] systems Main wings: Each 90 feet long, weighing 14 tons Main landing gear: Two 14-foot-high legs, six wheels per leg -- largest ever for a Boeing jet Commands: Boeing's first fly-by-wire plane *: On later versions; amounts will be lower on initial model Boeing's first fly-by-wire plane? Really? I had thought that the 757 and 767, and the newest 747-400 models, were also fly-by-wire. Or are they just more "glass cockpit" than prior planes, but not actually fly-by-wire? -- 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 Wed Nov 3 23:30:37 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: h andrew chuang Subject: RE: Two new Airbus PIREPS. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 93 23:30:37 PST rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: > Both from Aviation Week & Space Technology, October 4, 1993: > > 1. "Airbus' New Twins Surprisingly Similar," by David Hughes, pp. 38-41. > Overview of technology; comments on A330; specs of A330 and A321. > > 2. "A321 flight demonstrates design links to A330," by David Hughes, pp. > 42-43. A321. > > Hughes describes himself as a C-5A pilot with the Air Force Reserve, > last flying in '84. Also, from Flight International, 13-19 October, 1993: "A330 & A321 Flight Evaluatoin - Family Flying," pp. 49-53. IMHO, the articles in AW&ST is easier to understand for a 'non-flying-professional' like me :-). From kls Wed Nov 3 23:30:41 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barrey@Novell.COM (Barrey Jewall) Subject: Re: EMP and commercial airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Novell, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 93 23:30:41 PST In jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R Ebright) writes: >How resistant are commercial airliners, especially the newer fly-by-wire >airframes, to failure due to EMP? The short answer: They aren't. Reasons: 1. Weight - Shielding is heavy! 2. Cost Bah -- -Barrey Jewall - Network Admin. - Novell, Inc. - San Jose - barrey@novell.com- I don't speak for Novell, and they don't speak for me. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + They took the fourth amendment, and I was quiet because I don't deal drugs. + + They took the sixth amendment, and I was quiet because I'm innocent. + + They took the second amendment, and I was quiet because I don't own guns. + + Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all. + +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ From kls Sat Nov 6 00:24:22 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: 777 Doors References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 93 00:24:22 PST In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>The recent PBS show _21st Century Jet_ covered the door design on the >>777. It looked to me as if the new doors are _not_ of the plug-type >>design I'm used to seeing. > >I haven't watched my tape of the show yet, but from what I've seen >elsewhere the 777 doors appear to open in a pattern similar to other >Boeing doors, though the mechanism itself is quite different. This >would imply a plug design. Terry, do you know for sure? All Boeing passenger doors, to include overwing escape hatches and upper deck canopy doors, are plug doors. The 777 door is unique in its translating mechanism only. -- 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 Nov 6 00:24:24 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: 777 ETOPS certification References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 93 00:24:24 PST In article , Jay Vassos-Libove wrote: >Boeing's first fly-by-wire plane? Really? I had thought that >the 757 and 767, and the newest 747-400 models, were also >fly-by-wire. Or are they just more "glass cockpit" than >prior planes, but not actually fly-by-wire? 747, 757 and 767 are conventionally controlled. Mostly. The 757 does have fly-by-wire spoilers. You are probably thinking of the glass cockpits and the extensive automation of systems. -- 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 Nov 6 00:24:28 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: EMP and commercial airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Computer Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 93 00:24:28 PST In article , Barrey Jewall wrote: >In jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu >(James R Ebright) writes: > >>How resistant are commercial airliners, especially the newer fly-by-wire >>airframes, to failure due to EMP? > >The short answer: They aren't. > >Reasons: > >1. Weight - Shielding is heavy! > >2. Cost > >Bah I read a piece (in Aerospace?) about an A330 that was hit by lightning during a test flight. Knocked out all the flight test instrumentation, but the flight control computers and related systems were untouched. Quite a vindication for their design. I'm not aware of any requirement to design commercial heavy transports for EMP. Not many commerical flights planned after the emotionally unbalanced sorts start tossing nukes around. We do, however, design for more reasonable criteria, such as flying past a high-power transmitter, or getting struck by lightning. -- 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 Nov 6 00:24:32 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: 737-X Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 93 00:24:32 PST ------ Forwarded Message ------- WALL STREET JOURNAL (November 4, 1993). Boeing is close to winning a pivotal order from Southwest Airlines that will launch the aircraft maker's next-generation 737-X airliners, according to people familiar with the negotiations. A launch order by the successful Dallas-based carrier would lend credibility to Boeing's $1 billion overhaul of its 25-year-old line of 737s. Still, tough times in most of the world's airline industry -- and some buyers' misgivings about the weight and performance of the upgraded jets -- seem likely to drag out the pace of orders for the 737-X line. A source said the purchase will include "at least" 20 firm orders and possibly a similar number of options. A Boeing spokesman said the company is "talking to a number of airlines" about ordering the 737-X, and it is "premature" to discuss whether any one of them is destined to become the launch customer for the plane. ------ End of Forwarded Message ------- Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud bcstec!bcsaic!stephen.nicoud This message does not represent the views of Boeing. I am not a Boeing spokesperson. I reserve the right to revise, extend and/or revoke my remarks. From kls Sat Nov 6 00:24:37 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 93 00:24:37 PST In article , Pete Coe wrote: >Oh joy! My first flame!!! It is not my intent to start or even participate in a flame-fest. If that is all that is driving this, lets take it to email. >I wasn't trying to say that a 767 would have been worse of in this example. >Just as with the 747 all engines would have failed. But would both engines, >or even one, because I don't think that all 4 of the 747's were still >running at touch down, running at very reduced power settings been enough >to keep the plane in the air. This was a fairly unique occurence, an act of >god so to speak, the only thing that kept the 300 people or so alive was >that the plane had an adequate amount of redundancy for this situation. We >will never know if a DC10, or a 767 would have been up to this scenario. You are certainly entitled to an opinion. However, a great many people have worked very hard to ensure that a 767/A310/You-Name-It will indeed survive such incidents. And not all of us share your opinion. >>I might also point out that a faulty maintenance >>procedure affects all of the engines, again regardless of their number. > >And isn't it part of ETOPS certification that both engines are maintained >by seperate crews, to prevent common mode failure. This as a direct result >of the Eastern L1011 incident. > >>To throw a bit more light on the commercial aviations concern with safety, >>I would like to mention that many airlines immediately replace one of the >>engines on a brand new airplane to avoid problems such as mentioned above. > >So what. So you might take a look at what your wrote above. We said exactly the same thing in different manners. Airlines change engines to prevent, as you put it, "common mode" failures. This, like having different crews maintain different engines on the same airplane, are all a part of air transportation technology. And the technology is getting better. As we learn, we incorporate our new knowledge into better products and services. >Just to prove I am not playing favorites, the A330 worries me as well. This isn't a discussion about manufacturers, but about twin engine long range operations and their relative safety when compared to operations of aircraft with more than two engines. I assumed that you were not biased against any one manufacturer. >>It might be useful to ask how many have already been killed in the quest >>for ETOPS. > >>The answer is none. Not a single person. > >Good. But by the time it does happen it will be too late to turn back. >The airlines and manufacturers are now a huge political lobby. When the >first ETOPS plane ends up in the water 100's miles from the nearest land do >you think ETOPS will be banned? Of course not! But if we said now that all >long over water flights must be flown with 3 or more engines we might save a >few hundred people. A comprehensive study was performed by Dr Weener (Director of Safety here at Boeing and on one of the technical committees of the AIAA) which showed that the primary risk factor is the number of takeoffs and landings, not how many engines the airplane was equipped with. An ETOPS flight reduces risk by reducing the number of takeoffs and landings associated with flights to a given city pair. Fine you say, but a 747 can do the same flight with more engines. You are correct. However, it cannot provide that service economically. That is, not enough people hold your same opinion to a degree that would force them to pay for the higher priced ticket. The overwhelming majority of people who fly are price driven. That is, the cost of the ticket is the single largest criterion applied to the purchase decision. No ticket purchases - no service. Therefore, an ETOPS flight can allow airlines to offer city to city service that would not normally be available except as a multi-stage flight, which has the higher risk of an accident. I believe a correct interpretation of the data indicate that ETOPS flights allow safe, cost-effective transportation options that would not otherwise exist. >>> Although I am myself a professional >>>in the aviation industry, I consider myself to be well informed. > >>I would dispute that. > >Opinions differ. Lets compromise on fairly well informed. Fair enough. >Just to finish off. I have already said that ETOPS Is a bad idea. I am not >enough of a tabloid reader to believe that if I set foot on a 767 transatlantic >flight that I am automatically going to die. Good for you. > Its just that all things been >equal I would rather be on an aircraft with more engines. It's the same as >other people saying that they avoid DC10's. The statistics show that it is >safer than crossing the street, we are jsut trying to minimise the risk. That is my point. A more informed interpretation of the available data would indicate that ETOPS flights are safer than flights in more-than-two engined aircraft. If your preference is to fly four-engined airplanes in lieu of a twin on the same route, great. I support your decision. However, calling other people crazy for taking that same twin is not helpful. Nor is making uninformed assertions about safety in a public forum after identifying yourself as an aerospace professional. >The story of the last 20 years of commercial aviation is one of relentless >cost cutting in the face of competition. Some examples that worry me: > >ETOPS >Two man cockpits on long haul flights >Blocking over wing exits to add more seating >Fly by wire >Reduction of cabin air recirculation > >With the exception of fly by wire I would think that all of these have been >driven by the airlines not the manufacturers. So I do not blame Boeing or >Airbus, they are just trying to gain market share. It is up to us as >customers to vote with our feet, but as most people neither know nor care how >many engines their plane has I know that the trend will continue. I agree that the last 20 years have shown dramatic improvements in cost reduction. I have also seen the data and they show that the accident rate dropped quite a bit (60% or so) over that same 20 years. In fact, we are now to the point where we are trying very hard to understand accidents that won't go away, like controlled flight into terrain, like the A320 that crashed into Mount St. Odile. Or wind rotors and microbursts that have caused numerous accidents. Engine failure is not even of the same order of magnitude as these other root causes. Those other trends that you have noted above should be viewed as positive developments. They make it possible for the middle class American to fly on long trips. It wasn't that long ago that only Rock stars and the rich could afford to fly. Only since the early 1970s has the common, everyday person been able to afford an airplane ticket. Not only is air transportation fast and affordable, it is also very, very safe. Men and women just like me put in many many hours to make sure that things just get better. ["Yes, well." The short dumpy engineer steps down from a rather tattered looking soap box, straightens his lapels, gathers his materials together and walks out of the room - carefully shutting the lights off as he leaves] -- 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 Nov 6 00:24:40 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: first service of United's A320s Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: rec.travel.air Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 93 00:24:40 PST Earlier today, United released an article on their internal news system regarding their new A320s. Airbus will deliver the first two by November 30th. First service will be December 15th, and the fleet will be up to five aircraft by December 30th. The initial service on the 15th will be the 815a and 915a departures from Chicago O'Hare to Washington National (ORD-DCA), flights 604 and 606, respectively. Later in the day they will operate the 200p and 300p flights from Chicago to La Guardia (ORD-LGA), flights 76 and 78, respectively. Obviously they'll also be operating DCA-ORD and LGA-ORD flights as well, but I don't have times or flight numbers for those. The current timetable shows flights 604 and 76 operating with Boeing 727s, while 606 and 78 use Boeing 737s. United's A320s will have 12 seats in F class and 132 in Y class, three seats shy of the 12+135 configuration of United's U.S. 727-200s. They will have four flight attendants (and of course two pilots). -- 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 Nov 10 00:02:34 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 777 ETOPS certification References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Nov 93 00:02:34 PST In article drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: >In article , >Jay Vassos-Libove wrote: > >>Boeing's first fly-by-wire plane? Really? I had thought that >>the 757 and 767, and the newest 747-400 models, were also >>fly-by-wire. Or are they just more "glass cockpit" than >>prior planes, but not actually fly-by-wire? > >747, 757 and 767 are conventionally controlled. Mostly. The 757 does have >fly-by-wire spoilers. You are probably thinking of the glass cockpits and >the extensive automation of systems. This is an interesting point, and brings up the usual flow of conversation with A320 pilots: "How do you like the FBW?" "I love it!" "Why?" "Well, the ADI's incredible, and I LOVE the map display." :-) A LOT of pilots are entering the A320 from conventional aircraft, like the 737 or 727, and have never seen glass or FMS's before. They think that the glass is part of FBW. I always take this into account when processing "love it" comments; they'd probably be just as happy on a 757. This confusion is aided by the fact that "FBW" isn't really a closely defined term. A lot of pilots seem to think that it refers to "electronic management," which includes the flight control system and flight management system. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Wed Nov 10 00:02:37 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sjones@superior.ccs.carleton.ca (Stan Jones) Subject: 757 Boarding Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Carleton University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Nov 93 00:02:37 PST Last night while boarding a United 757 in Chicago (using the front door for everyone), the gate agent asked for our co-operation because, as she said, the 757 is an awkward plane to board. This was the first time I had been on a 757 boarding at the front door (United boards 757s at the middle door in Toronto) and it was awkward and slow. How much attention is given to boarding in the design of aircraft? Is the 757 particularly bad or was I setup for seeing this by the gate agent's comment? Did the 757 design intend that the normal boarding be by the mid-door or the front door? How many airports are setup to handle mid-door boarding (Toronto has movable Jetways - but slow to get into position, while Chicago has fixed position Jetways)? From kls Wed Nov 10 00:02:38 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 757 Boarding References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Nov 93 00:02:38 PST >the gate agent asked for our co-operation because, >as she said, the 757 is an awkward plane to board. I've heard them say that on occasion. With that long, thin tube, it really can be a pain to board a full flight. On the other hand, I don't remember there being much problem with the DC-8s and they were about the same, plus they always boarded at the front. >This was the first time I had been on a 757 boarding at the front >door (United boards 757s at the middle door in Toronto) I've never seen United board or unload a 757 at the front in nearly two dozen such flights, not to mention all of them that I've noticed at the airports that I didn't happen to be on. Delta and American do use the first door, though, at least in my experience. Perhaps it was an odd gate -- do you remember which one it was? United also uses the second door on DC-10s, which is nice because you turn left for first class and right for economy. The only exception is one gate at Denver (B16, I think) where they use the first door ON THE RIGHT. That really makes a mess as it confuses the hell out of everyone. I've never seen a jet load on the right elsewhere. -- 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 Nov 10 00:02:40 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lesher Subject: 777 Doors References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Nov 93 00:02:40 PST {I asked about 777 doors} Terry: |All Boeing passenger doors, to include overwing escape hatches and |upper deck canopy doors, are plug doors. The 777 door is unique in |its translating mechanism only. Ok, I'm ripe for the picking, having displayed my ignorance. How _does_ the translating mechanism work, not just on 777's, but also on other iron? ISTM that given that fact that you: 1) want to door to pass out through the frame. 2) If it's a plug, that's exactly what a plug is designed not to do ;-} it needs some added magic. I always thought that the door swung IN slightly, cocked at an angle (i.e pivoted around a vertical axis) then passed out through the frame, and swung out of the way. But several things come to mind, now that I ponder it. Won't the door also need to pivot around a horizontal axis too? You must both clear the edges of the frame (hence the vert axis pivot) but also the top & bottom. Plus, when they pictured the icing test, didn't the door move outwards? The more I think about this, the clearer it becomes why the L-1011 had the (alas, trouble-plagued) scheme of coming in then sliding up. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.....wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu & no one will talk to a host that's close............[301] 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Wed Nov 10 00:02:42 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fredch@quad4.phx.mcd.mot.com (Fred Christiansen) Subject: trivia Q -- # of units of top-selling aircraft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Nov 93 00:02:42 PST The first plane I ever flew on was an Indian Airlines DC-3 from somewhere (I forget where) in southern India to Colombo, Ceylon (as it was called then). Probably around 1959. The return flight was marked by a chance to eat my very first apple which, shortly thereafter, in turbulence, I vomited onto the flight attendant's sari (sigh). To ease my trepidation about air travel, my Dad used to take me to airports regularly. In Madras, I remember seeing a Constellation belching fire from the starter's ignition. Anyway, the airport visits helped a little kiddo stop being nervous of airplanes and I have since taken a modest interest in identifying different models (btw, what's the visual diff between a small Airbus and a big 737?). One stat I seem to recall reading at one point was that the passenger aircraft model with the greatest number of units sold was the 727, and that it had surpassed the DC-3 volume (I wonder if this included C-47 units?) along the way. I understand that the 727 is no longer manufactured. Since the 737 is similarly ubiquitous and still in production (?), I'm curious if its unit volume has passed the 727's. And, for that matter, what has been the volume of some top-selling or other famous aircraft? In the fall of '72, I was starting a year of study in France. My French reading skills weren't too hot, so I may have the details wrong, but my recall is that the King of Morocco's 727 was shot at by rebel air force pilots. The 727 took some wild evasive maneuvers and landed safely at an air strip out in the deserts, the hull and wings having many noticeable shell holes. Anyone have more specifics? Anyone other passenger aircraft with similar stories of "derring-do?" I'm reckoning Karl or someone might have these bits of trivia. -- Fred Christiansen ("Canajun, eh?") Email: fredch@phx.mcd.mot.com Disclaimer: I do not speak for Motorola Computer Group Fax: 602-438-3836 ".. 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 Wed Nov 10 00:02:44 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: trivia Q -- # of units of top-selling aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Nov 93 00:02:44 PST >One stat I seem to recall reading at one point was that the passenger aircraft >model with the greatest number of units sold was the 727, and that it had >surpassed the DC-3 volume (I wonder if this included C-47 units?) along >the way. According to one reference I have, 417 DC-3s were produced up to the entry of the U.S. into World War II. After Pearl Harbor, 194 of these were pressed into military service and another 10,238 were produced as the C-47 Dakota. I'm not sure how many, if any, were produced after the way, as thousands of surplus C-47s were converted to civil use. In contrast, the 727 line stopped after a "measly" 1832 aircraft were produced. The last aircraft first took to the air on October 28, 1984. >I understand that the 727 is no longer manufactured. Since the >737 is similarly ubiquitous and still in production (?), I'm curious if its >unit volume has passed the 727's. The 737 is still in production and is now well past the 727's mark. >for that matter, what has been the >volume of some top-selling or other famous aircraft? Here are the top-ranked Western jetliners: Boeing 737 2500+ (#2500 delivered to Southwest 7/13/93) Douglas DC-9/MD-80 2065+ (#2065 delivered to USAir 7/1/93) Boeing 727 1832 Boeing 747 1000+ (#1000 rolled out 9/10/93, for Singapore) Boeing 707/720 1010 (see notes below) The 707 count needs a bit of explanation. The last 707 airframe was actually line number 1012, but this double-counts two AWACS test aircraft which were rebuilt as E-3As, complete with new line numbers. On the other hand, the 367-80 is not included in the count. No others have hit the 1000 mark. Other notables include the Airbus A300/A310 (nearing 700), Boeing 757 (nearing 600), McDonnell Douglas DC-10/MD-11 (about 550), and Boeing 767 (just past 500). >I'm reckoning Karl or someone might have these bits of trivia. Who, me? :-) -- 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 Nov 10 00:02:45 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bdickey@cc.brynmawr.edu (Dickey Bradley F) Subject: China Airlines Jumbo Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bryn Mawr College Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Nov 93 00:02:45 PST _The Economist_ Nov 6th - 12th, (p6 "The world this week"); A China Airlines jumbo [normally refers to a Boeing 747, it seems to have an extended upper deck], on a flight from Taipei *overshot the runway* at Hong Kong as it cam into land and plunged into the harbour. Remarkably, all 300-or-so passengers were rescued. Anyone know of the circumstances? How long will a 747 float if it stays in one peice? Indeed, how likely is it to stay in one peice if one was made to force land on water only? If there is any word of the extraction of this plane from said harbour, I would be interested to hear about it... From kls Wed Nov 10 00:02:46 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: China Airlines Jumbo References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Nov 93 00:02:46 PST >A China Airlines jumbo [normally refers to a Boeing 747, it seems to >have an extended upper deck], on a flight from Taipei *overshot the >runway* at Hong Kong as it cam into land and plunged into the harbour. It was a 747-400, only four months old, operating CI 605 from Taipei with 296 passengers and crew. The aircraft came in during a heavy rainstorm associated with Tropical Storm Ira. From the reports I've seen it's not clear if the plane touched down late or skidded on the wet runway or both, but it stopped just past the end of the runway so it obviously didn't miss by too wide a mark. >If there is any word of the extraction of this plane from said >harbour, I would be interested to hear about it... The local bomb sqaud used explosives to blow off the tail on Sunday morning as it was obstructing traffic. Despite early reports that the aircraft suffered only minimal damage, which would be consistent with the minimal incursion into the water, the insurance company apparently wrote it off as a total loss. Seems odd for a brand new 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 Wed Nov 10 00:02:47 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson) Subject: Re: 727 lands at Meigs field! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Fluke Corporation, Everett, WA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Nov 93 00:02:47 PST In article ditka!sgiblab!uunet.UU.NET!gorca!jnhall (Joseph N. Hall) writes: >In article libove@tom.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) writes: >> CHICAGO (UPI) - A United Airlines jetliner stopped traffic and drew >>throngs of onlookers Wednesday as it was towed across Lake Shore Drive >>to join a World War II submarine as a trademark exhibit at the Museum of >>Science and Industry. [...] > >The Franklin Institute here in Philadelphia used to have (I think it was) >a 707. One of the most interesting parts of the exhibit was the >description, somewhat like this one, of its journey through the city >to the museum's downtown location. All of which reminds me.... here in Everett, Washington, where the Boeing assembly plant for 747, 767, and soon 777's is located, the construction hangars are on the north side of highway 526, the road that brings workers in from Interstate 5. The paint booths are on the south side of 526, and when I first moved here (back in 1983), I was occasionally treated to the spectacle of a brand new 747 being towed across the bridge to get its paint job. Well, the bridge is not that much wider than the landing gear, so the wings hang waaaaaaaaaaay out over highway - a sure traffic stopper, anytime. Apparently, Boeing policy for years had been to tow the plane to the paint booth immediately upon completion of Final Test, but around 1987 the Everett Police requested them to stop the practice and they complied. Now the only time you can see this wondrous site is 3:00 in the morning or something... too bad. -- Gary Benson-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-inc@tc.fluke.com_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Not everything that counts can be counted. Not everything that can be counted counts. -Charles Garfield From kls Wed Nov 10 00:02:49 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ctillier@phoenix.princeton.edu (Clemens Emmanuel Tillier) Subject: Ditched airliners Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Princeton University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Nov 93 00:02:49 PST All this talk of ETOPS has me wondering... The little safety brochure that's found in front of your seat often includes detailed instructions on what to do if the plane ditches in water. Several questions come to mind: - The drawings almost invariably show the plane with doors above the water. Can an airliner be expected to float? How long? - Wouldn't the stresses of landing in water break up the plane (I'm thinking, rip off the engines and maybe the wings?) - How have these scenarios been analyzed in any serious manner? In other words, was there ever any testing done, for any given type of plane? - Has the situation arisen in commercial operation? Here I don't mean planes that *crashed* into the water, but planes that made an emergency splashdown and proceeded to evacuate passengers. So far the paranoia in this newsgroup about twins ditching in the Pacific has been based on the assumption that the aircraft and passengers would be toast, as far as I can tell. I'm basically trying to find out to what degree this kind of thing is survivable; this is certainly a factor to consider in criticizing twins. Thanks, Clem Tillier From kls Wed Nov 10 00:02:50 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Subject: Ultimate passenger megajet Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Maine System Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Nov 93 00:02:50 PST What is the greatest passenger load that can be realized for an airliner? In K. Eric Drexler's book, "Unbounding the Future", he states that it may be possible to make materials with a strength-to-density ratio of about 30 to 300 times that of steel (depending on the grade of steel) or more than ten times better than materials used today. I'm not sure that the empty operating capacity of airliners could be reduced by a factor of ten due to necessary equipment. If liquid hydrogen could be used as a fuel then it need not take up more than 20% of take-off weight for even long range craft. It seems to me that large (high cargo capacity) airliners are possible (three decks). Has any aeronautical engineer devised a "dream airliner"? From kls Wed Nov 10 00:02:51 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jazz@hal.com (Jason Zions) Subject: Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: HaL Computer Systems Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Nov 93 00:02:51 PST In article pete@frosty.rational.com (Pete Coe) writes: Good. But by the time it does happen it will be too late to turn back. The airlines and manufacturers are now a huge political lobby. When the first ETOPS plane ends up in the water 100's miles from the nearest land do you think ETOPS will be banned? Of course not! But if we said now that all long over water flights must be flown with 3 or more engines we might save a few hundred people. The first time an ETOPS goes down hundreds of miles from land, tens of thousands of passengers will call their airlines, find out if the equipement for their flight is a twin, and change their plans/airlines if it is. The problem will be self-correcting if/when it occurs. Until then, people will resent being told by the government that their airplane tickets will cost more than today because the airlines are forces to use more costly equipment on those flights. It is up to us as customers to vote with our feet, but as most people neither know nor care how many engines their plane has I know that the trend will continue. The first time a twin goes down where a 3- or 4-engine plane would have survived, the sheep will vote with their feet. In the meantime, protect yourself as you feel necessary. Jason From kls Wed Nov 10 00:02:52 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Nov 93 00:02:52 PST >The first time a twin goes down where a 3- or 4-engine plane would have >survived, the sheep will vote with their feet. In the meantime, protect >yourself as you feel necessary. The evidence does not support your argument. Only after two crashes and a *very* visible grounding for over a month did the public really wonder much about the DC-10, and even after that the flying public largely returned to flying the DC-10 without question. Some aircraft really have suffered fatal blows due to crashes, e.g. Lockheed's L-188 Electra, but in nearly every case these were early in the development the aircraft. With nearly a decade of ETOPS service already by hundreds, if not thousands, of large twins, the first ETOPS crash probably won't make that big a splash (sorry, I could't resist!) with the public. -- 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 Nov 10 00:02:53 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Airbus Airplanes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Nov 93 00:02:53 PST In a recent posting, someone asked about airplanes that Airbus has on the burner. The respondent forgot to mention the Guppy replacement that Airbus is building for its own use. The aircraft will be based upon the A300-600, with a grossly enlarged upper lobe for carrying sub assemblies between the production sites in Europe. The cockpit will be from an A320(?), slung down slightly beneath the rest of the cockpit, to allow large clamshell doors above it, for straight in loading of the upper lobe. I understand that four will be built and that the first one is in assembly right now. These aircraft will replace the Guppies, which are modified Boeing 367/377s (some components are from Stratocruisers and some from KC-97s). The engines of the Guppies are Allison 501s removed from P-3 Orions. As we say around Seattle - every Airbus first takes flight on a Boeing! -Dave Lednicer Analytical Methods, Inc. From kls Thu Nov 11 02:12:43 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: trivia Q -- # of units of top-selling aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: spagiola@leland.Stanford.EDU Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Nov 93 02:12:43 PST Karl Swartz writes > Here are the top-ranked Western jetliners: > > Boeing 737 2500+ (#2500 delivered to Southwest 7/13/93) > Douglas DC-9/MD-80 2065+ (#2065 delivered to USAir 7/1/93) > Boeing 727 1832 > Boeing 747 1000+ (#1000 rolled out 9/10/93, for Singapore) > Boeing 707/720 1010 (see notes below) > > No others have hit the 1000 mark. Other notables include the > Airbus A300/A310 (nearing 700), Boeing 757 (nearing 600), McDonnell > Douglas DC-10/MD-11 (about 550), and Boeing 767 (just past 500). You forgot the A320 (nearing 500). As a nitpick, also bear in mind that the highest msn in the A300/A310 series isn't a measure of the total produced, because in the early 1980s order doldrums several msns were cancelled and never built. I think this accounted for about 20-odd aircraft. -- - Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Thu Nov 11 02:12:45 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ggr@toora.acci.COM.AU (Greg Rose) Subject: Re: trivia Q -- # of units of top-selling aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Australian Computing and Communications Institute Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Nov 93 02:12:45 PST In article fredch@quad4.phx.mcd.mot.com (Fred Christiansen) writes: >in identifying different models (btw, what's the visual diff between a small >Airbus and a big 737?). By "small Airbus" I take it you mean an A320/A319, and "big 737" the 300/400 models. (Small 737s have stovepipes for engines and can't possibly be confused for anything else.) 1. A320s have little arrowhead shaped fences on the ends of the wings. 2. 737 engines are distinctly flat on the bottom, (looking from in front I mean) due to their short landing gear, while A320s' appear circular. 3. With gear down, the difference in gear length scaled against other visible things (length of wings, diameter of engines) is quite noticeable. 4. A320 wheels are covered with doors when retracted; on the 737 they just fit into wells in the bottom of the fuselage and can be see from below. 5. the 737 tail is shaped like a 747's (or an A300's) with the roof of the fuselage remaining horizontal but the bottom sloping up, whereas the A320 tailcone is pointy like a 767 or 757. 6. 737s look frumpy, sort of an airborne Fergie. 7. A320s are often seen on the side of mountains. (:-) for 6 and 7, in case you needed to ask.) -- Greg Rose RoSecure Software Pty Ltd 0414 022 044 ggr@acci.com.au 6 Kingston Av, Mortlake 2137 (Australia +61) From kls Thu Nov 11 02:12:46 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: trivia Q -- # of units of top-selling aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Nov 93 02:12:46 PST >5. the 737 tail is shaped like a 747's (or an >A300's) with the roof of the fuselage remaining Tail? You mean aft fuselage. But the vertical tail on the new- generation 737s is rather distinctive, with the leading edge starting at a shallow angle then changing to a much steeper (closer to vertical) angle. >7. A320s are often seen on the side of mountains. Come, now, that was only at Strasbourg, unless you count the small hill at Bangalore as a mountain. They also can be found in forests (Habsheim) and draped over embankments at the end of runways (Warsaw). Reminds me of a grisly rendition of Where's Waldo. :-) -- 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 Nov 11 02:12:48 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: China Airlines Jumbo References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Nov 93 02:12:48 PST In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: |> The local bomb sqaud used explosives to blow off the tail on Sunday |> morning as it was obstructing traffic. Despite early reports that the |> aircraft suffered only minimal damage, which would be consistent with |> the minimal incursion into the water, the insurance company apparently |> wrote it off as a total loss. Seems odd for a brand new aircraft. Not really---I believe the engines were under water, and certainly the lower half of the fuselage by now must be totally saturated with seawater. The effects of saltwater immersion on the electronic and mechanical systems doesn't bear thinking about. And that's no ordinary seawater either---it's Hong Kong harbour water, polluted and horrible. I read that all the new cars inundated by the Midwest floods will never be the same again---the result of water in the engine, destroyed ignition systems, damaged electronics, etc. That's the effect of fresh water on much simpler systems than on an airplane. I think its quite understandable why they wrote off the 747. RNA From kls Mon Nov 15 12:23:27 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Martyn Thomas Subject: SAS MD-81 crash report, December 1991 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Nov 93 12:23:27 PST According to Flight International, 10 NOVEMBER 1993, "an automatic engine-control function in the McDonnell Douglas MD-81, of which the operating airline was unaware, was a major factor in the Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) accident near Stockholm, Sweden, in December 1991, says the official report into the accident" In summary, it seems that the airline failed to detect clear ice on the wings before takeoff. The ice broke free and entered the engines damaging the fan stages. This caused the right engine to surge. The pilots retarded the right throttle. The automatic thrust-restoration system ATR caused both throttles to advance without the pilots noticing, making the surging worse in the right engine and starting surging in the left. The surges destroyed the engines. It seems that SAS were unaware of the ATR, which was documented but in a section of the production flight-procedure manual dealing with noise abatement. SAS VP Johan Juhlin is reported as saying "We did not order it. It was hidden in the computer. The only way to disconnect the ATR was to disconnect the whole autothrottle system." McDonnell Douglas say that they made SAS aware of the full capabilities of the MD-80 when it was delivered. The documentation has since been improved, and SAS have changed their procedures and training to emphasise the ATR and correct anti-surging procedures. The ATR was designed to improve safety where an engine fails after take off and noise abatement procedures have caused the engines to be throttled back. -- These are personal opinions only Martyn Thomas, Praxis plc, 20 Manvers Street, Bath BA1 1PX UK. Tel: +44-225-444700. Email: mct@praxis.co.uk Fax: +44-225-465205 From kls Mon Nov 15 12:23:29 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: 757 Boarding References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Nov 93 12:23:29 PST In article , Stan Jones wrote: >Last night while boarding a United 757 in Chicago (using the front >door for everyone), the gate agent asked for our co-operation because, >as she said, the 757 is an awkward plane to board. This was the first >time I had been on a 757 boarding at the front door (United boards >757s at the middle door in Toronto) and it was awkward and slow. How >much attention is given to boarding in the design of aircraft? Is the >757 particularly bad or was I setup for seeing this by the gate >agent's comment? Did the 757 design intend that the normal boarding >be by the mid-door or the front door? How many airports are setup to >handle mid-door boarding (Toronto has movable Jetways - but slow to >get into position, while Chicago has fixed position Jetways)? Believe it or not, the 757 was designed with the idea that boarding through door 1L would be the standard. Door 2L was designed to allow it to be used as an alternate boarding door, if desired. Door position was determined primarily by evacuation requirements, I believe. The right hand doors are designed for galley servicing. We do pay attention to boarding when designing a new airplane. The larger the airplane, the more attention payed to boarding. As long as the aircraft can be boarded in less than twenty minutes, it doesn't matter much. Refueling, cabin cleaning, baggage & cargo handling, all take time, so a total thirty minute turnaround is about standard for single-aisle aircraft. Interestingly, people are quite motivated to get off the airplane, so the passenger/minute rate jumps way up compared to boarding, where everyone tends to lollygag in the aisles. :-) I have no idea how many airports are set up for door 1 vs door 2 nor even left (standard) vs right (creative). Terry -- 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 Mon Nov 15 12:23:34 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: Flights start for 777's P&W engine Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Nov 93 12:23:34 PST I compiled this from various public releases. ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- Friday, November 12, 1993 Flights start for 777's P&W engine Pratt & Whitney and the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group successfully completed the first test flight of the developmental Pratt & Whitney PW4084 engine Tuesday. The engine, being developed for the new Boeing 777 twinjet, completed a two-hour, three-minute flight test on an historic testbed: the first Boeing 747 ever built. Mounted at the inboard position on the left wing, the new engine joined the 747's three Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7A powerplants. Tuesday's flight was the first in a series of flights scheduled for November, during which the complete 777 propulsion system will undergo developmental testing to uncover and resolve any remaining issues involving the engine and its connection to the airframe. The series of flights will total more than 30 hours to evaluate the full propulsion system, engine nacelle and engine build unit items. During the tests, Pratt and Boeing engineers will study the propulsion system in a real flight environment and validate date gathered over several months of simulated altitude testing at the U.S. Air force Arnold Engineering Development Center. These flight tests will profile the propulsion system's overall operation through all aspects of the flight envelope -- takeoff, climb, acceleration, deceleration, inflight starts and landing. Developmental flight testing does not involve the production engines. It is a program designed to uncover and resolve any remaining developmental issues involving the engine and the interface of the engine with the airframe. The production engines will be part of the most comprehensive Boeing flight-test program ever, beginning in June 1994. The PW 4084 engine has been selected by launch customers United Airlines and All Nippon Airways to power their 777 twinjets. The engine will be certified at 84,000 pounds of takeoff thrust, has a 112-inch diameter fan, weighs 14,000 pounds and is 191.7 inches long. By comparison, the three PW JT9D-7A engines on the 747 testbed have a fan diameter of 96 inches. The JT9D-7As produce 46,250 pounds of thrust each, with 8,880 pounds apiece and are 154.2 inches long. In addition to the Pratt & Whitney engines, the 777 also is available with GE90 engines built by General Electric and the Rolls-Royce Trent 800-series engines. Boeing, 777 airline customers and the respective engine makers have worked in teams to assure the highest level of safety and a service-ready introduction in May 1995. ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud bcstec!bcsaic!stephen.nicoud This message does not represent the views of Boeing. I am not a Boeing spokesperson. I reserve the right to revise, extend and/or revoke my remarks. From kls Mon Nov 15 12:23:35 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ditka!sgiblab!uunet.UU.NET!ucsd!thor.rational.com!pete (Pete Coe) Subject: Searching for info on a 20 year old crash Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rational Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Nov 93 12:23:35 PST Is there anyone out there with a long enough memory to remember a crash in the early seventies. My memory tells me that it was a Courtline 727 from Gatwick to Palma and the crash was really a very heavy landing. My limited research has already eliminated the 727, BAC 1-11 and DC-9 so I am at a bit of a loss as to the real details. I would have said the crash was no later than 1972. The reason I ask is that someone in my (infant) school class was killed in the crash, and I thought it was time to refresh my memory. And just for the record I am not blaiming ETOPS for this one! -- -- Pete Coe -- Rational -- Object-Oriented Products From kls Mon Nov 15 12:23:36 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ROWHANI@poppy.ucdavis.edu (Payam Rowhani) Subject: 727 Manuals Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Davis Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Nov 93 12:23:36 PST Hi everybody: I was wondering if anyone might know where I can get some references on the Boeing 727-200 (Adv.), e.g. operators handbooks or manuals, maintenance manuals, etc.? I would appreciate it if anyone could provide me with a name and address or phone number. Please e-mail me directly. Thanks! Payam From kls Mon Nov 15 12:23:37 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wohlsen@sri.com Subject: DC-10/MD11 twin Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SRI International Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Nov 93 12:23:37 PST What with all the interest in large twin-engined airliners, I was wondering if McDonnell-Douglas ever considered building a 777-like variation on the MD11 by removing the engine in the tail, lengthening the aft fuselage for balance, and installing some of the new 90,000 lbst engines on the wings? Bob Wohlsen From kls Mon Nov 15 12:23:38 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC-10/MD11 twin References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Nov 93 12:23:38 PST >What with all the interest in large twin-engined airliners, I was wondering if >McDonnell-Douglas ever considered building a 777-like variation on the MD11 by >removing the engine in the tail, lengthening the aft fuselage for balance, and >installing some of the new 90,000 lbst engines on the wings? MacDAC has lofted a number of paper airplanes in recent years, and one was indeed a large twin. The one that I recall, however, was smaller than what you suggest -- aimed at the market just beyond the MD-80 and MD-90, it had about 200 seats, and seemed to be a lot like the 767-200. I'm pretty sure it was a new design. The MD-12 went through a number of iterations. It started off as just more of the MD-11 -- a further stretch and a new wing. The most recent MD-12 proposal was a four-engined, long-range jet that could grow to 600+ seat capacity, but somewhere in the middle there may have been a twin-engined MD-11 derivative as well. -- 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 Nov 17 15:34:35 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: d.alan.johnson@larc.nasa.gov (Dave J.) Subject: Re: SAS MD-81 crash report, December 1991 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Nov 93 15:34:35 PST >According to Flight International, 10 NOVEMBER 1993, "an automatic >engine-control function in the McDonnell Douglas MD-81, of which the >operating airline was unaware, was a major factor in the Scandinavian >Airlines System (SAS) accident near Stockholm, Sweden, in December 1991, >says the official report into the accident" >In summary, it seems that the airline failed to detect clear ice on the >wings before takeoff. The ice broke free and entered the engines damaging the >fan stages. This caused the right engine to surge. The pilots retarded the >right throttle. The automatic thrust-restoration system ATR caused both >throttles to advance without the pilots noticing, making the surging worse >in the right engine and starting surging in the left. The surges destroyed >the engines. >It seems that SAS were unaware of the ATR, which was documented but in a >section of the production flight-procedure manual dealing with noise >abatement. SAS VP Johan Juhlin is reported as saying "We did not order it. >It was hidden in the computer. The only way to disconnect the ATR was to >disconnect the whole autothrottle system." Could you be referring to the "ARTs" system - automatic reserve thrust? It will fire in the takeoff mode based on certain logic such as altitude rate, radar altitude and airspeed. From kls Wed Nov 17 15:34:38 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ditka!sgiblab!ibmpa!austin.ibm.com!venu Subject: Airbus A-300 Emergency Landing in India Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Nov 93 15:34:38 PST I just saw this message on misc.news.southasia This News also appeared in Deccan Herald, the English Daily published from Bangalore. (Dated Nov 16, 1993) MIRACULOUS ESCAPE FOR 257 ON BOARD IA AIRBUS CRASH-LANDS IN FIELD MADRAS - All the 247 passengers and 10 crew members of an Indian Airlines flight from Madras to New Delhi had a miraculous escape this morning when the plane force-landed in a paddy-field near Tirupati. The Airbus A-300, which took off at 6 a.m. could not land at Hyderabad due to poor visibility and was returning to Madras when its flaps failed to function. The aircraft started loosing height and Captain R.P. Bhalla, who was in command, made an emergency landing in a field near Venkatagiri, as the Tirupati airfield is too small for an A-300 to land. No one was hurt. ps. IA -> Indian Airlines - Venu M Ravi 512 838 8645 (W) 512 502 0329 (H) venu%goofball.austin.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com From kls Wed Nov 17 15:34:39 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) Subject: 727 engine config (was Re: Searching for info on a 20 year old crash) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Nov 93 15:34:39 PST ditka!sgiblab!uunet.UU.NET!ucsd!thor.rational.com!pete (Pete Coe) writes: >Is there anyone out there with a long enough memory to remember a crash in the >early seventies. My memory tells me that it was a Courtline 727 from Gatwick >to Palma and the crash was really a very heavy landing. ... >And just for the record I am not blaiming ETOPS for this one! The 727 has three engines, not two, so you couldn't blame ETOPS even if you wanted to. :-) Which raises a question: The 727 is Boeing's only trijet, and is the only trijet I know of with all three engines at the tail. Anybody know why Boeing gave up on trijets after the 727, and why nobody else has built a trijet with three engines at the back? Finally, (shades of the ETOPS discussion) does anyone know of any incident involving a 727 which did not result in a crash, but would have if the 727 was a twin? Regards, John -- John DiMarco jdd@cdf.toronto.edu Computing Disciplines Facility Systems Manager jdd@cdf.utoronto.ca University of Toronto EA201B,(416)978-1928 From kls Wed Nov 17 15:34:42 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 727 engine config References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Nov 93 15:34:42 PST >The 727 is Boeing's only trijet, and is the only trijet I know of with >all three engines at the tail. There are a good number of other examples of this configuration. Most notable are perhaps the Hawker-Siddeley Trident (nee de Havilland 191) (a number of people would claim the 727 is an American ripoff of the Trident) and the Tupolev Tu-154 (a number of people would claim this is a Soviet ripoff of the 727). There are also several smaller Russian trijets of similar configuration including the Yakovlev Yak-42 if I'm not mistaken, plus several other Western aircraft in the business jet class. >Anybody know why Boeing gave up on trijets after the 727 They didn't give up on them -- some proposals for the 757 and 767 were for trijets, and there were at least two trijet 747-300 proposals. I do believe Boeing became a bit disenchanted with the trijet notion, but I'll leave that for others who know more about the matter. >why nobody else has built a trijet with three engines at the back? Weight is an obvious problem, on any aircraft with rear-mounted engines, not just a trijet, and the newer engines are making that problem worse. Wings do the lifting, so hanging a big heavy engine from the wing gets the weight close to what's carrying it. Putting the engines in the back requires significantly greater structure in the aft fuselage. That structure adds weito the airframe. A problem specific to a trijet is that the center engine duct is expensive to re-size when new engines are applied, unlike a wing- or fuselage-mounted nacelle. -- 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 Nov 18 02:18:52 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Southwest places first 737-X order Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Nov 93 02:18:52 PST Organization: Chicago Software Works The first order for Boeing's 737-X was announced today. As had been rumored for some time, Southwest Airlines became the initial customer for the 737-X with an approximately $2.5 billion order for 63 of the medium-sized (same fuselage length as current 737-300) 737-X. The order included conversion of 32 existing 737-300 options; another 50 firm 737-300 orders for delivery through 1997 remain unchanged. The first four airplanes of the 737-X order will be delivered in late 1997, with 16 per year until 2000, when the rate will taper slightly to 15. The final 12 will be delivered in 2001. (None of the sources I've seen actually say that Boeing has formally launched the 737-X. Normally, initial orders are conditional upon the board of directors giving approval to the program. Would anyone at Boeing care to comment on this? Did Boeing's board pre-approve the 737-X based on a certain level of orders, or are the reports ignoring this detail, which in this case is probably just a rubber stamp?) The other 737-X variants -- a smaller one, identical in size to the 737-500, and a larger one, about two rows longer than the 737-400 -- will be introduced whenever orders are placed for those models. -- 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 Nov 19 16:28:39 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: Mark Miller Subject: Re: Southwest places first 737-X order Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Nov 93 16:28:39 PST > (None of the sources I've seen actually say that Boeing has formally > launched the 737-X. Normally, initial orders are conditional upon the > board of directors giving approval to the program. Would anyone at > Boeing care to comment on this? Did Boeing's board pre-approve the > 737-X based on a certain level of orders, or are the reports ignoring > this detail, which in this case is probably just a rubber stamp?) I'm not a Boeing spokesman, but the headline for the Boeing News, November 19 is: "Southwest order launches 737-X." The article goes on to state "The Boeing Company board of directors has authorized the go-ahead for the next-generation 737 program based on the Southwest order, which is subject to the signing of a definitive agreement." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mark R. Miller | Boeing Commercial Airplane Company | Hardware (n); Seattle, WA | That part of a computer which can Internet: miller@b-mrda.ca.boeing.com | be kicked. Voicenet: (206) 237-0960 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From kls Fri Nov 19 16:28:43 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Patrick M. Chaney" Subject: Southwest orders 737-X Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Nov 93 16:28:43 PST The Boeing Company board of directors has authorized the go-ahead for the next-generation 737 program based on the Southwest order, which is subject to the signing of a definitive agreement. The 737-X will have an increased range of 2.950 nautical miles, and will be able to fly at an altitude of 41,000 feet, compared with 37,000 feet for the current 737 and 39,000 feet for the A320. Economical cruise speeds for the 737-X will be .78 to .80 Mach (530 m.p.h.), compared with the current .745 Mach. Maximum takeoff weight will be 133,000 pounds in the basic configuration and 153,000 pounds in the high gross-weight configuration. -- ______________________________________________________________________________ Patrick Chaney Boeing Commercial Airplane Group ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ____ P.O. Box 3707, M/S 19-MH //__/ // / //__ // //\ / // _ Seattle, WA 98124 //__/ //__/ //__ _//_ // / //__/ pmc9439@aw101.iasl.ca.boeing.com ______________________________________________________________________________ From kls Fri Nov 19 16:28:45 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Southwest orders 737-X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Nov 93 16:28:45 PST >The 737-X ... will be able to fly at an altitude of 41,000 feet, >compared with 37,000 feet for the current 737 ... That's a surprise. Doesn't this require significant changes to the fuselage for the additional pressure differential? Or has the 737 demonstrated that it has additional margin already? (That would still require some updates to the pressurization system but that's a lot cheaper than fuselage mods.) >... and 39,000 feet for the A320. Ob. wise-crack: This is all great, but the A320 can fly *lower* than the 737-X -- right down to treetop level, as demonstrated at Habsheim! :-) -- 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 Sat Nov 20 00:41:08 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wangermn@phoenix.princeton.edu (John Paul Wangermann) Subject: Re: 727 engine config References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Nov 93 00:41:08 PST In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>why nobody else has built a trijet with three engines at the back? > >Weight is an obvious problem, on any aircraft with rear-mounted [couple of points deleted] Wing mounted engines also reileve wing bending moments - particularly important for heavier aircraft. ------------------------------------------------------------------- John P. Wangermann wangermn@phoenix.princeton.edu From kls Sat Nov 20 00:41:09 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 727 engine config (was Re: Searching for info on a 20 year old crash) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Nov 93 00:41:09 PST In article you write: >The 727 is Boeing's only trijet, and is the only trijet I know of with >all three engines at the tail. Others include the Trident, Tu-154, and more... >Anybody know why Boeing gave up on trijets >after the 727, and why nobody else has built a trijet with three engines >at the back? Having all the engines up at the back does provide something of a challenge for maintenance. It's much easier to maintain engines slung under the wings. For quite some time, Boeing was going to sling two under the wings (in a configuration which looked quite similar to the L-1011), but decided on a rear-mounted configuration for clearance and foreign object damage considerations. This was apparently a very intense issue within Boeing. The 727 trijet configuration was a result of: 1. A compromise between the launch customers of EAL and UAL. EAL wanted two engines for economy, United wanted four for safety. Boeing talked them into three. 2. The IFR dispatch restrictions at the time heavily favored a three- engined airplane (as opposed to a twin); the ability to take off in marginal conditions was quite a bit better. Boeing wished to use this to differentiate the airplane against the twins and quad turboprops it was competing against. By the mid-late 60's, the second requirement had disappeared, and the economics and safety (reflected by improvements in engines, namely the JT8D, which the 727 pioneered) of twins became so good that airplanes such as the 737 and DC-9 began to appear. > Finally, (shades of the ETOPS discussion) does anyone know of >any incident involving a 727 which did not result in a crash, but would have >if the 727 was a twin? If you're referring to a *727*, the question is impossible to answer. Thrust limitations of engines produced in the 1960s would not have permitted the airplane to be certified with two engines. I believe the first twin anywhere near the 727's operating weights was the 757, which utilizes a different type of engine and engine technology. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Sat Nov 20 00:41:12 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: Miscellaneous News Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Nov 93 00:41:12 PST ------- Forwarded Message ------- UPS 727-100 aircraft reengined with Tay 651 engines have shown an 18% reduction in fuel burn. The initial prediction was for a 12% reduction. The noise level is reduced to below Stage 3 and emissions are down to well within existing rules. (Aviation Daily, November 17, 1993) NASA is beginning a 9 month study on controlling and landing an aircraft on engine power alone. Once the program is defined, tests will be conducted on an MD-11 probably beginning in 1995. (Flight International, November 10-16, 1993) Rolls Royce is evaluating a new test facility designed to accommodate engines capable of up to 140,000 lb sea level static thrust. The facility can also accommodate up to 45,000 lb of reverse thrust. Full operations testing is scheduled to begin on a Trent 700 starting next month. (Aviation Week, November 15, 1993) ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud bcstec!bcsaic!stephen.nicoud This message does not represent the views of Boeing. I am not a Boeing spokesperson. I reserve the right to revise, extend and/or revoke my remarks. From kls Sat Nov 20 00:41:14 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: Re: Southwest places first 737-X order References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Nov 93 00:41:14 PST (None of the sources I've seen actually say that Boeing has formally launched the 737-X. Normally, initial orders are conditional upon the board of directors giving approval to the program. Would anyone at Boeing care to comment on this? Did Boeing's board pre-approve the 737-X based on a certain level of orders, or are the reports ignoring this detail, which in this case is probably just a rubber stamp?) See the attached announcement. The other 737-X variants -- a smaller one, identical in size to the 737-500, and a larger one, about two rows longer than the 737-400 -- will be introduced whenever orders are placed for those models. The Seattle Times referred to the 737-X as the 737-700. It didn't mention anything about a 737-600 or any other model number. Anyway, here's what the announcement looked like: BOEING TO PROCEED WITH NEXT-GENERATION 737 FAMILY WITH SOUTHWEST AIRLINES AS LAUNCH CUSTOMER Boeing and Southwest Airlines announced Wednesday that the 737-X family of jetliners, the next-generation of the best-selling Boeing 737, will proceed on the strength of Southwest's commitment for 63 of the new twinjets for delivery in 1997 through 2001. The Boeing Company board of directors has authorized the go-ahead for the next-generation 737 program based on the Southwest order, which is subject to the signing of a definitive agreement. "Southwest has established itself as a leader not only in the marketplace but in selecting the right airplanes to meet the market's needs," said Dean Thornton, president of Boeing Commercial Airplane Group. "They have a long history of commercial success by consistently applying their low-fare, high- value strategy." "Boeing has been fortunate to have Southwest as a successful business partner over the past 22 years, and we look forward to introducing this next-generation of 737s together," Thornton said. Southwest's chairman, president and CEO, Herb Kelleher, said: "We are delighted to once again be the launch customer for a Boeing aircraft. The current 737 models serve our high frequency, short haul operation very well. However, Boeing's business offer, combined with the additional attributes and operational flexibility of the 737-X, made the economics of this agreement superior." The new order includes four 737-300Xs for delivery in the fall of 1997, 16 in each of 1998 and 1999, 15 in 2000, and 12 in 2001. Of the 63 new orders, 32 result from the conversion of existing 737-300 options. Southwest's existing orders for 50 Boeing 737-300s for delivery in 1994- 1997 are unaffected by this order. Like today's 737-300/400/500 family, the next-generation 737 currently is offered in three sizes. The -300X is the middle size member of the new family, equivalent in capacity to the 737-300, which seats 128 passengers in mixed class and 137 in SWA's single-class configuration. Customer orders will determine the actual model mix, timing and sequence of introduction, and sizes of follow-on models, which currently are planned to be larger and smaller than the initial -300X. The seating totals of the three models will cover a range from 108 to 160 passengers (mixed class). The new 737 family is a derivative of the current 737. It features a modified wing with a larger span, and quieter, more powerful engines. The next-generation 737s will maintain crew commonality with the current 737-300/400/500 airplanes. The 737-X family will be powered by CFM56-3XS engines produced by CFMI, a joint venture of General Electric of the United States and SNECMA of France. The new engines will provide 10 percent more thrust than today's CFM56-3 engines while meeting noise standards considerably below Stage 3 standards. The new engines also offer lower fuel burn, reduced emission levels and lower maintenance costs. Boeing will produce current models along with the next-generation 737 family as long as customer demand warrants. Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud bcstec!bcsaic!stephen.nicoud I am not a Boeing spokesperson. I reserve the right to revise, extend and/or revoke my remarks. From kls Sat Nov 20 00:41:15 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Kuang-Chung Chao Subject: Re: Southwest orders 737-X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Nov 93 00:41:15 PST In article Karl Swartz writes: >That's a surprise. Doesn't this require significant changes to the >fuselage for the additional pressure differential? Or has the 737 >demonstrated that it has additional margin already? (That would still >require some updates to the pressurization system but that's a lot >cheaper than fuselage mods.) Doesn't the 757 share the same cross section of 737. I would guess the pressurization can be used on 737-X with small amout of modification. K.C. From kls Sat Nov 20 00:41:16 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Southwest orders 737-X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Nov 93 00:41:16 PST >Doesn't the 757 share the same cross section of 737. I would guess the >pressurization can be used on 737-X with small amout of modification. It's the same cross-section, and I had once thought the 727/737/757 were all essentially different length pieces from the Great Boeing Fuselage Machine. Some folks at Boeing who know a hell of a lot more about it than I do educated me on this point. The 727 and 737 are actually fairly close, but the 737 has a thicker skin on account of the greater number of cycles in its design life. The 757, on the other hand, is more fundamentally different -- much of the early talk of it being largely a derivative didn't really carry through to the final product. -- 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 Nov 22 15:41:06 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: papadopo@cs.utk.edu (Philip Papadopoulos) Subject: Thickness of Runways? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Nov 93 15:41:06 PST Organization: CS Department, University of Tennessee, Knoxville How thick is the average concrete runway that is capable of handling "heavies" (e.g. 747,767, MD-11, L1011, AB300, etc.)? Thanks, Phil From kls Mon Nov 22 15:41:07 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: Delta Simplying Fleet Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Nov 93 15:41:07 PST Aviation Daily reports today (November 22, 1993) in its INTELLIGENCE section that Delta wants to simplify its fleet to six aircraft types. They currently operate 16 models of 8 types. Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud bcstec!bcsaic!stephen.nicoud This message does not represent the views of Boeing. I am not a Boeing spokesperson. I reserve the right to revise, extend and/or revoke my remarks. From kls Mon Nov 22 15:41:11 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Marty Masters Subject: Continental 727 nearly belly-flops at O'Hare Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Nov 93 15:41:11 PST At ORD on last monday, a Continental flight from Texas came within a few feet of landing on runway 27 Left without using it's landing gear. An alert pilot of American Airlines noticed that the wheels hadn't come down into position, and radioed the tower, which told the 727 to abort the landing, and just in time. According to a Chicago Tribune and the NTSB: An investigation by the NTSB found that the Continental 727 crew was distracted by alarms in the cabin during their final approach Monday. They failed to follow the landing checklist and forgot to put the landing gear down, leading to an aborted landing. A LONG FINAL APPROACH IN HEAVY TRAFFIC: The jet's final approach was 18-20 miles, longer than usual. Thje TCAS was sounding alarms, indicating other traffic in the area. The crew delayed putting the landing gear down to avoid slowing the airplane too much. 1,500 feet: The plane brakes thru the clouds 1,000 feet: The TCAS sounds an alert, but no other plane is visible. 500 feet: A ground proximity alarm went off. This alarm can go off for any one of five reasons; The crew must determine the cause. The crew, distracted by the alarms, fail to follow the landing checklist. Fifty feet: The ground proximity alarm stopped. The crew saw that the three green landing gear lights were not lit, as the ATC instructed them to abort the landing and circle around. As the Captain applied full throttle to get the plane back into the air, the rear third of the fuselage scraped the runway. The article also adds: The flaps were extended to 25 degrees to cut the airplane's speed. The decision to delay putting the gear down was made to avoid further aerodynamic drag on the 727. Because the flaps were never extended to 27.5 degrees, a warning system designed to prevent landing when the wheels are up did not activate. According to Continental procedures: "a descent is permitted to continue after a ground proximity warning is issued, as long as it is daytime and visibility is clear." There is more in the article about how the TCAS causes confusion in the crowded O'Hare airspace ... ...Marty mgm@royko.chicago.com Chicago Il... The city where the rivers leak and the bridges fall up. From kls Mon Nov 22 15:41:15 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: TCAS distracted 727 crew Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Nov 93 15:41:15 PST ------- Forwarded Message ------- November 19, 1993 WASHINGTON POST - The captain of a Continental Airlines 727 that almost crash-landed with its wheels retracted in Chicago on Tuesday said heavy traffic and constant collision warnings distracted the crew from its normal duties, the National Transportation Safety Board reported yesterday. Continental flight 1543 from Houston was within 50 feet of the runway when the three crew members realized that the landing gear was not down, officials said. The tail bumped the runway and was damaged as the plane rose successfully. The captain's testimony to a safety board investigator is certain to fuel an ongoing dispute over the Tactical Collision Avoidance System, designed to warn one plane that another is approaching on a possible collision course. ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud bcstec!bcsaic!stephen.nicoud This message does not represent the views of Boeing. I am not a Boeing spokesperson. I reserve the right to revise, extend and/or revoke my remarks. From kls Mon Nov 22 15:41:18 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: g88l4256@warthog.ru.ac.za (MR DJ LOVEDAY) Subject: Re: trivia Q -- # of units of top-selling aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Nov 93 15:41:18 PST > >According to one reference I have, 417 DC-3s were produced up to the >entry of the U.S. into World War II. After Pearl Harbor, 194 of these >were pressed into military service and another 10,238 were produced as >the C-47 Dakota. I'm not sure how many, if any, were produced after >the way, as thousands of surplus C-47s were converted to civil use. > I know in South Africa there are some DC-3's that have had their psiton engines replaced with turboprops. Has this been done to any of the Dak's in other countries, and how successful has it been? Thanks Derek From kls Mon Nov 22 15:41:19 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: joe@montebello.soest.hawaii.edu (Joe Dellinger) Subject: Re: China Airlines Jumbo References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: joe@montebello.soest.hawaii.edu Organization: School of Ocean and Earth Science Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Nov 93 15:41:19 PST Wasn't there a plane that did a perfect landing in San Francisco bay a few years back, because of some guidance error? Didn't they salvage that one? /\ /\ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________ / \ / \ /Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, Honolulu\/\/\.-.-....__ ___/ \/ \/Joe Dellinger, Internet: joe@montebello.soest.hawaii.edu\/\.-.__ From kls Mon Nov 22 15:41:20 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bwalts@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Brandon Walts) Subject: A320, MD-80, 727 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Nov 93 15:41:20 PST I have 2 completely unrelated questions that I've always been curious about. Perhaps someone here knows the answers... 1) Why do 727s and MD-80s always have their ventral stairs down when parked at the gate. I never see any service or maintinence people using them. Is it for faster emergency egress in case of a refuelling accident? Does it somehow hold the tail up when there's nobody in the front of the plane (ala DC8 and IL-62)? It seems like a lot of wear on the hydraullics and mechanical systems, so there must be a good reason... 2) Has anyone ever noticed that the A-320 looks a _lot_ like the old Dassault Mercure (sp?) with a new wing and engines. Everything, from the aesthetics of the cockpit and tail, to the placement of the emergency exits looks the same. Is there a common ancestry here, or is it just that French style? From kls Tue Nov 23 00:02:35 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: h andrew chuang Subject: Re: China Airlines Jumbo References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Nov 93 00:02:35 PST | >A China Airlines jumbo [normally refers to a Boeing 747, it seems to | >have an extended upper deck], on a flight from Taipei *overshot the | >runway* at Hong Kong as it cam into land and plunged into the harbour. | | It was a 747-400, only four months old, operating CI 605 from Taipei | with 296 passengers and crew. The aircraft came in during a heavy | rainstorm associated with Tropical Storm Ira. From the reports I've | seen it's not clear if the plane touched down late or skidded on the | wet runway or both, but it stopped just past the end of the runway so | it obviously didn't miss by too wide a mark. The pilot tried to stop the plane by swerving the airplane, that's why the airplane was facing the runway instead of away from the runway. One of the reports that I read in a Chinese newspaper suggested that the pilot did not engage the engine thrust reverser, but it has yet been confirmed. The black box and recorder have been sent to the UK, the British officials claimed that they would share the data with Taiwan in one-week time. | >If there is any word of the extraction of this plane from said | >harbour, I would be interested to hear about it... | | The local bomb sqaud used explosives to blow off the tail on Sunday | morning as it was obstructing traffic. Despite early reports that the | aircraft suffered only minimal damage, which would be consistent with | the minimal incursion into the water, the insurance company apparently | wrote it off as a total loss. Seems odd for a brand new aircraft. According to one report, they decided to write the airplane off because being in the sea water, the engines as well as much of the elctronics and wirings were severely damaged. Moreover, there was concern about corrosions caused by the sea water. P.S. Isn't it "interesting" that accidents always occur in "bunches". Last year, two Airbuses crashed in Kathmandu, Nepal 63 days apart. Coincidentally, within the last two months, three airplanes overshot the runways in rainy weather, and two of them were B747-400's, but only the A320 crash was fatal! From kls Tue Nov 23 00:02:37 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: China Airlines Jumbo References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Nov 93 00:02:37 PST A similar thing happened with one of the first Bristol Britannias. On a demo flight for an airline (Eastern or KLM) they had an engine failure. Due to some sort of system quirk (one story) or flight engineer error (another story) when that engine was shut down, all four shut down. The pilot (Bill Pegg I believe) tried to glide back to Bristol, but had to put it down on the mudflats of the Severn river, short of the field. The aircraft was recoverable, but they didn't move fast enough and the tide came in and the aircraft was flooded with saltwater. Needless to say, the aircraft was a write-off and the accident was another nail in the aircraft's coffin (inlet icing was the biggest nail, besides being a turboprop). However, I do remember reading that the JAL DC-8 that put down in San Francisco bay short of SFO was recovered and brought back to flight status. The difference here might have been structural damage beyond what an AOG team could deal with. -Dave Lednicer Analytical Methods, Inc. From kls Tue Nov 23 00:02:40 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: h andrew chuang Subject: Re: Airbus Airplanes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Nov 93 00:02:40 PST > In a recent posting, someone asked about airplanes that Airbus has > on the burner. The respondent forgot to mention the Guppy replacement > that Airbus is building for its own use. The aircraft will be based upon > the A300-600, with a grossly enlarged upper lobe for carrying sub > assemblies between the production sites in Europe. The cockpit will be > from an A320(?), slung down slightly beneath the rest of the cockpit, to > allow large clamshell doors above it, for straight in loading of the upper > lobe. I understand that four will be built and that the first one is in > assembly right now. It's called the A300-600ST Super Transporters. Officially, it's not an Airbus project. It's designed and built by SATIC, a joint venture of Aerospatiale and Deutsche Airbus. First flight targeted to be in Sept 1994, delivery a year later. The above information is from the 27 Oct - 2 Nov issue of _Flight International_ (for people who are not aware of the magazine, it is a British equivalent of Aviation Week, and it's available in many fine bookstores and libraries). This issue is its annual directory of all the commericial airlines of the world. It summarized the major activities of all the manufacturers during the past year. Of course, there is also a complete list of all the specs of different airliners. In the 13-19 Oct issue, there is a world turbine engine directory, too. AW&ST used to compile a similar list of all the engines and aircraft in the world usually around March. However, this year (correct me if I'm wrong) AW&ST has yet to publish such a list. I found _Flight International's_ summary of past-year activities to be very informational. However, all the data are in metric system; sometimes it can be very annoying. (I hate to say that the metric system is "annoying", because I always perferred metric over British when I was in school. Despite being "metric-trained" in school, all the data related to airliners that I came across were in British units, and I'm just not calibrated to numbers like 275kN of thrust. Although, Rolls Royce is the only major engine manufacturer which uses kN for its engine thrust specs, its 320kN (72,000lb) thrust engine for the A330 is designated as the Trent 772, and its 373kN (84,000lb) thrust engine for the B777 is the Trent 884. Obviously, even they can't get rid of the British system totally. :-) From kls Tue Nov 23 00:02:41 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: A300/A310 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Nov 93 00:02:41 PST > Airbus A300/A310 (nearing 700) I have a lot of trouble who lump these two aircraft together as one! If you look at the A300B4 and its "derivative" the A310, there really is not that much in common. New wing, new engine choices, new glass cockpit, new rear fuselage, new tailplane, many new systems, etc. About all the two share is a common cockpit structure and fuselage diameter. The A300-600 came *after* the A310 and does share the same engines, cockpit, rear fuselage, etc with the A310, but it would still be a stretch to group them. OK, so they come down the same production line, too. But does *this* make them the same aircraft? In my mind, it would be better to group the early and current model A300's and leave the A310 alone when talking sales totals. Tobias Lutterodt From kls Tue Nov 23 00:02:42 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A300/A310 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Nov 93 00:02:42 PST >> Airbus A300/A310 (nearing 700) >I have a lot of trouble who lump these two aircraft together as one! You'd better take it up with Airbus Industrie, because they lump them together in one series. Same thing with the A330 and A340. >If you look at the A300B4 and its "derivative" the A310, there really >is not that much in common. New wing, new engine choices, new glass >cockpit, new rear fuselage, new tailplane, many new systems, etc. Pretty much the same will be true of the new 737X as compared to the original 737-100, too, yet I fully expect Boeing to consider them the same type. Where do you draw the line? The manufacturer seems to be the best authority available, and Airbus lumps the A300 and A310 together. -- 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 Nov 23 00:02:45 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sherry@a.cs.okstate.edu (SHERRY ROBERT MICH) Subject: Boeing 367-80 specs Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Nov 93 00:02:45 PST Hope this gets through, I tried sending to 'airliners@chicago.com' but it bounced twice... I'm looking for tech. specs on the original Boeing model 367-80, and specifically what the differences were between the C-135 series and the dash 80 were. I'm in the process of working on a model of the Dash 80 for a competition, but as I've never been able to find a model of the prototype I'm working from a kit of the KC-135. I know that: a) The C-135 series has a taller tail fin than the prototype, b) Both planes have a cargo door in (roughly?) the same place. c) the C-135's fuselage is 4" wider than the Dash 80. But that's about it. If anyone has more info to share I'd certainly appreciate it! Thanks. Rob sherry@a.cs.okstate.edu From kls Tue Nov 23 00:02:46 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: joe@montebello.soest.hawaii.edu (Joe Dellinger) Subject: Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: joe@montebello.soest.hawaii.edu Organization: School of Ocean and Earth Science Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Nov 93 00:02:46 PST Early on in flights between Hawaii and the mainland, wasn't there a Pan Am plane that had engine trouble and couldn't make it to land, so it arranged to "land" in the Pacific Ocean near a waiting Coast Guard rescue ship? /\ /\ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________ / \ / \ /Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, Honolulu\/\/\.-.-....__ ___/ \/ \/Joe Dellinger, Internet: joe@montebello.soest.hawaii.edu\/\.-.__ From kls Tue Nov 23 00:02:48 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Nov 93 00:02:48 PST > Early on in flights between Hawaii and the mainland, wasn't there >a Pan Am plane that had engine trouble and couldn't make it to land, so it >arranged to "land" in the Pacific Ocean near a waiting Coast Guard rescue ship? That was one of Pan Am's Boeing Stratocruisers (N90943, Clipper Sovereign of the Skies). On October 16, 1956, it was about midway between San Francisco and Honolulu when the #1 engine died. They were unable to feather the prop and drag of the windmilling prop was too much for them to be able to make it to land. Instead, they burned off fuel then ditched alongside a US Coast Guard cutter (the USS Ponchartrain) and all aboard survived. -- 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 Nov 28 16:39:03 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: A320, MD-80, 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Nov 93 16:39:03 PST In article , Brandon Walts wrote: >I have 2 completely unrelated questions that I've always been >curious about. Perhaps someone here knows the answers... > >1) Why do 727s and MD-80s always have their ventral stairs down >when parked at the gate. I never see any service or maintinence people >using them. Is it for faster emergency egress in case of a refuelling >accident? Does it somehow hold the tail up when there's nobody in the front >of the plane (ala DC8 and IL-62)? It seems like a lot of wear on >the hydraullics and mechanical systems, so there must be a good reason... Typically it is to keep the airplane from tipping back on its tail. Rear engined airplanes have chronic problems with CG location empty. They have other chronic problems, but I won't go into that. :-) The CG problem stems from having the CG of the empty airplane well aft of the CG of the payload (the passengers and baggage). When summed together, the CG of the airplane system must be within a relatively small range defined by the stability and control requirements and tail power available. The landing gear like to be pretty close to the CG of the loaded airplane in order to allow easy rotation at takeoff. So, when the airplane is NOT loaded, the CG moves aft - very close to the main gear - and someone walking around in the back, or loading cargo into the aft cargo compartment, can easily cause the airplane to tip back. In fact, if one pays close attention to cargo airplanes with the main deck cargo door aft of the wing you will notice the ground crew using a tail prop (called a 'pogo stick') to keep the airplane from tipping back. This is regardless of the engine configuration. Shoving a heavy pallet onto the main deck gives a dynamic loading of twice the actual pallet weight, and can cause an empty unpropped airplane to tip. In this particular case, tip back is quite serious with an 8,000 lb (or heavier) pallet running the length of the cabin to impact the aft structure. This is considered poor form by most crews. :-) No doubt this is more than anyone really wanted to know about tipping airplanes back on their tails. :-) -- 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 Sun Nov 28 16:39:05 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: A300/A310 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Nov 93 16:39:05 PST >I have a lot of trouble who lump these two aircraft together as one! >If you look at the A300B4 and its "derivative" the A310, there really >is not that much in common. New wing, new engine choices, new glass >cockpit, new rear fuselage, new tailplane, many new systems, etc. >About all the two share is a common cockpit structure and fuselage >diameter. The A300-600 came *after* the A310 and does share the >same engines, cockpit, rear fuselage, etc with the A310, but it would >still be a stretch to group them. OK, so they come down the same >production line, too. But does *this* make them the same aircraft? >From a marketing standpoint, they can be grouped for three major reasons: 1. A300-600 and A310 cockpits are identical (thus allowing cross-typing). 2. As you report, there's substantial commonality in the airframe, but also in heavy components, such as hydraulics, generators, etc. 3. They *look* similar. The first one's probably most important, from a recurring-cost standpoint: the ability to cut down on pilot training expenses is very important, and being able to maintain a fleet for which one can inexpensively rate a pilot with the ability to fly *everything*, is very important: this is one reason the cockpit of the A3[2-4]* is frozen in stone, and hasn't even reflected improvements in technology or design philosophy since the mid- 80's: if they change *anything*, they drive up the training costs. Custom- ers don't like that. Clearly, Boeing's been less concerned with standardization. But the 757 and 767 have common cockpits for similar reasons. Another take on this is that much of the industry literature is oriented around operations, and the cockpit IS the most visible fixation point. So the cross-training requirement is, at least, excusable. What gives me heartburn is seeing the 777 grouped with the 757/767. :-) The A3[2-4]* are a linear family; so is the A300/A310; so is the 757/767. The 777 is a new airplane, with a 747-400-ish cockpit, new engines, and other innovations. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Sun Nov 28 16:39:06 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: A320, MD-80, 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Nov 93 16:39:06 PST > I have 2 completely unrelated questions that I've always been > curious about. Perhaps someone here knows the answers... > > 1) Why do 727s and MD-80s always have their ventral stairs down > when parked at the gate. MD-80s have stairs? >I never see any service or maintinence people > using them. Is it for faster emergency egress in case of a refuelling > accident? Does it somehow hold the tail up when there's nobody in the front > of the plane (ala DC8 and IL-62)? It seems like a lot of wear on > the hydraullics and mechanical systems, so there must be a good reason... In certain fuel and loading configurations (empty), the 727 can rock back a couple of feet. The stairs are used to support it. You'll also see a jack attached to a hard-point on -200's at least; dunno about the -100. A number of maintenance items (hydraulic and fuel pumps, pneumatics valves, etc) are also located in the tail area, and are only accessible with it down. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Sun Nov 28 16:39:07 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A300/A310 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Nov 93 16:39:07 PST >Clearly, Boeing's been less concerned with standardization. But the 757 >and 767 have common cockpits for similar reasons. I suspect it's less a matter of Boeing's concern with standardization than a focus on what the customers want -- which in many businesses often bears little resemblance to what they need. Airbus seems to be more concerned with what Airbus thinks the customers need, whether they want it or not. It's not clear either is ideal. >What gives me heartburn is seeing the 777 grouped with the 757/767. :-) >... The 777 is a new airplane, with a 747-400-ish cockpit, ... The 777 started off being just a 767 derivative, including the cockpit, so there is some historical justification for lumping them together. But the airlines preferred the 747-400 as a cockpit model -- logical, perhaps, given the routes they'd be flying, though it's not clear the commonality would still be recognizable -- and the airframe outgrew any pretense of being a 767 derivative. On the other hand, the 737-X is slated to have a cockpit that's very similar to the current 737, in the interest of minimizing crew training costs. With Southwest as the launch customer, it might even be available with old-style gauges! -- 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 Nov 29 22:21:30 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: yip@sybase.com (Michael Yip) Subject: Re: Thickness of Runways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 93 22:21:30 PST In article , papadopo@cs.utk.edu (Philip Papadopoulos) writes: |> |> How thick is the average concrete runway that is capable of handling |> "heavies" (e.g. 747,767, MD-11, L1011, AB300, etc.)? |> |> Thanks, |> Phil -- I remember that thickness of the runway is one thing but the major factor really depends on the "distribution of weight" over the wheels of the aircraft. I forgot where I read it but the distribution of weight on a MD-80/DC-9 type of aircraft is not as even as, or not as "light" as a 747. The 747 has more wheels to spread over its weight while the MD-80/DC-9 has fewer to do the same. =============================================================================== Michael E. Yip Sybase, Inc., Internet_style: Michael.Yip@sybase.com Emeryville, California. UUCP: {sun,lll-tis,pyramid}!sybase!yip =============================================================================== From kls Mon Nov 29 22:21:34 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Subject: Re: 2 engines vs 4 engines planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 93 22:21:34 PST >> Early on in flights between Hawaii and the mainland, wasn't there >>a Pan Am plane that had engine trouble and couldn't make it to land, so it >>arranged to "land" in the Pacific Ocean near a waiting Coast Guard rescue ship? > >That was one of Pan Am's Boeing Stratocruisers (N90943, Clipper >Sovereign of the Skies). On October 16, 1956, it was about midway >between San Francisco and Honolulu when the #1 engine died. They >were unable to feather the prop and drag of the windmilling prop >was too much for them to be able to make it to land. Instead, they >burned off fuel then ditched alongside a US Coast Guard cutter (the >USS Ponchartrain) and all aboard survived. Karl, you are a great historian as well as great moderator! In this jet age, not many can appreciate the lonly job the "Coasties" did on the picket ships stationed in "solitary confinement" along the air routes of the Pacific and Atlantic. They spent week after week either anchored or orbiting a fixed position far out to sea..providing navigational assistance or radio links to trans-oceananic aircraft. In those primitive days..the navigator (yep..all flights had one!) had few tools to guide him...no INS, no Doppler, no LORAN C, (in the late fifty's HF loran was the miracle nav aid...but it was always suseptible to electrical interference..when ya needed it most), and things like GPS were pipe dreams at best. Information we take for granted now was just educated guess work in those days...but, looking back, we had some pretty good people doing the guessing! I remember many a trip when we had nothing to go by except a "drift sight", a sort of gunsight sticking out of the belly of the aircraft. It had parellel cross hairs which we lined up with the movement of white caps (wave tops) and then read our drift, or crab, angle. The nav's "how-goes-it" was his estimation of our position and "point of no return". (not enough gas to go back!). We'd get a good fix if we could from the picket ship, (in my case, it was Ocean Station November, located midway between Hawaii and the west coast), and we sure were comforted by their presence...all the time feeling for them 'cause we'd be home or in Hawaii in a few hours (the trip took 12-13 hours in that old bucket) and they were stuck out in the middle of no where! It's so easy today we hardly give it a thought, and that is as it should be! But it wasn't always so! -- "Clinton will be a one term President".......Rush Limbaugh From kls Mon Nov 29 22:21:36 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: A300/A310 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 93 22:21:36 PST In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>> Airbus A300/A310 (nearing 700) > >>I have a lot of trouble who lump these two aircraft together as one! > >You'd better take it up with Airbus Industrie, because they lump them >together in one series. Same thing with the A330 and A340. > >>If you look at the A300B4 and its "derivative" the A310, there really >>is not that much in common. New wing, new engine choices, new glass >>cockpit, new rear fuselage, new tailplane, many new systems, etc. > >Pretty much the same will be true of the new 737X as compared to the >original 737-100, too, yet I fully expect Boeing to consider them the >same type. Where do you draw the line? The manufacturer seems to be >the best authority available, and Airbus lumps the A300 and A310 >together. The key is the Type Certificate. All 737s have the same type certificate (not the same as a rating - all 747s use the same type certificate, but the 747-400 has a different rating requirement). The DC-9/MD-80s have the same Type Certificate, as do DC-10s and MD-11s. Presumably the same is true for A300/A310 airplanes. In the last year or two, things have gotten a bit mushier. I'm clueless about the A330/A340 Type Certificates. I'd guess it is much like the Boeing 757/767 Type Certificate, but I don't have any data. The A321 shares the same TC with the A320, and with the A319 if/when it is built. Another interesting question is the Russian aircraft. Tu-204, Il-96, An-124, etc. For those into the really complex, there is still the BAC 1-11, with a UK Type Certificate, and what used to be a Romanian Production Certificate, but without BAC participation, one wonders if the TC will continue to be recognized by Western regulatory agencies. -- 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 Mon Nov 29 22:21:40 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Watson_John/MEPTEC_dalhp002@dal.mobil.com Subject: What does the 737-X do for Southwest? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 93 22:21:40 PST Hi, In reading the articles and posts on Southwest's new order of B-737-300X aircraft, one thought has struck me as odd. Southwest has their home about two miles from my office at Dallas's Love field. Their route structure while growing all the time is based on frequent trips with many hops. Basically, they are a short haul carrier without a hub operation. While you can make some long flights with them, you can expect to make some stops along the way or even change planes. The new 737-X aircraft have larger engines and a bigger more efficient wing. However, the downside of these increases is a reported 10,000 pound increase in empty weight. From what I have read, the airplane should not have extra range and can cruise at 41,000 feet for best efficiency. It would seem to me that for Southwest, they will not be able to take advantage of the longer range and higher cruising altitude offered by this option. It would seem that at lower altitudes and shorter route segments, that the higher weight would be more of a penalty than a benefit. One might say that Southwest is planning on making longer stages or even cross county routes where this would make sense. If so, Southwest would loose one of their advantages in not having to have full galleys with ovens, etc. {I don't think they can get by with three hour flights with just penuts.} Can anyone shed any light on how the "X" upgrade would beneift Southwest? Is the new wing so efficient, that short hauls are made more efficient? Was the price that Boeing offered so competitive to get the new version off the ground that it was too good to pass up? John T. Watson Mobil R&D Dallas, Tx. jtwatson@dal.mobil.com From kls Mon Nov 29 22:21:41 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Brett Borowski" Subject: questions about jet exhaust and emissions Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 93 22:21:41 PST I've got some questions about jet exhaust and emissions. These are only curiosity questions but any answers (or directions to answers) will be much appreciated. 1) What comes out the aft end of a typical (airliner) jet engine? (ie H2O, CO2, CO, hydrocarbons, etc, etc.) 2) Are there any regulations regarding such emissions? 3) How does that amount of emissions compare on a seat-mile basis to current automobile emmissions? (Roughly, based on a 199x car.) Thanks, Brett brett@surfpix.princeton.edu Brett Borowski From kls Mon Nov 29 22:21:44 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: 737-X Model Numbers Revealed Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 93 22:21:44 PST The Seattle Times reports today (November 29, 1993) that the newest versions of the Boeing 737 (dubbed the 737-X) will be produced under the model numbers 737-700, 737-800, & 737-900. The report goes on to say that these models will be about the same size as the 128-seat 737-300, 150-seat 737-400, and 107-seat 737-500, respectively. The report also states that the 737-600 designation was skipped because Boeing wanted to leave a slot open in case it later decides to build a model smaller than the 107-seat 737-500. Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud bcstec!bcsaic!stephen.nicoud This message does not necessarily represent the views of Boeing. I am not a Boeing spokesperson. I reserve the right to revise, extend and/or revoke my remarks. From kls Wed Dec 1 03:16:29 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: A320, MD-80, 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Dec 93 03:16:29 PST In reply to the question as to why MD-80s and 727s have their ventral stairs down on the ground: it keeps them from tipping over (tail down) should someone goof when loading them! In the AIAA "Case Study in Aircraft Design: The Boeing 727", Mark Gregoire relates a story about when the first 727-200 was delivered to National Airlines. "As it rolled to a stop near the National hangar, amid the expectant dignitaries, the pilot touched the brakes and the airplane nose went down and then recoiled up and lifted the nose gear off the concrete approximately 6 to 8 inches. The gasps in the crowd were heard 3,000 miles away in Seattle. Bill Clay put a team together and, armed with weight and balance data, toured the airlines outlining the entire spectrum of configuration control, ground handling, ballasting, and precautionary measures from sloping ramps to heavy snow loads on the tail. As far as we know, no 727-200 has ever sat on its tail and maybe we over reacted to the National incident, but that's why, you will nearly always see a 727 with its rear airstairs down when parked. There are some rare cases where we attach lead to the radome bulkhead for extreme loading conditions." As to why the Mercure looks so much like the A320 - yes it is related and no, it isn't. The Mercure was built by Dassault, which is a (nominally) private French aero company, while Aerospatiale, which is part of Airbus is the publicly held French aero company. Back in the gestation of the A320, Dassault was involved in one partnership which looked at a growth Mercure with CFM-56s. This partnership split, but begat other partnerships that lead to the A320. You might say that the growth Mercure genetically led to the A320. On the other hand, Dassault was not involved (directly) in the design of the A320, so any relationship is distant. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Wed Dec 1 03:16:31 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Boeing 367-80 specs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Dec 93 03:16:31 PST Get yourself a copy of "Boeing 707 & AWACS in detail and scale" by Alwyn T. Lloyd (published by Aero Publishers). This book does an excellent job of documenting the confusing 707 series of aircraft. The following dimensions appear in the book: 367-80 C-135 707-100 707-300 Wing Span 130' 0" 130' 10" 130' 10" 142' 5" Wing Area 2,402 sq ft 2,313.4 2,433 2,982 Body Length 128' 0" 128' 10" 138' 10" 145' 6" Body Diam 11' 0" 12' 0" 12' 4" 12' 4" Height 38' 0" 38' 5" 41' 8" 41' 8" VT area 328.3 sq ft 303.7 303.7 303.7 HT span 39' 8" 39' 8" 39' 8" 43' 0" As you can see, these are all rather different airplanes. The -80 orginally flew with JT3s and was later retrofitted with JT3Ds (and possibly JT4s at one point). I believe it was also fitted with the taller Vertical Tail too (I'll check my pictures tonight). The cargo door might be a later addition. I examined -80 last summer, and it is covered with add-on parts (stiffeners, fairings, etc.). It might be difficult to nail down its configuration at any particular moment in history. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Wed Dec 1 03:16:37 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.engr,sci.environment,sci.space Path: bounce-back From: arch2c@menudo.uh.edu (Kim Baumann Larsen) Subject: Info req. on minimal waste(water) toilet Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.engr Organization: University of Houston Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Dec 93 03:16:37 PST We are working on a project on redesigning the mock-up Space Habitation Laboratory here at the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture, College of Architecture, University of Houston. I am looking for a kind of toilet-solution utilising a minimum amount of water (like an aeroplane compressed-air toilet) or none at all (like a camping toilet). The toilet needs to hold the waste of 6 persons for upto a week (aprox. 30 gallons ?); which will be the planned mission simulation duration. Our main problem is not having a lot of space in the original design and we cannot connect the lab to existing sewagelines. We therefore need a solution that will contain the waste for a shorter period of time and then to be emptied in one way or another. I have be playing with the idea of getting hold of a plane-toilet, actually a complete bathroomunit from an outdated commercial airliner, but don't know where to start. Please note that we are looking for a practical, hopefully low-cost solution that not need be similar to that used in high-tech space architecture like the space shuttle (which doesn't work very well anyway :-) ). We are actually going to build this during the 1994 spring. Appreciate any info. Kim Baumann Larsen civil architect MNAL / research assistant Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA) College of Architecture, University of Houston, Houston tel. (713) 743-2350 email: arch2c@menudo.uh.edu fax. (713) 743-2358 From kls Wed Dec 1 03:16:39 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sherry@a.cs.okstate.edu (SHERRY ROBERT MICH) Subject: Another Dash 80 question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Dec 93 03:16:39 PST Thanks to all who mailed me info for my Dash 80 project. One other question...In the photos I have of this plane, the lower lobe of the fuselage and all but the leading edges of the wings are bare metal. But in a 'Frontiers of Flight' episode on Discovery the other night, they showed the restored plane, all painted up and ready to fly back to the Smithsonian, with these surfaces painted what looked like a dark flat gray. The narrator mentioned that these were 'The original paint scheme'. Did I misinterpret the pictures on TV, or in the books? Just curious... Thanks again for the help, Rob sherry@a.cs.okstate.edu From kls Wed Dec 1 03:16:42 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shepherd@courier6.aero.org (Walter Shepherd) Subject: Re: What does the 737-X do for Southwest? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: The Aerospace Corp Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Dec 93 03:16:42 PST In article , Watson_John/MEPTEC_dalhp002@dal.mobil.com wrote: > ....deletions for brevity > > Can anyone shed any light on how the "X" upgrade would beneift > Southwest? Is the new wing so efficient, that short hauls are made > more efficient? Was the price that Boeing offered so competitive to > get the new version off the ground that it was too good to pass up? > Perhaps Boeing has adapted an old idea to Southwest... recall all the hoopla (in better economic times) about future airliners with entertainment centers in each seatback (I think Virgin atlantic still offers this goody). Well perhaps the added weight is an indication that peanut vending machines might be located in each seatback on Southwest 737-X's. This might permit further cabin crew reductions for a net weight and cost savings. Think of the possibilities... the vending machines could be converted to gaming machines on flights to Vegas... when passengers hit a jackpot, the machine throws bags of peanuts at them (just like a real cabin attendant) instead of dropping coins in a tray. || Walter E. Shepherd, K2ZPA || _ /| Ack! ||shepherd@courier6.aero.org || \'o.O' Thppppffffft!!! || GPS: 33deg. 55' 08.90" N || =(___)= I disavow my || 118deg. 22' 39.56" W || U own brain dead || 37.55 Meters AMSL || biker opinions. From kls Wed Dec 1 03:16:44 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wolpjame@cwis.isu.edu (WOLPER_JAMES) Subject: Re: Thickness of Runways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Idaho State University, Pocatello Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Dec 93 03:16:44 PST yip@sybase.com (Michael Yip) writes >the major factor really depends on the "distribution of weight" >over the wheels of the aircraft. Runway weight bearing capacities vary with landing gear configuration: single or multiple wheels, multiple trucks, etc. Publications like the US Airport/Facilities Directory list these capabilities. Here is some (possibly obsolete) data on Seattle-Tacoma Int'l runway 16L: configuration max allowable weight (1000s of lbs) single wheel type (eg, DC-3) 100 double wheel type (eg, DC-6) 200 dual-tandem type (eg, B-707) 350 double dual-tandem (eg, B-747) 825 Oddly enough, the Canada Flight Supplement does not list runway weight bearing capabilities; this may be due to a Transport Canada national standard (ie, data published elsewhere). Jim Wolper Comm ASEL IA CFI Department of Mathematics Idaho State University Pocatello, ID 83209-8085 USA From kls Wed Dec 1 12:15:02 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Dorsett Subject: Pressurization system references Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Dec 93 12:15:02 PST Reply-To: rdd@cactus.org A few weeks ago, I posted a message requesting information on aircraft pressurization systems. My main interest was in calculating a pressure differential derivative, given cabin and ambient pressure differences, airflow characteristics, etc. I received two responses: one pointed me to people who work on such systems, who in turn pointed me to a paper discussing such systems in detail, which in turn referred to an ancient paper detailing the specific airflow characteristics I was after. For the general coverage, see: Society of Automotive Engineers, Aerospace Recommended Practice 1270, "Aircraft Cabin Pressurization Control Criteria," dated January 15, 1976. For the airflow issue, see: Chester W. Smith, "Calculation of Flow of Air and Diatomic Gases," in _Journal of Aeronautical Sciences_, June 1946. Let's just say the issue is rather involved, and that this problem defies attempts at simplification. Cheers, --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Wed Dec 1 12:15:06 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ditka!sgiblab!uunet.UU.NET!ucsd!frosty.rational.com!pete (Pete Coe) Subject: Who has computerised production lists? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Dec 93 12:15:06 PST Organization: Rational If you have been reading this news group you will know I have been on a grisly search for a 20 year old crash. The only reference material I have is 'The Airliner Production List' from the Aviation Hobby Shop. It takes a long time and I know there are errors (just ask my father about Herald's). So any way I'm looking through the books, and I come across an ad for Lundkvist Aviation Research, which says 'has an extensive database with information about all commercial aircraft transactions since 1945'. There is no price mentioned, so I think it is a case of if I need to ask I cannot afford it. But anyway, anyone got this or another computerized database, and any comments. -- -- Pete Coe -- Rational -- Object-Oriented Products From kls Wed Dec 1 12:15:07 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: teissier@stna.dgac.fr (Laurent Teissier p8131 BG22) Subject: SAA crash in the Indian Ocean Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Dec 93 12:15:07 PST Organization: Service Technique de la Navigation Aerienne Does anybody remember of an old crash of a SAA 747 in the indian Ocean ? What were the conclusions that were drawn if they managed to find the recorders ? Thanks in advance. From kls Wed Dec 1 12:44:31 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Scott Decker Subject: Re: Runway Thickness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Nevada, Reno Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Dec 93 12:44:31 PST This is the first time I have posted to this news group and I hope to send more info when I can. In a reascent (about 2 weeks or so), I read that some one was looking for info on the thickness of runways. I called the local Airport Authority Engineering Dept. and asked the Sr. Engineer about the runway thickness at the Reno Cannon Airport. I must admit that the info is not enough to build a runway but then.... You get what you pay for :-) He said that the engineering department does a study on the amount of traffic and the type (size, type, number of landings, etc.) of aircraft that will be using the runway. The report is sent to the FAA for review and they determine the specs that must be used for the field. The runways at Reno are 17" thick and are concrete. This seems to be a typical number and can go to 20". Reno has had Air Force 1 land here and the Concord on a promo trip for a local radio station. I'm not sure if I have answered the question posed, but I hope it helps. The info above is to my best memory, (not that great) and from a phone call with the Sr.Engineer at the Airport. My Thanks go to him on this one. Scott Decker From kls Wed Dec 1 20:47:24 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: charlg@microsoft.com (Charlie Garthwaite) Subject: NOVA: COPA (Panama) 737 accident - NTSB Investigation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Dec 93 20:47:24 PST Organization: Microsoft Corporation A very interesting NOVA program describes the investigation of the sudden descent of a 737 during a routine turn at night. Good coverage of the "field" (jungle) investigation. Apparent cause was faulty attitude indication leading to over correction and inversion of the aircraft. Primary artificial horizons were both connected to the same gyro. All three attitude gyro units tested OK. A possible cable fault was discovered. This program broadcast Nov. 30 in Seattle. Watch for it. From kls Wed Dec 1 20:47:25 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: SAA crash in the Indian Ocean References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Dec 93 20:47:25 PST In article , teissier@stna.dgac.fr (Laurent Teissier p8131 BG22) writes: |> Does anybody remember of an old crash of a SAA 747 in the indian Ocean ? |> What were the conclusions that were drawn if they managed to find the recorders ? |> Thanks in advance. I believe it was a 747M, the one where the back is cargo and the front is passengers. Something bad happened in the cargo deck, and I think there was controversy about whether it was a bomb or "just" dangerous cargo. I remember some discussion about the wisdom of such "mixed" aircraft at the same time. I've been on one of these planes twice, an Air Canada flight Heathrow- Dusseldorf. The truncated interior is strange, if you're used to the regular 747. I've also been on the 707M, (Lufthansa, Frankfurt-NYC, 1974) which, if I can remember all that way back, had the cargo section in front. (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense... how would the flight attendants communicate with the pilots---anyone remember these things??) RNA From kls Wed Dec 1 20:47:27 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: SAA crash in the Indian Ocean References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Dec 93 20:47:27 PST >The truncated interior is strange, if you're used to the >nwhich, if I can remember all that way back, had the cargo section in front. >(which doesn't make a whole lot of sense... how would the flight attendants >communicate with the pilots---anyone remember these things??) For simple communications they can just use the intercom, as they do often on all-passenger configurations. Such configs still do exist -- OAG shows both Air Canada and Alaska Airlines as having mixed-config 737-200s with the cargo area ahead of the passengers. -- 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 Dec 1 20:47:28 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jeff344@voodoo.lerc.nasa.gov (Jeff Berton) Subject: Re: Thickness of Runways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Dec 93 20:47:28 PST In article , papadopo@cs.utk.edu (Philip Papadopoulos) writes: > How thick is the average concrete runway that is capable of handling > "heavies" (e.g. 747,767, MD-11, L1011, AB300, etc.)? The stress imparted to a runway is a function of, among others, strut load, number of tires per strut, tire spacing, tire size, and even tire pressure. Here are some numbers from Lockheed's "Landing Gear Design Handbook" (1982): Aircraft Gross Weight Concrete Thickness at Static Load Type (lbs) for Unlimited Operation (in) 747 775000 12.8 C-5 769000 10.0 L1011 410000 11.9 C-141 316000 12.3 707 297000 11.3 An interesting comparison involves the 747 vs the C-5. Both have similar gross weights, but the unusual gear arrangement of the C-5 allows nearly 3 inches less runway thickness. And the C-141, at four-tenths the weight of the 747, requires nearly the same runway thickness. -- Jeff Berton, Aeropropulsion Analysis Office, NASA Lewis Research Center jeff344@voodoo.lerc.nasa.gov From kls Wed Dec 1 20:47:31 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Thickness of Runways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Dec 93 20:47:31 PST In article , Michael Yip wrote: >I remember that thickness of the runway is one thing but the >major factor really depends on the "distribution of weight" >over the wheels of the aircraft. The thickness of the runway depends primarily on the subgrade condition and the Aircraft Classification Number (ACN) of the planes the airport owners expect to serve. The more swamplike the subgrade, the thicker the runway needs to be to serve the same size airplane. ACN is a measure of weight distribution. The corresponding measure for the pavement is the PCN, or Pavement Classification Number. The higher the ACN, in general, the heavier the airplane. >I forgot where I read it but the distribution of weight on a >MD-80/DC-9 type of aircraft is not as even as, or not as "light" >as a 747. The 747 has more wheels to spread over its weight >while the MD-80/DC-9 has fewer to do the same. I'm not sure what you really mean, but the MD-80 has an ACN of 30 or below, and the venerable 747-400 has an ACN of over 60. This is not a trivial difference. There are some airports which must be very careful of where they allow 747s to operate because they are so heavy. LAX is an example that comes to mind. -- 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 Dec 7 11:39:09 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: watson@win.tue.nl (Bruce W. Watson) Subject: Re: SAA crash in the Indian Ocean References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Dec 93 11:39:09 PST teissier@stna.dgac.fr (Laurent Teissier p8131 BG22) writes: >Does anybody remember of an old crash of a SAA 747 in the indian Ocean ? >What were the conclusions that were drawn if they managed to find the recorders ? >Thanks in advance. I believe the plane's name was the ``Helderburg''. I saw a nice (expensive!) book on this crash, and the ensuing investigation, in a bookstore in South Africa in Aug. 92 (the book was published by some South African publisher). I also chatted with some SAA flight crews when I was there. The following is a mixture of what I gleaned from the two. As I recall, the aircraft reported a fire about 30 minutes out of Mauritius. I don't think any of the recorders were recovered, but at some points there was an open mike in the cockpit (allowing the flight crew's voices to show up on the Plaisance tower's recordings); they were in quite a state of confusion, with all kinds of interesting temperature readings on the main deck -- fire warnings all over the place; much of the in-cockpit communication, and some of the (attempted) communication with the tower, was in Afrikaans. What they did find (among the wreckage), was a melted graphite tennis racquet; this indicates that there were unbelievable temperatures on the main-deck (where the racquet was stored). Furthermore, the aircraft was a Combi (with half of the main-deck being cargo). I think the conclusion was that there was a fire on the main-deck, caused by a leak of concentrated nitric acid, a ton of which was improperly packed, and did not appear on the manifest (since it was destined for use in the weapons industry --- something not allowed during the sanctions era). Some Mauritian fishermen reported seeing the breakup, and flaming yellow arc of the aircraft --- although, it turns out that they may have been prompted, and they were drunk at the time. Hope this helps, 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 Tue Dec 7 11:39:12 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: SAA crash in the Indian Ocean References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Dec 93 11:39:12 PST On 2 Dec 93 04:47:25 GMT, rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) said: Robert> I believe it was a 747M, the one where the back is cargo and Robert> the front is passengers. Something bad happened in the cargo Robert> deck, and I think there was controversy about whether it was a Robert> bomb or "just" dangerous cargo. I remember some discussion Robert> about the wisdom of such "mixed" aircraft at the same time. [snip] Robert> (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense... how would the Robert> flight attendants communicate with the pilots---anyone Robert> remember these things??) Cargo is heavier than passengers, as a rule. To keep the center of gravity in front of the center of pressure, you don't put heavy stuff behind the wing, you put it in front of the wing. Putting the center of gravity behind the center of pressure means that the plane will pitch up, stall, depart from controlled flight, and fall out of the sky. This gives them a big incentive to get the loading right. Since there's no guarantee on how much cargo and how many passengers they'll have, they configure the aircraft in the safest manner. -- Mary Shafer DoD #362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA shafer@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Unknown US fighter pilot From kls Tue Dec 7 11:39:13 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: Who has computerised production lists? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Dec 93 11:39:13 PST Pete Coe writes > [Looking for a 20 year old crash in ...] > 'The Airliner Production List' from the Aviation Hobby Shop ... > takes a long time and I know there are errors > > ... I come across an ad for Lundkvist Aviation Research, which > says 'has an extensive database with information about all > commercial aircraft transactions since 1945'. ... anyone got > this or another computerized database, and any comments. The TAHS production lists are based on the Lundkvist files, so if you don't trust one you shouldn't trust the other. More generally, though, I doubt the kind of errors that these lists usually contain will seriously hamper your efforts. Standard errors are along the lines of missing or incorrectly dated transactions, and typos in tail numbers. Occasionally the errors are significant enough to substitute two airframes. But something like a crash is generally pretty unambiguous. Note that this comment applies primarily to jet and turboprop aircraft; the older the design and the more remote the area of operation the more likely it is that serious errors will appear. Try tracking down DC-3s. -- - Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Tue Dec 7 11:39:16 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ditka!sgiblab!uunet.UU.NET!sq!trigraph!briand (Brian Dickson) Subject: Re: SAA crash in the Indian Ocean References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Trigraph Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Dec 93 11:39:16 PST In kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>(which doesn't make a whole lot of sense... how would the flight attendants >>communicate with the pilots---anyone remember these things??) >For simple communications they can just use the intercom, as they do >often on all-passenger configurations. >Such configs still do exist -- OAG shows both Air Canada and Alaska >Airlines as having mixed-config 737-200s with the cargo area ahead of >the passengers. Having travelled on such a config, I can attest to its strangeness. I watched them load the cargo from the lounge -- they have "pallets", shaped like 1/2 the inside of the airliner, that get rolled in through enourmous openings, which I assume are either cargo doors or removable body sections. The cargo units apparently are designed to be locked down, with a passageway left from cockpit to passenger area -- there is a door in the forward "bulkhead" of the passenger section, and I believe I saw it used (if memory serves.) The passenger section in such a config is a surreal environment -- about a dozen or so rows of seats, four (I think) cabin attendants, which makes the pre-flight safety blurb much less formal -- there are few enough passengers that it is possible for everyone to become acquainted on even a short haul. Until it starts moving, it doesn't even feel like a real airplane, more like one of those mockups you might see in a museum, or a ride at Univeral Studios (except with shorter lines ;-). If you're one of those people who like flying on just about everything not made by Airbus ;-), its quite an unusual (even exciting, almost scary) way to fly. -- Brian Dickson briand%trigraph.uucp@csri.toronto.edu Trigraph, Inc. From kls Tue Dec 7 11:39:18 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: What does the 737-X do for Southwest? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Dec 93 11:39:18 PST In article , wrote: [Some stuff deleted] >The new 737-X aircraft have larger engines and a bigger more efficient >wing. However, the downside of these increases is a reported 10,000 >pound increase in empty weight. From what I have read, the airplane >should not have extra range and can cruise at 41,000 feet for best >efficiency. I don't work on the 737-X, so take this with a small grain of salt, but that 10,000 increase is probably overstated. Every PD program goes through a phase where the airplane is too heavy. We do the basic design, and then everyone adds features until the airplane is way too heavy. From there we subtract stuff until the airplane is at its target weight, which is determined primarily by aero performance issues and structural requirements. Its the same as with a car design, or anything else. Computer programmers call it 'creeping featurism'. I have seen their payload-range curves and the airplanes do indeed have substantially more range than any of the previous models. The decision to cruise at 41,000 ft is probably driven by the faster wing. That is, no matter how fast the airplane is capable of flying, unless you can get above the mass of traffic around 35,000 ft it just won't matter - you'll fly the same speed as everyone else (not always true, just a rule of thumb). This can be very important on crowded routes like Boston to Chicago. Airline on time performance is judged by block time, not cruise efficiency. >It would seem to me that for Southwest, they will not be able to take >advantage of the longer range and higher cruising altitude offered by >this option. It would seem that at lower altitudes and shorter route >segments, that the higher weight would be more of a penalty than a >benefit. One might say that Southwest is planning on making longer >stages or even cross county routes where this would make sense. If >so, Southwest would loose one of their advantages in not having to >have full galleys with ovens, etc. {I don't think they can get by >with three hour flights with just penuts.} I can't speak for Herb Kelleher, but I would not be surprised to see that extra range used for reducing turn times and operating costs by tankering fuel. Or that extra Max Zero Fuel Weight to start hauling more cargo. The 737-X offers more capability, not just added range. The galley problem can be handled with sandwiches and drinks. Hot meals are not neccessary. >Can anyone shed any light on how the "X" upgrade would beneift >Southwest? Is the new wing so efficient, that short hauls are made >more efficient? Was the price that Boeing offered so competitive to >get the new version off the ground that it was too good to pass up? Another reason that Southwest may be interested is that the 737-X should have lower maintenance costs. One of Boeings goals in general is to reduce the cost of keeping the airplane in the air, and I believe the 737-X people are working that pretty hard. Another reason is that even with all the improvements in maintenance, speed, and range, the price of the 737-X is not likely to be much more than the current family. This is a real value to a customer, any customer - not just Southwest. The Boeing goal is to continue to reduce the cost of our products without reducing value. Just a note, I saw that same article in the Seattle Times about the -600 number being held for an airplane less than 100 seats. I checked, and that was a journalistic brain fart. The -600 will be the same size as the current production -500. The -700 that Southwest ordered is the same size as a current production -300. There is no -900. -- 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 Dec 7 11:39:20 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: SAA crash in the Indian Ocean References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Dec 93 11:39:20 PST In article you write: >In article , teissier@stna.dgac.fr (Laurent Teissier p8131 BG22) writes: >|> Does anybody remember of an old crash of a SAA 747 in the indian Ocean ? >|> What were the conclusions that were drawn if they managed to find the recorders ? >|> Thanks in advance. > >I believe it was a 747M, the one where the back is cargo and the front >is passengers. Something bad happened in the cargo deck, and I think there >was controversy about whether it was a bomb or "just" dangerous cargo. >I remember some discussion about the wisdom of such "mixed" aircraft >at the same time. I believe it was a Combi, running in a cargo configuration, with no pax. The crew reported dense smoke and lost control of the airplane. It is believed that the smoke originated in the aft cargo compartment. Around the time of the Lauda crash, recovery efforts suggested that lithium batteries being transported might have contributed to the crash. This was instantly specul- ated as being the possible cause of the Lauda crash, since that airplane was carrying watches, all with lithium batteries. Most airlines adopted a ban on carrying lithium batteries at about that time. >regular 747. I've also been on the 707M, (Lufthansa, Frankfurt-NYC, 1974) >which, if I can remember all that way back, had the cargo section in front. > >(which doesn't make a whole lot of sense... how would the flight attendants >communicate with the pilots---anyone remember these things??) By intercom? --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Thu Dec 16 01:50:23 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: USAir/Allegheny late '70s(?) ATC incident? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Dec 93 01:50:23 PST Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Atlanta Customer Support Center A co-worker of mine was on an American Airlines flight shortly after Allegheny became part of USAir, and was listening in on the Air Traffic Control frequency care of American's onboard entertainment system, when an interesting incident occurred. Evidently, an Air Traffic Controller, upon receiving the USAir pilot's request for initial approach instructions, responded with "Allegheny flight so-and-so...." instead of "USAir flight so-and-so....". The USAir pilot radioed back "Tower, this is USAir flight so-and-so, please repeat your last instruction." ATC repeated "Allegheny flight so-and-so....". The pilot tried one more time, and the tower replied with something like "Allegheny flight so-and-so, do you have a problem?" The USAir pilot replied that the airline "Allegheny" no longer existed, and to please use the correct name "USAir". The ATC response then was to order the USAir flight to swing around and attach itself to the end of a line of planes, all heavies except for itself (a 727), effectively "punishing" the pilot (and everybody else on board) with a very rough ride, for simply insisting on the ATC using the correct call sign for the aircraft. My co-worker feels that part of the ATC's motivation was that the pilot of the USAir 727 was female (one of the early US commercial airline female pilots?). The American pilot did not cut off the audio at that point, and my co-worker also recalls some radio traffic which made it quite clear that the pilots in the heavies that had been following the USAir 727 did not approve of the ATC's actions. Does anyone have any official reports on this incident? I'd love to see that the ATC got his *ss kicked for his actions. 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 Thu Dec 16 01:50:27 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@jerry.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: I sat in a 747 cockpit through the landing! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Dec 93 01:50:27 PST Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Atlanta Customer Support Center Names, dates, specific details left out to protect the guilty... (What rules/laws did this violate anyway?) Coming home from somewhere not-in-the-USA to some major US airport recently, I was privileged to sit in the cockpit with the flight deck crew for an hour or so during the flight, and then (after the final snack was served) for the last twenty minutes or so of the flight, including the landing! The craft was an old 747-100, and the crew were very friendly and answered any questions that I could think of (including some after the fact which I mailed directly to the pilot via his electronic mail account :} ). The first thing I noticed was that, up there in the clouds, staring out through those little windows, there just isn't anything to see! (Not that I really expected so, but still...) We had the interesting experience of being radioed by a British Airways Concorde, requesting radio relay, because (as I understand it) they had lost an engine (in the sense of having had to shut it down) and therefore had gone sub-sonic and dropped altitude to around 25,000 feet, and were no longer line-of-sight with their point of origin (so they were unable to directly radio back for instructions). The craft I was on relayed for them. (A Lufthansa flight, and another Concorde - from Air France - also assisted.) I was really struck by how polite and friendly the flight crews are up there ... everything was "thank you" "you're welcome" "good day" "cheers" etc... (No sarcasm here, it was really a nice change.) I was also surprised by how little actual "flying" occurred while we were cruising - everything was done care of the autopilot (except for throttle control, which, due to a lacking on that particular model of plane, simply didn't exist). The pilot told me (later, in e-mail) that he had taken over control of the aircraft again at about 40 nautical miles from our destination airport and from there on followed a radar guided course... does this mean that another control system (ILS?) took over? Or that he simply flew according to instructions from the ATC? I noticed that the flight engineer would occasionally run through a sequence of push-buttons on his console, evidently lighting up certain aspects of the console... but I couldn't tell exactly what they were for. (They were most of the way to the right, and close to the bottom, of the flight engineer's board). Just like the Boeing book said about pilots needing training to get used to how high up the nose of that 747 is when you come in for a landing, I was totally unprepared for the main gear touching down when it did - I could have sworn that there was a bunch more distance to go down first! I didn't even feel it, actually. When the nose came down, though, things got a bit rough - I think mostly because I was sitting in a cockpit jump seat instead of a heavily padded passenger seat, and because I was right there watching the runway in front of us through the windshield... The speed was deceptive too, on landing; because I was watching indicators and seeing the runway, the visual cues (lies, actually) made it seem that the plane was not travelling at the ~150 (?) knots that it lands at, but instead seemed to be going much more slowly. Also, to take a swipe at the "so, how useful are thrust reversers" thread, on that plane on that landing, they were very useful. Though I'm sure that the pilot was applying the toe (wheel) brakes, the brake heat indicators never rose at all, and the braking effect was much greater while the thrust reversers were deployed and the throttles pulled in to the full reverse position than before or after. It was also interesting to me how many times we switched from one ATC frequency/person to another, as we got closer in/lower down/on the ground. It was almost like getting map directions once we got on the ground and were moving slowly enough to start steering on to the taxiways. (I was quite surprised to find that the ground controller asks the plane what gate they've been assigned, instead of knowing it or even assigning it, and then simply directing the plane to whatever gate the crew says they're supposed to be at). I'm sure there's lots more that I noticed, and more questions that I could ask or answer. Please mail to me or post a reply you have any thoughts or questions or whatever. I wish that you all could have been there - it was such an amazing experience! -- 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 Thu Dec 16 01:50:31 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ctillier@tucson.princeton.edu (Clemens Emmanuel Tillier) Subject: A340/Lufthansa ad Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Dec 93 01:50:31 PST Organization: Princeton University I came accross a Lufthansa ad which featured a nice shot of one of their new A340's. Upon closer inspection, I noticed that the tail number was F-WWxx, (I couldn't make out the x's- maybe WWBE) next to a small German flag. Why a French new aircraft number on a German bird? Cheers, Clem Tillier From kls Thu Dec 16 01:50:34 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A340/Lufthansa ad References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Dec 93 01:50:34 PST >Why a French new aircraft number on a German bird? Except for the A321 and soon the A319, Airbus final assembly takes place at Toulouse. The aircraft are ferried to Hamburg (site of the A321/A319 final assembly) for interior outfitting, then fly back to Toulouse for flight testing. Since Toulouse is in France, new Airbus aircraft wear French registration until they're ready for delivery. You'll similarly see decidedly Boeing and McDonnell Douglas planes for decidedly non-US carriers wearing US "N" numbers on their tails early in their life. -- 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 Dec 16 01:50:37 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: RDABADIE@CIVIL.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (Robert D'Abadie) Subject: BA-146-100 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Waterloo Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Dec 93 01:50:37 PST Is this a true STOL plane (ie can operate from 4000' runways) and how many does it seat? Does the new RJ equivalent have the same capacity for short fields? Thanks in advance! Rob ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert D'Abadie Department of Civil Engineering University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2L 3G1 RDABADIE@CIVIL.WATSTAR.UWATERLOO.CA *************************************************************************** From kls Thu Dec 16 01:50:40 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: P&W Engine Testing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Dec 93 01:50:40 PST In the 12/9/1993 Aviation Daily: ------- Included Message ------- INTELLIGENCE Pratt & Whitney has a record number of nine engine flight tests under way on powerplants ranging in thrust from 26,500 pounds for the Airbus A320 to more than 84,000 pounds for the Boeing 777. A durability improvement package for the Boeing 757 is expected to be certified by FAA this month. ------- End of Included Message ------- Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud bcstec!bcsaic!stephen.nicoud This message does not represent the views of Boeing. I am not a Boeing spokesperson. I reserve the right to revise, extend and/or revoke my remarks. From kls Thu Dec 16 01:50:43 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: FAA To Require Modification Of 747s With JT9D Engines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Dec 93 01:50:43 PST In the 12/10/1993 Aviation Daily: ------- Included Message ------- FAA To Require Modification Of 747s With JT9D Engines FAA plans to require modification of the thrust reverser control system on Boeing 747s powered by Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines. The modification involves installing a solenoid-operated shutoff valve to prevent deployment of the engine fan thrust reverser during flight, which can reduce the controllability of the aircraft, FAA said. The agency said there have been "numerous incidents of inadvertent in-flight deployment" of the engine fan thrust reverser on aircraft with the JT9D engines. FAA estimated that it will cost $16,000 to modify the engines. The cost for the 126 U.S.-registry aircraft that are affected - out of 223 worldwide - will be just over $2 million, the agency said. FAA allowed that the modification will "require a large number of work hours to accomplish," but it said the proposed 24-month compliance period should make it possible to do the work during scheduled major inspection and maintenance. ------- End of Included Message ------- Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud bcstec!bcsaic!stephen.nicoud This message does not represent the views of Boeing. I am not a Boeing spokesperson. I reserve the right to revise, extend and/or revoke my remarks. From kls Thu Dec 16 01:50:45 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: FI: DAL flying 727-200s w/ Valsan developed winglets Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Dec 93 01:50:45 PST ------- Included Message ------- Delta Air Lines is flying two 727-200s with Valsan developed winglets. The list price is $550,000 per aircraft with each winglet weighing 45 kg (99 lb). The fuel consumption savings depends on time spent at cruise. Valsan estimates savings of 4% for short haul operations and up to 7-8% for an executive aircraft on a 7-8 hour flight. (Flight International, December 1-7, 1993) ------- Included Message ------- Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud bcstec!bcsaic!stephen.nicoud This message does not represent the views of Boeing. I am not a Boeing spokesperson. I reserve the right to revise, extend and/or revoke my remarks. From kls Fri Dec 17 01:52:50 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mmr47784@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Rogers ) Subject: Re: Continental 727 nearly belly-flops at O'Hare References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 93 01:52:50 PST Marty Masters writes: (Details deleted throughout) >At ORD on last monday, a Continental flight from Texas came within a >few feet of landing on runway 27 Left without using it's landing gear. >According to a Chicago Tribune and the NTSB: >A LONG FINAL APPROACH IN HEAVY TRAFFIC: >The jet's final approach was 18-20 miles, longer than usual. >Thje TCAS was sounding alarms, indicating other traffic in the area. >The crew delayed putting the landing gear down to avoid slowing the >airplane too much. >1,500 feet: The plane brakes thru the clouds >1,000 feet: The TCAS sounds an alert, but no other plane is visible. > 500 feet: A ground proximity alarm went off. This alarm can go off >for any one of five reasons; The crew must determine the cause. The >crew, distracted by the alarms, fail to follow the landing checklist. Normal airline procedure is to respond to the GPWS, THEN determine what caused it. The five reasons, and the radio altitudes they occur at are: Altitude Reason <2450 Excessive Barometric Descent Rate <1800 Excessive Terrain Closure <500 Gear Handle not Down <200 Landing Flaps not Selected (The fifth reason would be after a go around, and less than 700 feet, when a descent of 10% of altitude occurs) >Fifty feet: The ground proximity alarm stopped. The GPWS will only sound warnings between 50 and 2450 ft (RA) >the three green landing gear lights were not lit, as the ATC >instructed them to abort the landing and circle around. As the >Captain applied full throttle to get the plane back into the air, the >rear third of the fuselage scraped the runway. >The article also adds: The flaps were extended to 25 degrees to cut >the airplane's speed. >From what I have read, this was one of the flight crews big mistakes- The flaps were left at 25 to keep the speed UP. Flaps 25 is not a legal landing flaps setting in the 727- that's why they didn't get a horn. If they had extended the flaps to 30 (a legal setting), they would have heard an unsilencable horn as the flaps passed through something like 27.5 degrees. In any event, the crew was violating regs if they were trying to land with Flaps 25. >made to avoid further aerodynamic drag on the 727. Because the flaps >were never extended to 27.5 degrees, a warning system designed to >prevent landing when the wheels are up did not activate. According to >Continental procedures: "a descent is permitted to continue after a >ground proximity warning is issued, as long as it is daytime and >visibility is clear." I suspect that Continental procedure also says something about ensuring that the airplane is properly configured, as a good part of the GPWS warnings come from incorrect configuration. From what I've seen, at least United stresses to always follow a GPWS warning. My experience is pretty limited: I'm currently a CFI at U of Illinois, and I worked as an Intern for United this past summer in Miami. As part of the Internship, I went through United's 727 Groundschool in Denver, and have about 20 or so hours in United's 727 sims. My father is a 727 Captain for United in Chicago, and I've talked with him about this incident. I also have ridden in the jumpseats of numerous 727s. I think there is at least one United Pilot who reads this group (San Fran based?)- I would be interested to hear what you think about the incident, training, etc. >There is more in the article about how the TCAS causes confusion in >the crowded O'Hare airspace ... I think TCAS is getting a bad rap in this case. From riding on jumpseats, I have seen that getting TCAS Traffic Advisories in Terminal areas is not at all uncommon. If this really was a "seasoned crew", they should not at all have been overly distracted by the TCAS calls. In any event, they were setting themselves up for the situation by landing with an illegal flaps setting, and disregarding the GPWS. -Mark These are all just my opinions- I don't even have an employer to have opinions for! (see the same discussion on rec.aviation.misc) :) >...Marty mgm@royko.chicago.com >Chicago Il... The city where the rivers leak and the bridges fall up. From kls Fri Dec 17 01:52:51 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Howie Subject: Air Canada Purchases Airbus A340s Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 93 01:52:51 PST I saw a snippet of news yesterday indicating that Air Canada had placed orders for 6 Airbus A340s. Delivery to commence in 1996. Anyone have more details on this? Scotty From kls Fri Dec 17 01:52:53 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wangermn@flagstaff.princeton.edu (John Paul Wangermann) Subject: Re: A340/Lufthansa ad References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Princeton University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 93 01:52:53 PST In article , Clemens Emmanuel Tillier wrote: >I came accross a Lufthansa ad which featured a nice shot of one of >their new A340's. Upon closer inspection, I noticed that the tail >number was F-WWxx, (I couldn't make out the x's- maybe WWBE) next to a >small German flag. > >Why a French new aircraft number on a German bird? > >Cheers, >Clem Tillier > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=--=-=- Because all aircraft built in France (including the A340) have to be registered in France up to the point of handover to the customer (I think). So ALL aircraft produced by Airbus originally this type of registration. The registration I guess stays one for pre-delivery test flights and possibly the delivery flight too. Also, at least one of the aircraft involved in A340 certification testing flew in Lufthansa colours, which may be when the photo in question was taken. John Wangermann wangermn@phoenix.princeton.edu From kls Fri Dec 17 01:52:55 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: peter@licancabur.corp.sun.com (Peter Zadrozny - CS Manager, Sun de Mexico) Subject: Re: A340/Lufthansa ad References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: peter@licancabur.corp.sun.com Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 93 01:52:55 PST > Why a French new aircraft number on a German bird? The first thing that comes to mind is that the owner of the airplane could be a french company leasing it to Lufthansa. This is quite normal here in Mexico where about half of the MD-8?s of Aeromexico have an N number since the owner is a US company leasing it to the local airline. Saludos, Peter From kls Fri Dec 17 01:52:57 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Nicolas Ercan Murat Subject: Re: I sat in a 747 cockpit through the landing! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 93 01:52:57 PST To my knowledge, there's nothing wrong with being on the flight deck of a non-american airline. I've personally been on KLM and Air France 747s while in flight with absolutely no problem. I believe US airlines cannot let any passengers in while in flight. Once on the ground, they do not oject. Nick Murat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vis@leland.stanford.edu One of the scarce Airbus Supporters this side of the Atlantic. From kls Fri Dec 17 01:52:58 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: I sat in a 747 cockpit through the landing! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 93 01:52:58 PST In article , libove@jerry.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) writes: |> Names, dates, specific details left out to protect the guilty... |> (What rules/laws did this violate anyway?) |> |> The speed was deceptive too, on landing; because I was |> watching indicators and seeing the runway, the visual |> cues (lies, actually) made it seem that the plane was not |> travelling at the ~150 (?) knots that it lands at, but |> instead seemed to be going much more slowly. It's the size of the thing. I've also read that pilots upgrading to the 747 have to be warned about taxiing too fast. RNA From kls Fri Dec 17 01:52:59 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jherries@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James P Herries) Subject: Re: I sat in a 747 cockpit through the landing! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 93 01:52:59 PST I had occasion to sit in the right-hand seat of an MD-11 simulator about a year or so ago and was amazed at the stopping distance we achieved with hard braking and reverse thrust. With full motion on, I was thankful for being belted in as we touched down at LAX 7R and commenced the quickest stop I'd ever like to achieve in a plane that size. The only thing missing from the simulation was the sounds of food trays flying and 3-400 screaming passengers (or was this a cargo version?) I left that simulator with a hell of a lot more respect for what those pilots can do... Jim Herries herries.1@osu.edu (add your clever .sig idea here) From kls Fri Dec 17 01:53:02 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: peter@licancabur.corp.sun.com (Peter Zadrozny - CS Manager, Sun de Mexico) Subject: Re: I sat in a 747 cockpit through the landing! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: peter@licancabur.corp.sun.com Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 93 01:53:02 PST I anyone of you has an opportunity to travel here in Mexico with any of the local airlines, ask the pilot when boarding to travel in the cockpit. I travel quite extensively and only twice have been denied such pleasure. Most of the times the stewardess calls me when we are leveled and I remain in the cockpit until we park on the gate. Sometimes they will let me get in while we are taxiing to the runway. Pretty cool! I have been able to get in DC-9s MD-8?s and 767 from Aeromexico, and 727s and Fokker 100s from Mexicana. Saludos, Peter From kls Fri Dec 17 01:53:05 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sunilp@mailroom.itu.kodak.com (Sunil Prajapati) Subject: Reverse Thrust. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sprajapa@cs.uml.edu Reply-To: news Organization: Eastman Kodak Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 93 01:53:05 PST Hi Guys, I saw one AMR's 727 at Rochester airport pushing it self in reverse direction just by its own engines. (Pushing back from Jetway without the help of truck), I was quite surprised, is it quite usual for 727s and other planes to push it self back using reverse thrust of its engines ? - Sunil -- ======================================================================= Sunil Prajapati. System Programmer. db Concepts, Inc. (716) 726-7061 $HOME : 7, Silver Dr. Apt. 24, Nashua, NH 03060. (603) 891-3585. Miles to go before I sleep... [H -> He + 24Mev] [These are my Opinions] From kls Fri Dec 17 01:53:06 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Reverse Thrust. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 93 01:53:06 PST >I saw one AMR's 727 at Rochester airport pushing it self in reverse >direction just by its own engines. This has been discussed on the net in the past, maybe here, maybe in rec.travel.air or one of the rec.aviation.* groups. The bottom line is that yes, some jets are capable of pushing themselves back, but the practice doesn't seem to be all that common. I recall mention of both American and Southwest doing this, with American most frequently doing it with MD-80s. -- 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 Dec 17 01:53:07 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: RMAP@delphi.com Subject: 737 pushouts? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi Internet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 93 01:53:07 PST Any opinions on how many current 737 firm/option orders will get pushed out & converted to 737X's? '95 is starting to look like a black hole. MIKE From kls Fri Dec 17 01:53:08 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: 898peiris@gw.wmich.edu Subject: >>>> CONCORD, A2000 ???? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Western Michigan University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 93 01:53:08 PST WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CONCORD? Are they still manufactured? WHATS THE LATEST NEWS ON THE AIRBUS A2000? ( PROPOSED 2 STORY AIRPLANE) From kls Fri Dec 17 01:53:09 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: >>>> CONCORD, A2000 ???? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 93 01:53:09 PST >WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CONCORD? No need to scream! Of the twenty Concordes (note the 'e') built, six are in museums or stored, while the remaining fourteen are equally split between Air France and British Airways. The last one built first flew in 1979. >WHATS THE LATEST NEWS ON THE AIRBUS A2000? ( PROPOSED 2 STORY AIRPLANE) Last month, AW&ST had a short article entitled "Airbus Pursues 600- Seat A3XX." This seems to be the Airbus Industrie response to the "defection" of all its largest members to Boeing's VLCT (Very Large Commercial Transport) talks, essentially the Boeing version of the A2000 proposal. From the article: The separate Airbus Industrie concept, code-named A3XX, is a 600-seat transport. "It is an Airbus [aircraft], not competing, not interfering with the VLCT project," Bernard Ziegler, Airbus Industrie senior vice president, engineering and flight, said. "We are considering a 500-600-seat transport, with a 5,000-7,000- naut.-mi. maximum range, while the VLCT concept calls for a 600- 800-seat ultrahigh-capacity transport offering a 7,000-10,000- naut.-mi.-maximum range," Airbus officials added. The article includes a drawing, which depicts a somewhat flattened- looking fuselage, like they took a normal near-circular cross-section, cut it into left and right halves, and stuck in a flat roof and belly piece to make it wider. There are two vertical tails, one where the "flat roof piece" meets each side. The caption mentions 16-19-seat abreast in economy -- a 747 is only 10! If the VLCT is built, I find it hard to believe this aircraft could also be built -- it's not all *that* much bigger than a 747-400 and thus would be stuck between the 747 and VLCT, which seems to me like a remarkably small niche. If both were indeed built, it couldn't help but compete with the VLCT, Ziegler's comments notwithstanding, and with the relatively small market would almost surely set up another lose-lose situation like the DC-10 vs. L-1011. -- 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 Dec 17 01:53:12 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: FAA Federal Register Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 93 01:53:12 PST ------- Included Message ------- In Federal Register dated Dec. 3... Proposed special conditions on General Electric GE90 engines... In FR dated Dec. 6... Issued an airworthiness directive on Airbus A300-600 aircraft requiring inspections for cracks in the center spar sealing angles... Issued an AD on Douglas DC-9 and MD-80 aircraft requiring inspection of certain nose wheel assem-blies... Proposed an AD on Boeing 737-300 aircraft to require replacing the forward and aft hinge shims of the main cargo door... Proposed an AD on Jetstream ATP aircraft to require modifying the wiring for the electric-powered disconnect unit for the elevator control system... Proposed an AD on certain Airbus A300, A300-600 and A310 aircraft to require inspection for cracks in the lower spar axis of the pylon... In FR dated Dec. 7... Proposed an AD on certain Boeing 747 series aircraft powered by Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines to require modifying the thrust reverser control system... In FR dated Dec. 8... Issued an AD on certain Corporate Jets 125 series aircraft requiring deactivation of the auxiliary power unit... In FR dated Dec. 9... Proposed special conditions for the Saab 2000... Proposed revising an AD on certain Garrett TFE731 series engines concerning a clamp assembly to support the fuel line... Proposed an AD on certain Boeing 747 aircraft to require replacing certain pneumatic duct couplings... Proposed an AD on certain Douglas MD-11 aircraft to require modification of the fuel crossfeed low-level dump system shutoff. ------- End of Included Message ------- Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud bcstec!bcsaic!stephen.nicoud This message does not represent the views of Boeing. I am not a Boeing spokesperson. I reserve the right to revise, extend and/or revoke my remarks. From kls Mon Dec 20 08:31:33 1993 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Reindeer on TCAS Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 93 08:31:33 PST Organization: Chicago Software Works Alex (my Golden Retriever) and I are going to be climbing into one of United's 747s for a flight to Chicago in a couple of hours, so sci.aeronautics.airliners will be on Christmas vacation until the 27th. (Actually, I may dial in and send out a few messages that are backlogged, but don't count on it.) I hope you and all your families have safe and happy holidays! -- 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