From kls Tue Jan 4 22:52:20 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera) Subject: Unducted fans? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Jan 94 22:52:20 PST Organization: Honest Ernie's Used Ions Watching an MD-Eightysomething taxi by made me wonder: what happened to unducted fans? For a while there in the early 80s, it looked (to this layman) as though they were just a bit of R&D and one good marketing push away from taking over the world, or at least the part of the world whose engine nacelles are far enough off the ground. I seem to recall that somebody even bolted a prototype onto one side of a DC-9 and flew it around. But it never clicked. What gives? Thanks, Joe "Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley" From kls Tue Jan 4 22:52:21 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Unducted fans? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Jan 94 22:52:21 PST >what happened to unducted fans? The biggest appeal to the UDF was fuel economy. When fuel prices retreated a bit, so did the appeal of the UDF. Compounding this was the risk/cost of the new technology, noise and vibation problems, and potential image problems of what some might view as a "prop" plane. Delta's MD-90 launch order actually included the option to convert some of the orders to a UDF version, but everyone else lost interest. >I seem to recall that somebody even bolted a prototype onto one side >of a DC-9 and flew it around. The prototype MD-80, actually. I once saw it at Mojave, with an extra-long pylon but no #1 engine at that point. Boeing did the same thing with a 727. Seems to me the MD-80 had a GE engine while the 727 had a Pratt, but I wouldn't bet on it. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Tue Jan 4 22:52:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Continental 727 nearly belly-flops at O'Hare References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Jan 94 22:52:23 PST In article mmr47784@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Rogers ) writes: >Normal airline procedure is to respond to the GPWS, THEN determine what >caused it. I've never heard of this as a procedure. The only system which really requires "blind faith" responses (courtesy FAA/company policies) is TCAS. GPWS is notoriously unreliable, and warnings can be rather vague (whoop whoop pull up for four of the five modes, in older systems). Therefore, the normal response to this *caution* is to reconcile the warning with one's situational awareness. In this case, the crew was in visual contact with the runway when they got the GPWS warnings. It is not clear whether they were using an old system or a new(er) system. I'd probably have ignored the GPWS too, if I was obviously on glide slope and had the runway in sight. Three sets of eyes ignoring three bright green lights on the gear indicator is a bit harder to rationalize. :-) Warning or not, what happened was *not* a consequence of GPWS being disabled or ignored, but rather the broader airmanship issues of the approach. >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) A Sundstrand implementation I'm familiar with, and which is installed in at least the 737, 747, and some 727s, is merely classified by the category of the warning. Each category generally has an envelope which is defined by at least two slope curves, and two of the categories have two engage thresholds, depending upon configuration. The actual warning depend upon which part of the curve one is in (i.e., faster whoop-whoops when you're in greater peril). >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. I am not convinced of that. The 727 is certified for flaps-up landings, even though there are no charts for that as part of normal ops manuals: the only thing missing at flaps 25 is that they wouldn't have the performance info (well, maybe--it might be in a PDCS, if installed). Let's classify this as a "gray area." Perhaps the crew felt they could safely land the airplane on the 10000' dry runway available to them. Given the ATC constraints, FAR 91.3! --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Tue Jan 4 22:52:27 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: I sat in a 747 cockpit through the landing! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Jan 94 22:52:27 PST In article Nicolas Ercan Murat writes: >To my knowledge, there's nothing wrong with being on the flight deck of >a non-american airline. This is not a hard and fast rule. While it is true that the United States prohibits all non-authorized access to the cockpit of a carrier operating under FAR 121 after the doors close, other countries do, too. More, though, leave it up to captain's discretion. Many of those airlines, however, attempt to balance a general security policy with that discretion, so some airlines which previously allowed it are being a bit more hard-nosed (depending on the political climate). In any case, passengers certainly have no *right* to cockpit access. The crew is there to fly the airplane, not entertain guests. >vis@leland.stanford.edu > >One of the scarce Airbus Supporters this side of the Atlantic. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Tue Jan 4 22:52:28 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Clive D.W. Feather" Subject: Re: A340/Lufthansa ad References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Jan 94 22:52:28 PST > 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. And I can remember seeing a Delta plane with the name "Spirit of America" or the like on it, and an EI-xxx registration. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Santa Cruz Operation | If you lie to the compiler, clive@sco.com | Croxley Centre | it will get its revenge. Phone: +44 923 816 344 | Hatters Lane, Watford | - Henry Spencer Fax: +44 923 817 688 | WD1 8YN, United Kingdom | From kls Tue Jan 4 22:52:29 1994 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: 04 Jan 94 22:52:29 PST >And I can remember seeing a Delta plane with the name "Spirit of >America" or the like on it, and an EI-xxx registration. EI-xxx registrations are common because of GPA and I believe some other leasing companies. But I'd be really surprised if the same Delta plane wearing the "Spirit of " name also wore an Irish registration -- this almost surely was N102DA, Delta's second 767. This aircraft was purchased by Delta's employees by virtue of various (voluntary?) cutbacks in pay. As such it certainly isn't leased from GPA! The only other named Delta planes I could find were all ex-Western: a 727-247 named City of Boston (N2823W) and Western's first three 737-437s, respectively Larry Lee (N3301), Wally Bird (N302WA), and Salt Lake City (N303WA). I also found two planes with EI-xxx registrations, albeit unnamed. They're both 737-2T4 Advanceds leased from GPA. -- 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 Jan 4 22:52:30 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: oneel@athena.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bruce O'Neel) Subject: Re: Reverse Thrust. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- InterNetNews site Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Jan 94 22:52:30 PST kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>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. One thing mentioned was that there was a greater potential for Foreign Object Damage in these cases. This would imply that a tail engined plane would be a better choice. bruce -- The great Nyquist lie. 2x is not enough, it just make reconstruction very very difficult but not impossible. From kls Tue Jan 4 22:52:31 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tilman@netcom.com (Tilman Spokert) Subject: Re: Reverse Thrust. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Jan 94 22:52:31 PST In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>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. It seems to be the standard operating practice for American in Dallas-Fort Worth with MD-80s. Last time I changed planes there, the MD-80 I was in did this, as well as the MD-80's to the left and right. On the other hand, I read in a Lufthansa "Bordbuch" (the magazine you find in the seatpocket), that, yes it is possible with some airplaens, but it is considered "bad style" or "bad manners". They cite environmental reasons, like noise, exhausts, etc. Actually, Lufthansa is moving the other way - they introduced an advanced "tractor" for their wide bodies that is shaped a little bit like a U (no axle between the back wheels, opening instead). It takes the front landing gear in its middle, and actually lifts it off the ground (you can actually feel it if you sit towards the front of a 747), and then takes it away. This has the advantage that they can move planes around without somebody being in the cockpit, because with this setup the tractor can stop the plane safely. They were also experimenting (also I have not seen it used yet) driving the plane all the way to the takeoff point with this tractor. The plane's engines would not get started until it reaches the takeoff area. -- Tilman Sporkert tilman@netcom.com From kls Tue Jan 4 22:52:32 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hardis@garnet.nist.gov (Jonathan E. Hardis) Subject: Re: SAA crash in the Indian Ocean References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: National Institute of Standards & Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Jan 94 22:52:32 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. A couple of summers ago, I was on such an Alaska Airlines flight (from Anchorage to Juneau, contininuing down the coast). Just to add what has already been said, there *is* a passageway that the crew can use to walk between the cockpit and the passenger section. It didn't seem too strange, except that the passengers were a special case of cargo. The seats were on pallets which could be added or removed to change the proportions, as required. From kls Tue Jan 4 22:52:34 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@jerry.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Ground Speed of 747 (size/reminders to keep it slow) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Atlanta Customer Support Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Jan 94 22:52:34 PST In article rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Date: 17 Dec 93 01:52:58 PST In article , libove@jerry.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) writes: |> 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. Now that you mention it, once we were on the ground and taxiing, the flight engineer repeatedly called out the ground speed, even when we were in the middle of a taxiway with hundreds of feet of nothing in front of us. The captain kept the 747 rolling at a maximum ground speed of 4 knots, slowing to 2 about 200 feet out from the gate, and then to 1 as we got to maybe 50 feet away. -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@alf.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation decwrl!alf.dec.com!libove Atlanta Customer Support Center Opinions? They're mine, mine, all mine! Alpharetta, Georgia and D.E.C. Can't have 'em! From kls Tue Jan 4 22:52:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@tom.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Diff between Air Force 1 and "basic" 747 ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Atlanta Customer Support Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Jan 94 22:52:35 PST So, what are the differences between the "basic" 747 and the two special 747's known as "Air Force 1" for the US government? Presumably the avionics are substantially upgraded, as are the communications equipment on the craft... I also guess that the Air Force 1 planes are the longest possible range 747 produced, possibly even hung with extra fuel tanks, and that they're mid-air refuel'able. -Jay -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@alf.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation decwrl!alf.dec.com!libove Atlanta Customer Support Center Opinions? They're mine, mine, all mine! Alpharetta, Georgia and D.E.C. Can't have 'em! From kls Tue Jan 4 22:52:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Diff between Air Force 1 and "basic" 747 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Jan 94 22:52:36 PST >Presumably the avionics are substantially upgraded, >as are the communications equipment on the craft... Yes, lots and lots of extra electronics. I recall something about all of it when they were being built, either 100 miles of wiring or 100 times as much wiring as on a normal 747. The interior is also somewhat plusher than what you'll find in the usual commerical sardine can! :-) >I also guess that the Air Force 1 planes are the >longest possible range 747 produced, possibly even >hung with extra fuel tanks, and that they're mid-air >refuel'able. Each is a VC-25A, otherwise known as a 747-2G4B, which at 833,000 MGTOW are heavy -200B models, but no more so than late commercial versions. Both the 747SP and 747-400 (the first of which entered service nearly a year before delivery of the first presidential 747 due to the extensive AF1 modifications) have a longer range than a 747-200B. On the other hand, AF1 probably doesn't have all that much cargo and certainly doesn't have a full passenger load for a 747, so they can dispatch with a full load of fuel if they want without worrying too much about the weights. I'm not sure if they're equipped for mid-air refueling, though they might be as the airborne command post 747s (E6s?) are. In any case I doubt they'd let another plane, certainly not a tanker, close enough if the president was aboard. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Jan 6 01:53:57 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ckd@kei.com (Christopher Davis) Subject: Re: Unducted fans? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: House of the Jhereg Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jan 94 01:53:57 PST KS> == Karl Swartz KS> I once saw [the prototype MD-80] at Mojave, with an extra-long pylon KS> but no #1 engine at that point. Boeing did the same thing with a KS> 727. Seems to me the MD-80 had a GE engine while the 727 had a KS> Pratt, but I wouldn't bet on it. My recollection was that the 727 was testing the GE UDF (big, blatant GE stickers all over the nacelle), which would imply that the MD-80 was testing the Pratt & Whitney unducted fan. Note that the 727-100 in question was later used in the movie "Hero" as the airplane at the crash scene (yes, it's been broken up). (This was in "Airliners" magazine a few issues back.) -- * Christopher Davis * * (was ) * MIME * [CKD1] * "It's 106 ms to Chicago, we've got a full disk of GIFs, half a meg of hypertext, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Click it." From kls Thu Jan 6 01:54:00 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: h andrew chuang Subject: Re:Unducted fans? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jan 94 01:54:00 PST Karl Swartz wrote: | >what happened to unducted fans? | | The biggest appeal to the UDF was fuel economy. When fuel prices | retreated a bit, so did the appeal of the UDF. Compounding this | was the risk/cost of the new technology, noise and vibation problems, | and potential image problems of what some might view as a "prop" | plane. Just to clear up some terminologies. UDF is a registered trademark of GE. The engine, GE36, had the counter-rotating fans. (Coincidentally, in Cincinnati, where the GE Aircraft Engines headquarters is, there is a chain of convenient stores called UDF---United Dairy Farmers. I wonder if the store name inspired GE's naming scheme! :-) If I remember correctly, Pratt's counterpart was a single-stage, gear-driven propfans that did not really had a special name like the UDF. Garrett was a partner and its main function was designing the gearbox. Pratt's current Advanced Ducted Prop (ADP) also uses gear-driven fans. Pratt is currently working on an ADP application for the growth A340. Few years back, Lufthansa was very disappointed when Airbus decided not to offer the A340 with a proposed UHB (ultra high by-pass) V2500. | Delta's MD-90 launch order actually included the option to convert | some of the orders to a UDF version, but everyone else lost interest. Correct me if I'm wrong. Both GE and Pratt practically halted their propfan efforts after the cancellation of the 150-seat B7J7 program. I seem to remember that the current V2500-powered MD-90 was launched after the B7J7 cancellation. Therefore, I seriously doubt that Delta's order included options for a UDF version. It was proposed to put the UDF on the MD twins, but I don't recall an actual offer of MD90/UDF to any customers. | >I seem to recall that somebody even bolted a prototype onto one side | >of a DC-9 and flew it around. | | The prototype MD-80, actually. I once saw it at Mojave, with an | extra-long pylon but no #1 engine at that point. Boeing did the | same thing with a 727. Seems to me the MD-80 had a GE engine while | the 727 had a Pratt, but I wouldn't bet on it. I believe Karl is right. From kls Thu Jan 6 01:54:01 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re:Unducted fans? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jan 94 01:54:01 PST >Just to clear up some terminologies. UDF is a registered trademark of GE. I stand corrected. >Pratt's counterpart ... did not really had a special name I came upon photos of both testbed aircraft in the February, 1990 Airliners Monthly News. The MD-80, which had the Pratt engine, is simply lettered MD-UHB DEMO. >Correct me if I'm wrong. Both GE and Pratt practically halted their >propfan efforts after the cancellation of the 150-seat B7J7 program. That much rings true. However ... >Therefore, I seriously doubt that Delta's order included options for >a UDF version. It was proposed to put the UDF on the MD twins, but I >don't recall an actual offer of MD90/UDF to any customers. Since the Delta launch order for the MD-90 came in November, 1989, after the two UDF/UHB/whatever testbeds had been parked at Mojave, I suspect you may be right. But I'm certain that Delta did have an agreement regarding such engines on one of their orders. If not the MD-90, it must have been the MD-88s. I believe it was not an actual offer by MacDAC, but rather an option to convert some of the orders or options *if* a propfan offering developed, much as Boeing included coversion rights on many 737 orders over the past few years, well before the 737-X became a certainty. If anyone can come up with a concrete reference to this I'd be quite grateful. >| Seems to me the MD-80 had a GE engine while >| the 727 had a Pratt, but I wouldn't bet on it. >I believe Karl is right. Looks like we both blew this one -- as several others have observed, and the photographic evidence at least partly confirms, the GE engine was on the 727 while the Pratt was on the MD-80. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Jan 6 01:54:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Albert_T_BOZZO@umail.umd.edu (ab79) Subject: Re: UDFs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jan 94 01:54:02 PST Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.chicago.com) wrote: >Seems to me the MD-80 had a GE engine while the 727 had a Pratt The GE36 first flew on the 727 in August, 1986 (AW&ST, 8 Sept 1986). I don't think the PW-Allison 578-DX flew on the 727; it was installed on the MD-80 demonstrator in late '87 or early '88, though. As a historical note, the GE36 was specified for the late Boeing 7J7 and Airbus offered the IAE V2500 "SuperFan" (V2500 core + variable-pitch ducted fan) for the A340 before technical problems in the early development stage led to cancellation of the engine. later, Tom ab79@umail.umd.edu From kls Thu Jan 6 01:54:06 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis Jambon) Subject: A320 Crash Report (Mont Saint Odile) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IMAG, Grenoble, France Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jan 94 01:54:06 PST The Official Administrative Report about the accident of the Airbus A320 F-GGED on the Mont saint Odile (usually but wrongly called Strasbourg crash) has been published. According to the French Radio (France Inter) there are three main causes for the crash : 1 - Human error : Wrong Descent Mode used. 2 - Human error : Wrong Estimated Situation (too close to the runway). 3 - Technical problem : Wrong value read by the auto-pilot. The long report (330 pages) also give a large amound of recommandations to improve the ATC procedures, the pilots training, and the plane. I do not have read the report myself so this is just general information from the radio. -- Francis JAMBON - E-mail: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr __|__ Interfaces Homme-Machine / Human-Computer Interaction *---o--(_)--o---* Tel./Phone: (+33) 76 51 48 54 - Fax: (+33) 76 44 66 75 ! ! ! Laboratoire de Genie Informatique, B206, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France From kls Thu Jan 6 01:54:07 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: andrewsa@comm.mot.com (Andrew Sapuntzakis) Subject: Re: Diff between Air Force 1 and "basic" 747 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Motorola Land Mobile Products Sector Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jan 94 01:54:07 PST I thought that the Air Force 1 had extensive EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) protection as well. Essentially the inside and outside of the plane are _completely_ isolated from each other - it's a large flying Faraday cage, with provisions for connecting antennas - this was a MAJOR expense, I believe. CU Andrew andrewsa@ecs.comm.mot.com From kls Thu Jan 6 01:54:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bleedea@cwis.unomaha.edu (Dean M. Bleess) Subject: Re: Diff between Air Force 1 and "basic" 747 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jan 94 01:54:08 PST 747 (NEACP) -say knee-cap is an E-4 (Currently 'B' mod) with one of the ACCS (Airborne Command and Control Sqdns) at Offutt AFB here in Bellevue, NE (Near Omaha) It is a modified 747-200B's (NEACP is the Nat'l Emergency Airborne Command Post) and is supposed to be the Joint Chiefs of Staff and National Command Authority flying command post. That is- in times of a nuclear battle this aircraft is to be the place from which the orders for a retaliation may be given. There is a set of LF/VLF (Very low freq.) trailing wire antenna strands which ay be trailed behind the aircraft in flight which are used to communicate with SSBN's. The longest is listed as 5 miles (8km) in length. (No typo) there is also a faired in SHF small dish satellite antenna. The aircraft is also outfitted for secure datalinks, jam resistant communication, and is capable of tying into commercial television and radio networks and could therefore potentially be used for broadcast to the general population. The aircraft itself and many of its communication systems have been shielded against nuclear effects (EMP, etc.) and this aircraft IS air-refuelable. (Nose just fwd of the cockpit windshield. - 13 External Communication systems on 46 Antennae using a 1,200kVA electrical power system. - Mission endurance 72hrs. - Unrefuelled endurance 12+hrs. E-6 is the Navy TACAMO (Boeing 707 or 720 based) SSBN communications aircraft. With the creation of STRATCOM, Offutt may be getting some. -DMB SHAS Parts (OMA) From kls Thu Jan 6 01:54:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mikeg@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.com (Mike Galat) Subject: Reverse Thrust References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jan 94 01:54:09 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. I first encountered this, if memory serves me, flying aboard Eastern DC9's. It seems to me that they could do this only at certain airports, but I believe the practice is more common than eluded to. I now live near Minneapolis/St. Paul airport (MSP), and own a scanner. Very often I hear pilots requesting clearance to 'Powerback'. I figure it must save some money for the airline, since they don't have to pay someone to drive the tug. It also seems to be a faster way to clear out of a gate, no need to wait for the tug to be unhooked, just nugde the reversers out of reverse, and give it some thrust! On the downside, I don't know if there are problems with engine wear, due to stuff being thrown up from the tarmac, and being sucked into the engines. Mike From kls Thu Jan 6 01:54:11 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Subject: Old Piston Engined Planes 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: 06 Jan 94 01:54:11 PST I've been a controller in Cleveland for many (24) years and enjoy working the older aircraft that fly thru our airspace. In the last couple years I've noticed a decline in their numbers and am curious as to why? I've seen a few DC-6's, one DC-4, one L-1049, and the usual number of DC-3's (lots of them carry freight in the U.S, mostly at night). I've not seen a DC7 in perhaps 15 years. Anyone know what happened to them? And the older jets are gone also...maybe flying in other countries or sitting in the desert somewhere. The noise regs. we have are responsible for the missing jets, but what about the prop jobs? -- "Clinton will be a one term President".......Rush Limbaugh From kls Fri Jan 7 02:44:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Prop Fans Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 94 02:44:43 PST I can't believe it, but you are all wrong - the 727 flew only with the GE36, while the MD-80 flew with BOTH the GE36 and the Pratt & Whitney/Allison/Hamilton Standard engine. Gee, all my heros prove to be mortal! Additionally, there were really two different MD90s. The original one was a UDF powered aircraft that never was launched. The one we see today is a simpler aircraft with V2500s. The current aircraft has no provision for retrofitting with UDFs. Where the UDF/Prop Fan action is today is in Russia (and Ukraine) where Prop Fans have flown on an Il-76 and a Yak-42 (as testbeds). The AN-70T is supposed to fly very soon in Ukraine. This aircraft is outfitted with four Prop Fan engines. I should note that yes, UDF is a registered name of GE's while Prop Fan is (was) used to denote the develpments of Hamilton Standard. Incidentally, Hamilton Standard holds the patent on the basic concept. -Dave Lednicer ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Fri Jan 7 02:44:45 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nordstrom@meediv.lanl.gov (Carl Nordstrom) Subject: Re: Unducted fans? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Electrochemical Engine Project Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 94 02:44:45 PST In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > >what happened to unducted fans? ... > >I seem to recall that somebody even bolted a prototype onto one side > >of a DC-9 and flew it around. > > The prototype MD-80, actually. I once saw it at Mojave, with an > extra-long pylon but no #1 engine at that point. Boeing did the > same thing with a 727. Seems to me the MD-80 had a GE engine while > the 727 had a Pratt, but I wouldn't bet on it. > There were in fact two "competitors" during this time - GE and Pratt & Whitney/Allison Gas Turbines. There were significant differences between the two approaches. Both engines had counter-rotating highly swept blades (to reduce noise and increase prop efficiency at the high rotational speeds). The P&W/A approach was to arrange the powerplant (front to back) inlet, engine, gearbox, prop. This approach was traditional, and turned out to be very trouble-free (no vibration or performance restriction problems that were noteworthy). I think the set-up flew up to .7 Mach, a typical cruise speed for a passenger jet. The GE approach was to attach the prop rows (2) directly to the LP turbine section of the engine, with one row attached to the turbine blades and the other row to the turbine vanes. The advantage of this approach was simplicity. I think (please correct me if I am wrong) that the weight was a wash with the PW/A approach because of the structure required to support the blades. The efficiency was also not quite as good, since the blades turned faster than optimum, and the LP turbine turned slower than optimum (fixed 1:1 speed ratio). GE had some developmental problems with vibration, I'm relatively sure due to the large rotating structures which may have had dynamic AND aerodynamic problems. Their design was much more gutsy (and advanced), and potentially could be superior in some important ways with a lot of development. Carl Nordstrom From kls Fri Jan 7 02:44:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: neh3568@aw101.iasl.ca.boeing.com (Nickolas E. Hein) Subject: Re: Unducted fans? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: none Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 94 02:44:48 PST In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > >what happened to unducted fans? > > The biggest appeal to the UDF was fuel economy. When fuel prices > retreated a bit, so did the appeal of the UDF. Compounding this > was the risk/cost of the new technology, noise and vibation problems, > and potential image problems of what some might view as a "prop" > plane. > > Delta's MD-90 launch order actually included the option to convert > some of the orders to a UDF version, but everyone else lost interest. > > >I seem to recall that somebody even bolted a prototype onto one side > >of a DC-9 and flew it around. > > The prototype MD-80, actually. I once saw it at Mojave, with an > extra-long pylon but no #1 engine at that point. Boeing did the > same thing with a 727. Seems to me the MD-80 had a GE engine while > the 727 had a Pratt, but I wouldn't bet on it. > I worked for Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach on the MD80 Propfan program from 1985 to 1987. GE built and flew the only working prototype engine and flew it first on a Boeing 727-100 flight test airplane, then a modified MD83 several months later. I led a team to develop the flight simulator for the MD but left the company a few weeks before first flight for something even more interesting. The fuel consumption was reduced such a huge amount (60%) that the airlines would have bought it even with today's fuel prices, if the engine manu- facturers had been willing or able to make the investment. They weren't and when they asked the airframers to share the risk that killed it quickly. It did have some problems remaining to be solved (noise, wing anti-ice without engine bleed air, limited growth potential) but nothing worse than what was overcome in the development of turbofan engines. Although the project was abandoned completely around 1989 the results of some of the experiments have led to higher-speed propellers for general aviation turbo-prop aircraft and larger bypass ratios on the new generation of commercial transport engines for the 777 and the like. It was without question the most exciting engine program ever to come about in peacetime and I wish someone had followed through with it on airliners. Hope this is of interest. Let me know if you'd like to hear more. Nick -- I take responsibility for everything I say but I could still be wrong. Check all calculations. ============================================================================= Nickolas Hein | Voice: (206) 662-4980 From kls Fri Jan 7 02:44:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: neh3568@aw101.iasl.ca.boeing.com (Nickolas E. Hein) Subject: Re: UDFs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: none Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 94 02:44:51 PST In article , Albert_T_BOZZO@umail.umd.edu (ab79) writes: > Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.chicago.com) wrote: > > >Seems to me the MD-80 had a GE engine while the 727 had a Pratt > > The GE36 first flew on the 727 in August, 1986 (AW&ST, 8 Sept 1986). I don't > think the PW-Allison 578-DX flew on the 727; it was installed on the MD-80 > demonstrator in late '87 or early '88, though. > > As a historical note, the GE36 was specified for the late Boeing 7J7 and > Airbus offered the IAE V2500 "SuperFan" (V2500 core + variable-pitch ducted > fan) for the A340 before technical problems in the early development stage led > to cancellation of the engine. > The MD80 flew with both the Pratt and GE engines I believe (I may have said otherwise earlier. An episode of "Beyond 2000" discussed the entire program while it was still in full swing (probably 1988. A sale of MD87 or 88's was made to Delta with the guarantee they were retrofittable to propfans (UHB's, UDF's depending who you talk to ). When I worked there our group spent several long days doing Stability and Control Analyses to ensure that it would be a promise we could keep but, as far as I know there weren't any modifications made to the planes for it. In addition, all we did was guarantee that it was possible and not how much it would cost or whether it would be certifiable. Hope this helps Nick -- I take responsibility for everything I say but I could still be wrong. Check all calculations. ============================================================================= Nickolas Hein | Voice: (206) 662-4980 From kls Fri Jan 7 02:44:54 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mcgill@lds.loral.com (Christopher McGill) Subject: Re:Unducted fans? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 94 02:44:54 PST In regards to the Pratt/MD-80 experiment on a humorous side, I got to see and *hear* the aircraft take-off. Really does odd things to the mind to see a jet depart and hear what sounds like a high powered turbo-prop!! :-) Chris ------------------------------------ "...the color of the skin is in no way | Christopher S McGill | connected with strength of mind or | email: mcgill@cps070.lds.loral.com | intellectual powers..." ------------------------------------ - Benjamin Banneker From kls Fri Jan 7 02:44:57 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: designations from Boeing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 94 02:44:57 PST Can anyone explain the Boeing designation system? I refer specifically to the designation 757-236 which ordinarily I would associate with British Airways. However, a number of British airlines have taken 757s with this designation. I'm fairly sure that these were not orders that BA cancelled at the last minute, too. The fact that the aircraft may be "configured" similarly also doesn't wash. Why would these airlines not get their own code? Speaking of configuration, Malaysia Airlines (probably Boeing's biggest customer in 1993) has taken delivery of about eight 747-4H6s, some with GE engines and some with Pratt. Same airline, same type, same designation, different configuration. Any good ideas? Incidentally, does 8A as in 757-28A stand for Air 2000 or ILFC? This is another one which has me confused. Thanks... Tobias Lutterodt From kls Fri Jan 7 02:44:59 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: designations from Boeing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 94 02:44:59 PST >Can anyone explain the Boeing designation system? I thought this was going to be easy -- a simple matter of pointing you to the archives of the group, which include a file named boeing-code which explains the Boeing designation system. (For those who don't already know, archives of sci.aeronautics.airliners are available for anonymous ftp on ftp.kei.org and rascal.ics.utexas.edu.) >I refer specifically to the designation 757-236 which ordinarily I would >associate with British Airways. However, a number of British airlines have >taken 757s with this designation. I'm fairly sure that these were not >orders that BA cancelled at the last minute, too. Unfortunately, this is where my easy answer breaks down. Yes, the 36 indicates British Airways, at least normally. As I understand it, most or all 757s built for British carriers use the 36 customer code even if they aren't destined for British Airways because this made the certification process either. (They aren't cancelled BA orders.) Why this only seems to apply to the 757 is a good question, but like most bureaucrat inspired lunacy there probably isn't a terribly palatable answer. >Malaysia Airlines (probably Boeing's biggest customer in 1993) has taken >delivery of about eight 747-4H6s, some with GE engines and some with Pratt. >Same airline, same type, same designation, different configuration. The customer code, H6 in this case, is just that -- a *customer* code. While that often will pretty succinctly identify configuration this is not always the case. I've found switching of engine vendors rather interesting, as it's a very costly thing to do and in many cases it's not clear why. Here are a handful of examples: Malaysia 747-4H6 (GE CF6-80, then PW PW4056) I seem to recall someone mentioning that this was mostly a political decision. To make matters worse, their lone 747-3H6 came with JT9D engines, and they have a pair of ex-BA 747-236s with Rolls-Royce RB.211 engines! With four completely different engine types *just* on their 747 fleet their maintenance costs must be incredible. QANTAS 747-238B (PW JT9D, then RR RB.211-524) When QANTAS first bought 747s the JT9D was probably still the only choice. They may have switched due to the improved fuel burn promised for the RB.211 -- important for QANTAS very long routes -- or due to their British political connections. They now only have a couple of P&W-engined 747s remaining, and all the newer models have come with the RB.211. UPS 757-24A PF (PW PW2040, switch to RR RB.211-535 in 1994) The RB.211 has about two-thirds of the 757 market and claims to have better fuel burn than the PW2000; perhaps this swayed UPS. They'll end up with a substantial fleet with each type of engine so neither is really an orphan, which usually is a kiss of death. Delta 767-332 (GE CF6-80 on early domestic, PW PW4060 on others) This has always seemd truly bizarre to me. Delta had GE CF6-80 engines on their 767-200s and continued with the same on their domestic 767-300s. Then, while the -300s were still being delivered with GE engines, they started getting more 767-300s in ETOPS (ER) form -- with PW PW4060 engines! Why they'd do this on an ETOPS plane is beyond me, since they had no prior experience with the PW4000 series and I recall that the CF6-80, being a more mature engine, has the best in-flight shutdown rates of any of the ETOPS-qualified engines. Then, to even further confuse matters, they switched to the PW4000 for their most recent domestic 767-300s. I'm sure there are other cases, and of course there are many, many cases of such mixed fleets when one considers leases and purchases of used aircraft. Most airlines do seem to have rational engine choice policies that attempt to minimize the number of engine types, though. (Most consistent on a diverse fleet must surely be Cathay Pacific, which until the A340s arrive will be exclusively Rolls-Royce.) >Incidentally, does 8A as in 757-28A stand for Air 2000 or ILFC? This is >another one which has me confused. The 8A code indicates Air 2000; Q8 would be ILFC. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Jan 7 23:22:53 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: >>>> CONCORD, A2000 ???? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 94 23:22:53 PST > 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. Those 6 are all prototype or pre-production models, aren't they? As I recall, only 14 of the production version were ever built. And I have the impression that I've heard on the net that not all of them are in service any more. -- Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com #define MSB(type) (~(((unsigned type)-1)>>1)) This article is in the public domain. From kls Fri Jan 7 23:22:54 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Simon Aglionby Subject: Re: designations from Boeing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 94 23:22:54 PST In sci.aeronautics.airliners you write: >I've found switching of engine vendors rather interesting, as it's a >very costly thing to do and in many cases it's not clear why. Here >are a handful of examples: ... A wild guess, but has this sometimes to do with who will be doing the maintenance, rather than who owns the aircraft/engine? I know that here in the UK certainly several carriers subcontract maintenance, so the experience and costs of the subcontractor may influence engine choice. Regards, Simon Aglionby From kls Fri Jan 7 23:22:56 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: designations from Boeing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: spagiola@leland.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 94 23:22:56 PST Karl Swartz writes > Can anyone explain the Boeing designation system? > > > I refer specifically to the designation 757-236 which ordinarily > > I would associate with British Airways. However, a number of > > British airlines have taken 757s with this designation. I'm > > fairly sure that these were not orders that BA cancelled at > > the last minute, too. > > Unfortunately, this is where my easy answer breaks down. Yes, > the 36 indicates British Airways, at least normally. As I > understand it, most or all 757s built for British carriers use > the 36 customer code even if they aren't destined for British > Airways because this made the certification process either. > (They aren't cancelled BA orders.) Back when British Airways started taking delivery of 757-236s, they found that the delivery schedule would give them extra capacity and sold or leased (I forget) several to Air Europe. They were delivered direct to Air Europe from Boeing (although the first one, if I recall correctly, had already been painted in BA colors and simply had Air Europe titles applied). Air Europe later decided to order more 757s on its own right. The configuration that they specified for these aircraft was identical to that of the 757-236s they had received via BA. They decided, therefore, to ask Boeing to give them the same designation. Other aircraft that Air Europe had on order continued to use Air Europe's usual S3 customer code (eg 737-2S3 Adv, 737-3S3). I'm not aware of any other British airline receiving new 757-236s from Boeing. Monarch 757s, for instance, were -2T7s, and Britannia's own 757s were -204s (in addition, more were leased in from various sources, with various other codes). Caledonian has some 757-236s, but since they're wholly owned by BA, that's not surprising (in the same way, their 737s are -236s too). Its possible, though, that other British airlines leased ex Air Europe 757-236s after that airline's demise, and/or picked up undelivered 757-236s intended for Air Europe, thus giving the appearance that 757-236s were common in British airline fleets. -- - Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Fri Jan 7 23:22:59 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: h andrew chuang Subject: Engine switch (Was Re: Boeing designations) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 94 23:22:59 PST Karl Swartz wrote: > I've found switching of engine vendors rather interesting, as it's a > very costly thing to do and in many cases it's not clear why. Here > are a handful of examples: > > Malaysia 747-4H6 (GE CF6-80, then PW PW4056) > I seem to recall someone mentioning that this was mostly a > political decision. To make matters worse, their lone 747-3H6 > came with JT9D engines, and they have a pair of ex-BA 747-236s > with Rolls-Royce RB.211 engines! With four completely different > engine types *just* on their 747 fleet their maintenance costs > must be incredible. (I always have the burning desire to ask MAS pilots and engineers which engine is the best! :-) Foreign carriers, especially Asian, seem to switch engine vendors (due to political reasons as well as other factors) more often than the U.S. airlines. Another example was Thai International's switching from the CF6-80C2 to the PW4158 for its A300B4-600 planes. I seem to remember the reason was because the Thai government believed that P&W had more influence and connection with the U.S. Congress than GE. It was a government decision rather than an airline decision. Nonetheless, both the Malaysian and Thai orders were relatively small. The most significant vendor switch has to be Japan Airlines' order of the B747-400 with the CF6-80C2 engines. Before 1989, JAL operated an all-Pratt fleet. Since then, JAL has been fluttering between GE and P&W: its MD-11's are powered by the PW4460, and its new B767's will be powered by the CF6-80C2. It will be interesting to see which engine JAL will choose for its B777's. Another one worth mentioning was Lufthansa's switch from the IAE V2500 to CFM56 before they took the delivery of its A320's. Later, Lufthansa went back to the V2500 when they ordered the A321. (Perhaps, it was politically motivated because of MTU's involvement in IAE???) > UPS 757-24A PF (PW PW2040, switch to RR RB.211-535 in 1994) > The RB.211 has about two-thirds of the 757 market and claims > to have better fuel burn than the PW2000; perhaps this swayed > UPS. Rolls claims to have 75% of the 757 market in its ads, but I'm not sure if it meant current sales or total market. Also, Rolls was (is?) trying to convince the U.S. Air Force to switch from the F-117 (Air Force designation of the PW2000) to the RB211-535E for the McDonnell Douglas C-17 transport. > (Most consistent on a diverse fleet must surely be Cathay Pacific, > which until the A340s arrive will be exclusively Rolls-Royce.) Cathay played an important role in "re-launching" the RB211-524. It was Cathay's B747-400 order that resulted in the termination of Rolls' agreement with GE to develop engines over 5?,000-lb thrust. Perhaps, that is one of the reasons why Cathay and Rolls made a concerted marketing effort of promoting Cathay's all-Rolls fleet. However, there were some much much larger all-Pratt carriers such as the pre-B747-400 JAL, pre-A320 Northwest (with the exception of a few CF6-powered DC-10-30's that NW acquired in the late 80's[?]). Currently, Singapore still operates an all-Pratt passenger-fleet (it has been operating one B737-300 freighter since late 1992). I can think of a few other all-Pratt airlines as well as some all-GE/CFM carriers, but they all are relatively small. P.S.: Just an unimportant observation of Cathay's A340 order (unless you are a "Cathay-freak"): Cathay made the A340 order shortly after the reorganization of its Board that resulted in the retirement of its long-time engineering director who played an important role in committing Cathay to an all-Rolls fleet. From kls Fri Jan 7 23:23:00 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nordstrom@meediv.lanl.gov (Carl Nordstrom) Subject: Re: Unducted fans? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Electrochemical Engine Project Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 94 23:23:00 PST Garrett was not involved with P&W during the program. Allison Gas Turbines was. Allison was responsible for the counter-rotating gearbox (99%+ efficiency!), the LP compressor, and the core (a modified Allison 570). Pratt was responsible for the nacelle (subbed out), the prop (subbed to Hamilton Standard), the controls, and maybe the LP turbine (not sure). The P&W/Allison team set speed records, and had a normal looking operating envelope. Carl Nordstrom From kls Fri Jan 7 23:23:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bawcom@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Harry Bawcom) Subject: Re: Old Piston Engined Planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: bawcom@chdasic.sps.mot.com Organization: Motorola SPS ASIC, Chandler, AZ Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 94 23:23:02 PST What happened to the DC-7? The DC-7 had Turbo-compound engines that were very expensive to maintain and not as reliable as the previous generation's lower power engines. For that reason most Turbo-compound engined airplanes have been scrapped. This also had a bearing on the jet's rapid acceptance. From kls Fri Jan 7 23:23:03 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: krol@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Ed Krol) Subject: Re: Diff between Air Force 1 and "basic" 747 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 94 23:23:03 PST bleedea@cwis.unomaha.edu (Dean M. Bleess) writes: >- 13 External Communication systems on 46 Antennae using > a 1,200kVA electrical power system. >- Mission endurance 72hrs. >- Unrefuelled endurance 12+hrs. Is the 72 hour limit when the washrooms overflow :-) From kls Fri Jan 7 23:23:05 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Diff between Air Force 1 and "basic" 747 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 94 23:23:05 PST >Is the 72 hour limit when the washrooms overflow :-) I asked about this limit a while back and the response, from Robert Dorsett, I believe, had something to do with engine lubricating oil and an inability to replenish it in flight. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Jan 7 23:23:06 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: SCOTT2031@delphi.com Subject: Re: Diff between Air Force 1 and "basic" 747 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi Internet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 94 23:23:06 PST My Job occasionally takes me aboard AF-1 so maybe I can fill in a couple of details for you guys. Yes it is air refuelable. Max Pax is 60+. cargo is generally restricted to baggage + items that will be used in-flight. Any Major cargo required for a presidential trip either precedes or follows AF-1 on a air force transport. I wouldn't exactly call it plush. It's a flying office, a comfortable office - but an office just the same. If you want plush take a look at VIP aircraft from the middle east - particularly saudi arabia, kuwait, and jordan. The Blue Rooms are gold plated on these airplanes. The president of argentina has a 757 you wouldn't believe...... Scott From kls Fri Jan 7 23:23:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: barney@skat.usc.edu (Barney Lum) Subject: Caution: (757) Wake Turbulence ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: USC University Computing Services, Los Angeles Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jan 94 23:23:08 PST After concluding that the crash of a private twin jet (Westwind?) on approach to John Wayne/Orange County/Santa Ana/SNA on around the 15th of December was caused by jet wake turbulence, the FAA issued a warning pilots not to fly closely behind 757s (reported in The Advertiser, Honolulu). The smaller jet's pilot was warned sevarl times by ATC that he was getting too close (two miles) behind the UA jet, with the pilot acknowledging. It was on a short, 20 mile hop from Brackett in VMC. Two crew and two pax (In-N-Out execs) were killed. They're saying separation should be increased to about five miles and only mentioned 757s, no other types or generalizations. Is there anything unique about that aircraft that it creates a particularly strong (or longer lasting) wake? Or was the statement made only to focus on the situation at hand? Naturally, smaller aircraft should give a wide berth to larger ones regardless of powerplant. Barney From kls Sat Jan 8 01:28:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: sci.aeronautics.airliners archives Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jan 94 01:28:08 PST Organization: Chicago Software Works In an article earlier this week, as well as a number of rejection notes, I mentioned that one of the archive sites for the group is ftp.kei.org. This is wrong -- it's ftp.key.COM. Again, correctly, this time, archives of the group are available for anonymous ftp on ftp.kei.com and rascal.ics.utexas.edu. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Sun Jan 9 00:11:20 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: davelett@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Sun) Subject: Re: A340/Lufthansa ad References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Jan 94 00:11:20 PST In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >The only other named Delta planes I could find were all ex-Western: >a 727-247 named City of Boston (N2823W) and Western's first three >737-437s, respectively Larry Lee (N3301), Wally Bird (N302WA), and >Salt Lake City (N303WA). Actually, there were some really old planes which Delta named, most famous of which is City of Atlanta (DC-3), which was back in the days when they were HQ'd in Monroe. There's a nice plaque of it in CVG in one of the gift shops, I think. From kls Sun Jan 9 00:11:22 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ktl@wag.caltech.edu (Kian-Tat Lim) Subject: Re: Caution: (757) Wake Turbulence ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Jan 94 00:11:22 PST The L.A. Times on 4 Jan 94 reported on a study performed by NOAA under contract to the FAA in Sep 1990 and released to the public in Oct 1991 that claimed that the 757 created greater wake turbulence (326 feet per second) than any plane ever tested, including much larger military transports. A spokesman for the FAA said that this study's data was not definitive. In Oct 1991, the British CAA said that the 757 had been involved in a higher proportion of wake turbulence incidents than other aircraft of the same size, according to the Times. The Times also reported that the NASA ASRS suggested to the FAA in Jan 1993 that enhanced wake turbulence warnings be given by ATC to planes following 757s on the basis of pilot reports, but that the FAA had not acted on these suggestions. In the wake [sorry] of the fatal SNA crash and another fatal crash near Billings, MT in Dec 1992, the FAA on 22 Dec 1993 directed ATC to issue wake turbulence warnings to planes following 757s, just as they already do for planes following "heavy" aircraft. -- Kian-Tat Lim, ktl@wag.caltech.edu [RIPEM available] Materials & Molecular Simulation Center, Caltech Henry Spencer left-of-| signature fan From kls Sun Jan 9 00:11:24 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: SCOTT2031@delphi.com Subject: ANA 747-400s Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi Internet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Jan 94 00:11:24 PST I picked up a copy of the Jan/Feb 94 Airliners today. On page 12 there is a picture of ANA 747-481D JA8963. It caught my eye at first because of its "whale" paint scheme. But then I noticed that it had no winglets. I thought maybe it was a 747-300 with a typo in the caption, but a closer examination of the photo reveals 747-400 type fairings and the boeing 747-400 logo near the rear door. Are the winglets optional? Is this a short range variant of the -400? Thanks Scott From kls Sun Jan 9 00:11:26 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ANA 747-400s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Jan 94 00:11:26 PST >I picked up a copy of the Jan/Feb 94 Airliners today. On page 12 there >is a picture of ANA 747-481D JA8963. ^ >Are the winglets optional? Is this a short range variant of the -400? You answered your own question -- as the model number indicates it is a domestic (short range) version of the 747-400, and these do not have winglets. Incidently, that same magazine has an article (pp. 48-49) on carrying an extra engine under the wing. This has been discussed in the group before in the context of the 747 (and maybe 707, I can't recall) where the spare engine is carried inboard of the #2 engine. The article includes photos of both of these as well as a DC-8, a DC-10 (with the engine inboard of #1), and a VC-10 (with the engine on the starboard wing). It also mentions that the L-1011 is not certified for carrying a spare engine but that the modified RAF versions can carry one inboard of the #3 engine. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Sun Jan 9 18:13:32 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mike@oscar.demon.co.uk (Michael A Collins) Subject: Difficult - easy airliners to pilot Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Jan 94 18:13:32 PST Reply-To: Mike@oscar.demon.co.uk Organization: (none) I would be interested in hearing views on which airliners are difficult or easy to fly. For example I have read that the MD80 series is not very easy to fly and also that the IL62, in order to land has to, fly a distinctly individual approach. -- Michael A Collins From kls Sun Jan 9 18:13:34 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: kbarr@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: Caution: (757) Wake Turbulence ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Jan 94 18:13:34 PST In article , Barney Lum wrote: >They're saying separation should be increased to about five miles and >only mentioned 757s, no other types or generalizations. Is there anything >unique about that aircraft that it creates a particularly strong (or >longer lasting) wake? Or was the statement made only to focus on the >situation at hand? I went to a speech last February given by Robert Machol, who is one of the chief scientists involved in wake turbulence research at the FAA. I have a transcript of his speech, and here are a few pertinent statements. These are reprinted without his permission...I hope it is o.k. >From Robert E. Machol's speech to NCAR on February 8, 1993 "We know a great deal about the initial strength of the vortices, say ten to forty wingspans behind the aircraft (note that forty wingspans can exceed a mile). The vortex consists of a "core" in which the speeds might be quite high (we have measured speeds over three hundred feet per second off a 757, so the nickname "horizontal tornadoes" for wake vortices is quite reasonable). The core may be very narrow, less than a foot in radius for as large an airplane as a 757, but with considerable momentum also at radii many times as great." "We understand that widely separated vortices tend to last longer than closely spaced ones, which is one reason why jumbo vortices are so dangerous. We know that 757s create vortices which dissipate more slowly (and therefore are stronger at distances of three or four miles) than from other aircraft of equal weight and similar configuration such as the A-300, but we don't entirely understand why." "Assuming two aircraft of approximately the same size, we know both theoretically and experimentally exactly what kinds of planes get rolled most easily, namely those with little roll inertia because the engines are mounted on the fuselage and therefore very close to the axial center of gravity -- the DC-9 (MD-80) and F-28. When the engines are out on the wings the airplane is much harder to roll, and if they're way out on the wings, as in a 747, the plane is almost invulnerable to being rolled by a vortex. Fuel in the wing tanks also increases roll stability. The U.S. doesn't have any decent experimental data on this, but the CAA has a marvelous data set, and we know that the planes that get rolled most often, all out of proportion to their frequency, are the DC-9s (the ones causing the trouble all out of proportion to their frequency are the 757 and 767)." _____________________________ _____ | Keith Barr \ \ \__ _____ | barr@ncar.ucar.edu \___________\ \/_______\___\_____________ | Commercial/AS&MEL/Inst/A&IGI / ( /_/ ..................... `-. |_____________________________/ `-----------,----,--------------' _/____/ From kls Sun Jan 9 18:13:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) Subject: Re: Caution: (757) Wake Turbulence ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Jan 94 18:13:35 PST In article barney@skat.usc.edu (Barney Lum) writes: > After concluding that the crash of a private twin jet (Westwind?) > on approach to John Wayne/Orange County/Santa Ana/SNA on around > the 15th of December was caused by jet wake turbulence, the FAA > issued a warning pilots not to fly closely behind 757s (reported > in The Advertiser, Honolulu). Indeed, I got a copy of said warning in the mail a few days ago. It appears to be a mass mailing to all pilots with active medical certificates. (Read: THIS IS SERIOUS.) > The smaller jet's pilot was warned sevarl times by ATC that he was > getting too close (two miles) behind the UA jet, with the pilot > acknowledging. It was on a short, 20 mile hop from Brackett in VMC. > Two crew and two pax (In-N-Out execs) were killed. Aargh. I think (hope?) that most pilots of piston-powered light aircraft are _very_ aware of wake turbulence, and of avoidance techniques. It may be that the crew of the Westwind was thinking "gee, he's a jet, we're a jet, no problem." Wrong. There have been cases of 727s and 737s being upset by 747 wake turbulence... I just happened to fly in to SNA the day after the crash. It was, of course, all over the newspapers down there, and folks at the airport were busy speculating what had happened. (Like, duh, given the mode-C readout traces which were published in the Orange County register, how could you come to any other conclusion?) > They're saying separation should be increased to about five miles and > only mentioned 757s, no other types or generalizations. Is there anything > unique about that aircraft that it creates a particularly strong (or > longer lasting) wake? Or was the statement made only to focus on the > situation at hand? Yes, the 757 appears to generate wake turbulence which is much more severe than would be expected for an aircraft of its weight. (Remember that the "heavy" designation applies to aircraft which may have a takeoff weight of 300,000 pounds or m ore whether or not they are operating at this weight during a particular phase of flight. The 757 doesn't qualify as a heavy, the 767 does.) I've seen theories that the exceptional wake turbulence of the 757 is a function of the exceptionally clean wing design of the aircraft ... perhaps someone from Boeing could comment on this? > Naturally, smaller aircraft should give a wide berth to larger ones > regardless of powerplant. Twr: "Tomahawk xyz, you're cleared to land, number two behind a Saratoga. Caution wake turbulence." Geoff From kls Mon Jan 10 16:12:05 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: king@ukulele.reasoning.com (Dick King) Subject: Re: Unducted fans? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: king@reasoning.com Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jan 94 16:12:05 PST In article nordstrom@meediv.lanl.gov (Carl Nordstrom) writes: > >[Pratt & Whitney's unducted twin fan had a gearbox. GE's simply powered one > fan off a turbine rotor and the other off a "stator"] I understand, however, that the ratio of the two prop rows' speeds needs to be carefully controlled to avoid particular wrong ratios that lead to bad resonance. How was this speed ratio maintained, in the GE design? -dk From kls Thu Jan 13 05:07:16 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) Subject: Re: Caution: (757) Wake Turbulence ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jan 94 05:07:16 PST In article geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes: > Yes, the 757 appears to generate wake turbulence which is much more > severe than would be expected for an aircraft of its weight. (Remember > that the "heavy" designation applies to aircraft which may have a > takeoff weight of 300,000 pounds or m ore whether or not they are > operating at this weight during a particular phase of flight. The 757 > doesn't qualify as a heavy, the 767 does.) I've seen theories that the > exceptional wake turbulence of the 757 is a function of the > exceptionally clean wing design of the aircraft ... perhaps someone > from Boeing could comment on this? There was something in Aviation Week about this. They described the turbulence from this model aircraft as being FAR more severe than anything they have tested ever. The aircraft in fact destroyed testing guages set up on towers specifically to record wake turbulence. Corky Scott From kls Thu Jan 13 05:07:19 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: 757 wake turbulence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jan 94 05:07:19 PST A couple years ago, one of my professors told the class that he was working on a project with Boeing and some government agencies (probably the FAA) on a project to reduce the 757's high wake turbulence. They were proposing some type of bolt-on attachment to the wing to cancel out part of the vortex and prevent the CAA from classifying the aircraft as heavy. As I understand it, a heavy aircraft pays more to land at an airport because it requires more separation and reduces runway capacity at peak times. Just my $0.02... Toby From kls Thu Jan 13 05:07:20 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Simon Kao Subject: Re: Caution: (757) Wake Turbulence ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jan 94 05:07:20 PST All this discussion on wake turbulence reminds me of an incident during which the L-1011 I was on was adversely affected by the wake turbulence of a 747 we were following on climb out. It's been a while, but what I recall happening was that on initial climb out, the aircraft rolled left quite suddenly, close to what seemed like 90 degrees, accompanied by a loud bang from the port engine. After a few minutes, the captain came on and said "Well, as you may have guessed, we had a small problem back there -- we ran into the wake turbulence of a 747 -- but there's no problem now and we're continuing to our destination." I have always wondered what the "bang" sound was. I've been told it was a compressor stall. Sound right? It is was, that must have been a rather hairy situation: unexpectedly rolled + loss of an engine! -Simon skao@tss.com From kls Thu Jan 13 05:07:22 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: moersch@aphrodite.world (Jeffrey E. Moersch) Subject: Re: Caution: (757) Wake Turbulence ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: /home/astrosun/moersch/.organization Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jan 94 05:07:22 PST >> They're saying separation should be increased to about five miles and >> only mentioned 757s, no other types or generalizations. Is there anything >> unique about that aircraft that it creates a particularly strong (or >> longer lasting) wake? Or was the statement made only to focus on the >> situation at hand? > > Yes, the 757 appears to generate wake turbulence which is much more > severe than would be expected for an aircraft of its weight. (Remember The Orange County Register did a story on the 757's wake several days after the crash. Evidently there was a study done (I forget who did it - maybe the FAA) that showed the 757 leaves a more "dangerous" (quantified as the vertical wind speed of the vortices) wake than *even a 747 or a C-5A Galaxy*! The number that sticks in my memory for the 757 was something like 338 f.p.s. vertical wind speed, while most of the heavies were down in the 200's and smaller jets in the 100's. I got my PP-ASEL at SNA, and it makes perfect sense to me that if a 757 wake accident was going to occur, that's where it would happen. The traffic level is high, there is a mix of big iron and GA planes, and the two runways are close together with parallel approaches going on all the time (although in this case, I'm sure the Westwind would have been landing on the same runway as the 757). I can remember at least a couple times when I felt the remains of a vortex rock the little 152 I trained in, even when following all the usual wake-avoidance rules of thumb. I never hit anything extreme though (probably *because* we were careful to follow those rules). Jeff Moersch, PP-AMEL Astronomy and Space Sciences Cornell University -- From kls Thu Jan 13 05:07:24 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Rogers Subject: Re: Continental 727 nearly belly-flops at O'Hare References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jan 94 05:07:24 PST In sci.aeronautics.airliners you write: >In article mmr47784@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Rogers ) writes: >>Normal airline procedure is to respond to the GPWS, THEN determine what >>caused it. >I've never heard of this as a procedure. The only system which really >requires "blind faith" responses (courtesy FAA/company policies) is TCAS. >GPWS is notoriously unreliable, and warnings can be rather vague (whoop whoop >pull up for four of the five modes, in older systems). Therefore, the normal >response to this *caution* is to reconcile the warning with one's situational >awareness. I was unclear in my orignal post. If memory from Ground School serves, a GPWS warning in IMC does require immediate action. The last 727 Captain I talked to said it is firewall thrust, and +15 pitch. As the Cont. crew was in VMC, this would not have been necessary. With that said, however, the point still remains that the condition of the gear should have been immediately confirmed - There just aren't that many things that would set off the GPWS. A check such as: Runway in Sight, normal glide path, gear down, landing flaps confirmed would have been sufficient, and prudent. >I'd probably have ignored the GPWS too, if I was obviously on glide slope and >had the runway in sight. Three sets of eyes ignoring three bright green >lights on the gear indicator is a bit harder to rationalize. :-) Warning or >not, what happened was *not* a consequence of GPWS being disabled or ignored, >but rather the broader airmanship issues of the approach. Agreed. But giving the GPWS the proper consideration would have broken a link in the "error chain", and eliminated this incident from discussion. That's what the GPWS is supposed to do: alert the crew that something in their situational awareness may not be right, and to reevaluate the conditions. >>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. >I am not convinced of that. The 727 is certified for flaps-up landings, even >though there are no charts for that as part of normal ops manuals: the only >thing missing at flaps 25 is that they wouldn't have the performance info >(well, maybe--it might be in a PDCS, if installed). Let's classify this as >a "gray area." Perhaps the crew felt they could safely land the airplane >on the 10000' dry runway available to them. Given the ATC constraints, >FAR 91.3! This I find strange. I believe the 727 is "certified" for flaps 30 and flaps 40 landings (thus the heavy black line indicating that all weights at flaps 25 are above maximum structural landing weight - page L-3). The aircraft can also be landed flaps up- this is, however, an irregular procedure, and the checklist involves dumping fuel and observing the max tire speed if possible. I don't believe this is "certified", in the sense that it is acceptable to perform this type of landing on the line. We would all agree that an ATC speed restriction should not be the cause of an Irregular Procedure. I would also assume (although I'm not sure on this point), that part 121 would not permit an airliner to land under a configuration for which performance data could not be obtained. >--- >Robert Dorsett >rdd@cactus.org >...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd --Mark Oh, by the way, I meant to post this, but I hit the wrong key originally- maybe you could help out. Thanks :) From kls Thu Jan 13 05:07:26 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Dorsett Subject: Re: Continental 727 nearly belly-flops at O'Hare References: $-1 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rdd@cactus.org Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jan 94 05:07:26 PST >I was unclear in my orignal post. If memory from Ground School serves, a >GPWS warning in IMC does require immediate action. The last 727 Captain >I talked to said it is firewall thrust, and +15 pitch. Perhaps in that airline. Considering the reliability (or lack thereof) of the device, I'm surprised that it's advocated as a blind-response action, and I've yet to meet a pilot (captain or otherwise) that would advocate reacting in that manner. History's full of instances where "instantaneous" responces precipitate more trouble than evaluating the situation. This also harks back to the old thread on rec.aviation, "what is a warning?" (specifically in regard to stall warning systems) A warning is just that: a warning. It is not an instrument, and you can't fly by it. You also can't use the presence (or lack thereof) of that warning as an *absolute* indicator that the threat exists (or does not exist). T/CAS excepted. :-) >This I find strange. I believe the 727 is "certified" for flaps 30 and >flaps 40 landings (thus the heavy black line indicating that all weights at >flaps 25 are above maximum structural landing weight - page L-3). The >aircraft can also be landed flaps up- this is, however, an irregular >procedure, and the checklist involves dumping fuel and observing the max >tire speed if possible. I don't believe this is "certified", in the sense >that it is acceptable to perform this type of landing on the line. We would >all agree that an ATC speed restriction should not be the cause of an Irregular >Procedure. I would also assume (although I'm not sure on this point), that >part 121 would not permit an airliner to land under a configuration for which >performance data could not be obtained. The first rule of flight: what goes up, must come down... :-) They certainly appeared to have screwed up; no argument there. Just debating some specifics. And keep in mind that what appears in flight manuals is based on (a) the AFM, (b) the chief pilot's personality and experience, and (c) what the FAA wlil allow to form the final operations manual. Thus, procedures and limitations can vary widely among airlines. And even within airlines. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Thu Jan 13 05:07:28 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sukhia@ENGR.ORST.EDU (Cherag Sukhia) Subject: Books on Commercial airliners Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jan 94 05:07:28 PST I am a graduate student interested in Aviation Human Factors, specifically pertaining to commercial airliners. Being relatively new to this domain, I desire to become familiar with all types of modern commercial aircraft - mainly their cockpits, but also their cabins etc. Do any of you have any suggestions as to how I might go about gathering such information ? As a start, I thought of taking a look at some basic books which would detail some of the characteristics, particularly with illustrations. Unfortunately, other than some generic encyclopedias, my search has not been very successful - can someone please recommend some good books/manuals and how I might go about acquiring the same ? Upon recommendations from some friends, I have begun looking at flight magazines like "AW & ST" and "Flight International". While these have been very useful, I would still like to browse through a comprehensive, illustrated book. As a further attempt to broaden my domain knowledge, I have become quite an avid reader of most of the aviation related newsgroups where I have found a lot of useful, well moderated avaiation related information, thanks to you folks! :) There is a chance that the volume of responses may be looked upon as a "flood" on this newsgroup - hence, I would appreciate if you could email your responses to me directly. I will be willing to edit/compile all the useful responses and post to the newsgroup, if so desired. Thanks. Cherag Sukhia sukhia@engr.orst.edu Graduate Student - Industrial Engg. Oregon State University From kls Thu Jan 13 05:07:30 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rathinam@ins.infonet.net Subject: Re: ANA 747-400s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rathinam@ins.infonet.net Organization: INFOnet - Iowa Network Services, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jan 94 05:07:30 PST In article , SCOTT2031@delphi.com writes: >I picked up a copy of the Jan/Feb 94 Airliners today. On page 12 there >is a picture of ANA 747-481D JA8963. It caught my eye at first because of its >"whale" paint scheme. But then I noticed that it had no winglets. > >I thought maybe it was a 747-300 with a typo in the caption, but a closer >examination of the photo reveals 747-400 type fairings and the boeing >747-400 logo near the rear door. Are the winglets optional? Is this a >short range variant of the -400? Yes. Yes. The "Nippon Clip-On" is what you must be referring to. Since the Airframe life is generally N takeoff-landing cycles and M hours of flying, ANA (and possibly others) flies without the wingtips on short flights - and when they get used up a large number of cycles, they put the wingtips on and fly them on longer routes to get the most use out of the airplane. From kls Mon Jan 17 01:33:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: VIP Transports Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jan 94 01:33:50 PST Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Given the interest in Air Force One, and perhaps in other VIP uses of heavy jet transports I thought I'd relate what little I've picked up over the last couple of years. Boeing does not usually do the interiors. We do a great job of commercial airplane interior development, but lack that special something required to do a really high-level VIP interior. We can do them, don't get me wrong, but the third party companies can do a much plusher job for less money. I know, I've seen photos of both, and if I were King of Siam, I'd buy third party stuff. Especially once I saw the price Boeing would have to charge just to break even on the job. (But then if you are concerned about how much it costs, then maybe you can't afford it.) :-) The 757 and the 737 are becoming increasingly popular as State VIP aircraft because of the lower cost of acquisition and operation. The status of owning a 747 apparently isn't compensation enough for the increased costs in these budgetarily difficult times. The better field performance of the twins are advantageous when flying out of those high-hot airports so common in South America (La Paz, Bogata, etc). I don't have any numbers to support this, but I'd guess that the 767 is also experiencing a relative surge in VIP sales. VIP sales are rare. Not very many airplanes are needed in this role, certainly not in the larger sizes. Another personal opinion here, but I'd guess that the major airframers don't like to do VIP airplanes because it disrupts the factory (it really does, you'd have to work there to really understand why). This leads to airframers not really pursuing VIP sales except during cyclic downturns. Like now. :-) I have gotten a chance to work a couple of VIP sales campaigns, and I can tell you from experience that they are way different from a regular commercial sales effort (not more or less, just different emphasis). One last thing: I love this business! You guys get out there and buy more tickets so my customers can make a buck and buy more airplanes! Thanks in advance. :-) -- 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 Jan 17 01:33:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: neh3568@aw101.iasl.ca.boeing.com (Nickolas E. Hein) Subject: Re: Books on Commercial airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: none Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jan 94 01:33:51 PST I'd like to recommend a couple of sources for info on commercial airliners. First is "Modern Commercial Aircraft" by William Green (et al). The latest volume I have is from 1987 but it is usually revised every few years. It has several pages on each airliner in commercial service and a summary in the back of aircraft operated by all the world's airlines. Many of the aircraft have detailed structural cutaway drawings (taken from issues of Flight International I believe) and pictures of the cockpits. I purchased this book at ' a general interest bookstore in Portland. Well worth the purchase for most airplane fanatics. In addition, Boeing has a photo library that I used to get cockpit photos from and also a series of cockpit posters that may be available from their gift shop. If you're ever in the area you can look them up in Renton. The Museum of Flight in Seattle might also have the posters. Finally, the best place to see a cockpit is at the crew training simulators in South Park (Seattle). I've always found them eager to show off their stuff and it would probably be no problem to get a tour if you tell them what you're studying. They might also have detailed photos of cockpits that they use for training aids. There used to be a Flight Safety simulator base near Seatac airport that would have simulators and cockpit photos of aircraft from Douglas and Airbus. Hope this helps. Nick -- I take responsibility for everything I say but I could still be wrong. Check all calculations. ============================================================================= Nickolas Hein | Voice: (206) 662-4980 From kls Mon Jan 17 01:33:53 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: juisaj@juisai.stu.rpi.edu (Joe Natharoj Juisai) Subject: Re: Engine switch (Was Re: Boeing designations) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: juisaj@rpi.edu Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jan 94 01:33:53 PST >Foreign carriers, especially Asian, seem to switch engine vendors (due to >political reasons as well as other factors) more often than the U.S. >airlines. Another example was Thai International's switching from the >CF6-80C2 to the PW4158 for its A300B4-600 planes. I seem to remember the >reason was because the Thai government believed that P&W had more influence >and connection with the U.S. Congress than GE. It was a government decision >rather than an airline decision. I distinctly remember this problem that Thai Airways had. I was in Thailand and the local paper stated that some Royal Thai Air Force Generals wanted the PW engines because of personal reasons, not political (US politics) reasons. It had nothing to do with influence and connections with Congress, but with influence and connections with the RTAF brass. Also, the switch was for the MD-11s. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- |Joe Natharoj Juisai '97 Email: | |Chemical Engineering juisaj@rpi.edu | |Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute juisaj@freenet.scri.fsu.edu| -------------------------------------------------------------------- The views and opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent those of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. From kls Mon Jan 17 01:33:56 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) Subject: Powering portables in flight... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jan 94 01:33:56 PST As a lot of flyers travel with portable electronic equipment, how difficult would it be for airlines to provide power for these devices? The question has been in my mind for some time, but I just realized how they could do it. The car cigarette lighter (12v-13.4vDC) seems like the most universal receptacle for these things. Most manufacturers of portable equipment offer power adapters that will run things off of this kind of outlet. I assume the main reason this is not available is because nobody ever asked about it. Also, portable computers, my primary interest in this, have only really become prolific in the last few years. I can also imagine a plane full of 400 people all of whom have things plugged in. I guess you'd probably need a lot of equipment to power all of that stuff. Perhaps they could only offer it to the first class cabin. Perhaps battery technology has improved so over the years that this is not really a necessity after all. I'd be interested in what thoughts others have on this. reb From kls Mon Jan 17 01:33:58 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: usai1035@servus14.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Ralf Sipple) Subject: Re: A340/Lufthansa ad References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Comp.Center (RUS), U of Stuttgart, FRG Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jan 94 01:33:58 PST The German air carrier BERLINE which was founded by former INTERFLUG pilots operates a Fokker 100 w/ F-GONT on the tail. This is because the F-100 isn't yet certified in Germany. ralf.sipple@rus.uni-stuttgart.de From kls Mon Jan 17 01:33:59 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jgladu@bcm.tmc.edu (grungy) Subject: Re: Diff between Air Force 1 and "basic" 747 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Systems Support Center, BCM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jan 94 01:33:59 PST In article , andrewsa@comm.mot.com (Andrew Sapuntzakis) wrote: > I thought that the Air Force 1 had extensive EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) > protection as well... ...and Boeing had to do a (nearly) complete rewire after the first attempt was found to be flawed. bcnu - grungy - former Boeing employee .opinions expressed are just that.obviously. fqee - n. any car part (other than tires) that disassociates from the car while moving From kls Wed Jan 26 04:12:53 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nordstrom@esavax.esa.lanl.gov Subject: Re: Unducted fans? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jan 94 04:12:53 PST >> How was this speed ratio maintained, in the GE design? >> >> -dk In both designs, the speed ratios of the props were controlled by prop pitch. I'm not familiar with the method GE used, but the PW/A design used electric beta (prop angle) actuators (one for each blade if I'm not mistaken) that rotated with the props. I'll have to assume the GE approach was similar. The considerations were not only resonance, but power, prop efficiency (something like 8-10% recovery from a counter-rotating prop versus a single row prop, if memory serves), acoustics (prop tip speed) and, in the case of the GE design, power turbine aerodynamic considerations, since the prop speeds determined the turbine blades and vanes relative speeds. For those that are interested, the PW/A engine is on display in the Allison museum at the Allison Engine Company (new name, used to be called Allison Gas Turbines, division of General Motors before being sold to a New York investment firm), in Indianapolis, Indiana. Carl Nordstrom P.S. For those that aren't familiar with a propfan, the blades are scimitar-shaped. Up until a few years ago all prop aircraft had a practical limit of around .5 mach or so (many have gone much faster, but paying a high efficiency penalty due to compressibility effects). Then Hamilton Standard (and NASA?) developed the propfan design to be able to get prop-like efficiency at turbofan cruise speeds. So an efficient .7 mach then became possible. Many aircraft have had counter-rotating props to recover the efficiency lost by a first prop row (the Russian Bear bomber is a notable example), so counter-rotating two propfan rows became a natural evolution for this technology. The first propfan to fly was the Propfan Demonstrator. It was an Allison 570 engine mated to a modified Allison T-56 gearbox, driving a single propfan row. I don't remember who did the prop, but it was probably Ham Standard. It flew on a Gulfstream aircraft that was heavily modified for the task. It seems that this was a NASA project, if I remember correctly. The propfan idea would require more development to be a viable commercial product. The program was canceled before GE and PW/A were able to fully develop their engines. Areas such as dynamics (vibrations), performance, life, materials, prop strength, acoustics, etc. were identified as needing special attention. These types of issues arise during *every* engine development program, but in this case the issues involved new technology that had never been tried before. I do feel, however, that with time and money none of the issues were particular show-stoppers. From kls Wed Jan 26 04:12:56 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: /S=Booth/G=T/I=G/OU=MSMAIL/O=DEN.MMAG/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@x400.den.mmc.com (T.G. Booth) Subject: Re: Powering portables in flight... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: A Turbulent One Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jan 94 04:12:56 PST In article , reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) wrote: > > As a lot of flyers travel with portable electronic equipment, how difficult > would it be for airlines to provide power for these devices? The question > has been in my mind for some time, but I just realized how they could do > it. > > The car cigarette lighter (12v-13.4vDC) seems like the most universal > receptacle for these things. Most manufacturers of portable equipment > offer power adapters that will run things off of this kind of outlet. > > I assume the main reason this is not available is because nobody ever asked > about it. Also, portable computers, my primary interest in this, have only > really become prolific in the last few years. I can also imagine a plane > full of 400 people all of whom have things plugged in. I guess you'd > probably need a lot of equipment to power all of that stuff. Perhaps they > could only offer it to the first class cabin. Perhaps battery technology > has improved so over the years that this is not really a necessity after > all. Personally, I can't see too much enthusiasm for this approach. There'd be aircraft weight impacts and electrical power distribution complications neither the airframe manufacturers nor the airlines would want to deal with, in my opinion. 12 volt DC power is not a very common commodity in aircraft, if memory serves. Some kind of power converter scheme would be needed in the aircraft if 12 volt DC power were to be the standard. Alternatively, a standard aircraft power source (28 volt DC, 400 Hz AC, etc.) could be used, with the computers having the requisite converter adapters. In any case, if power sources of some kind were contemplated in transport aircraft for consumer computer equipment use, several issues would have to be addressed: 1) The need to "klutz-proof" the power sources so that the aircraft power system is not jeopardized by passenger abuse, etc. 2) The added power bus noise to the aircraft's electrical system from 400 consumer computers (or whatever the worst-case number would be for a certain aircraft type) would have to be studied to determine if a given aircraft's avionics can still operate properly under such conditions. 3) The susceptibility of consumer computer gear to electrical transients normally encountered in aircraft operation would have to be considered and dealt with, lest the manufacturers & airlines get hassled by angry passengers whose computers were upset/damaged by power transients. I'm sure there would be other considerations, but I didn't want to let this get too long. Just my 2 cents worth. TGB From kls Wed Jan 26 04:12:58 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kwd@netcom.com (Kurt W. Dekker) Subject: Powering portables References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jan 94 04:12:58 PST Regarding powering portables, I recently heard about an incident where an aircraft was advised by ATC that they were several miles off their assigned route, and to check their heading, position, etc., to find out what was up. They checked everything and even cross-checked with some other navaids, and found their position to be correct. Radar insisted they were off course, and advised them to climb to maintain terrain clearance. Then they sent someone back into the passenger area (I'm not sure how large an aircraft this was, I heard it second hand) and saw someone using a portable computer. They had them power down, and all of a sudden their nav instruments indicated that they were something like 20 miles off their victor airway, and in an area where there was rising terrain. I'm not sure you'd want 400 people all powering up their AST Premium Execs in the cabin! Not all portables radiate, but many do, and having several all in use at one time could spell disaster. Plus if there was any type of radiation back along the power lines, it could use the entire power bus as an antenna. Kurt From kls Wed Jan 26 04:13:00 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mcgill@lds.loral.com (Christopher McGill) Subject: Re: ANA 747-400s References: <881@ohare.Chicago.COM> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jan 94 04:13:00 PST Tried to send the following via e-mail but it bounced, I hope this isn't considered too trivial for the group, but I really am curious... In article <881@ohare.Chicago.COM>, rathinam@ins.infonet.net () writes: [snip] > The "Nippon Clip-On" is what you must be referring to. [snip] Hi, Was curious if you know how long a down-time this required and what type of modification has to take place to "clip-on" the winglets. I'm sure it can't be too trivial, can it? Chris ------------------------------------ "...the color of the skin is in no way | Christopher S McGill | connected with strength of mind or | email: mcgill@cps070.lds.loral.com | intellectual powers..." ------------------------------------ - Benjamin Banneker From kls Wed Jan 26 04:13:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: campbjw@wkuvx1.wku.edu Subject: PBS program on planes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jan 94 04:13:02 PST I just finished watching episode #3 of the PBS series "Challenge To America" - it is devoted to the competition between Boeing and Airbus. The show features interviews with MANY VPs from both outfits as well as several from commercial carriers. The show has one segment which briefly outlines the history of the Boeing 777, including the airframe design team from Mitsubitshi. A pretty good show - watch for it. PS - PBS program "NOVA" will air the episode about the WW II codebreakers soon - lots of vintage airplane footage. Check your local program guide for specific air times and dates. -John --------------------- John Campbell (CAMPBJW@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) Western Kentucky University Bowling Green, KY (USA) From kls Wed Jan 26 04:13:04 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@tom.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Lufthansa advertisements, A340 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Atlanta Customer Support Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jan 94 04:13:04 PST I heard, this morning on a local Atlanta radio station, an advertisement for Lufthansa... who is offering service from Atlanta to Frankfurt on the Airbus 340. Of more social engineering than aeronautical engineering note, I suppose, is what I found most interesting about the ad: Lufthansa is hyping not only the newness of the A340, but the fact that it is a four engine plane. I presume that this is to play on the (irrational, unsupported by statistical fact) fears of some travellers, about not having "as many engines as possible". Anyway, I thought that the audience of sci.aeronautics.airliners would find this advertisement interesting. (Technical question, to justify the posting... WHY did Airbus design a 4 engine plane in the days of large Twins??) -- 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 Feb 2 01:35:07 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ferg0012@gold.tc.umn.edu () Subject: Re: Lufthansa advertisements, A340 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Feb 94 01:35:07 PST In libove@tom.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) writes: >Lufthansa is hyping not only the newness of the A340, but >the fact that it is a four engine plane. I presume that this >is to play on the (irrational, unsupported by statistical fact) >fears of some travellers, about not having "as many engines >as possible". Actually, I remember reading in AW&ST that Middle-Eastern countries preferred four engine models over two engine -- I think because if they lost an engine, there are a lot of places they don't want to HAVE to land. It may not be rational, but not all buyers and fliers are rational. Rob Ferguson History of Science and Technology University of Minnesota, Twin Cities From kls Wed Feb 2 01:35:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Lufthansa advertisements, A340 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Feb 94 01:35:09 PST In article , Jay Vassos-Libove wrote: > [gobs deleted] > >(Technical question, to justify the posting... WHY did Airbus >design a 4 engine plane in the days of large Twins??) There are two reasons that I'm familiar with. One, there were no engines large enough at the time of the A340's launch. Note the 777 launched later and has a very aggressive engine development program in order to support the first flight date. The A330 has relatively large engines, but not big enough to give the heavier A340 the range it needed. The more politically correct (in Europe) answer is that the direct operating costs are reduced with four engines because of weight savings due to the dead weight bending moment relief of the outboard engines. This is extremely difficult to quantify, particularly given the announced level of wing commonality between the A330 and the A340. Makes one wonder which airplane is carrying the weight penalty of the other's engine arrangement. -- 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 Feb 2 01:35:11 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Lufthansa advertisements, A340 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Feb 94 01:35:11 PST In article libove@tom.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) writes: (Technical question, to justify the posting... WHY did Airbus design a 4 engine plane in the days of large Twins??) -------- This is because, to the manufacters and airlines, certifying a twin for Extended Range (ER) operations is a major hassle: -- The aircraft must demonstrate a certain number of flight hours without engine trouble before being considered for ER certification. This is to prove both that the engine can take it AND that a single engine (plus APU) would be sufficient to power the electrical, pneumatic (packs), and hydraulic systems to DIVERT to an emrgency field. A four engined aircraft doesn't even have to divert to a field and can continue on 3 engines to its original destination (in theory - in practice, most captains would elect to land ASAP). -- The individual airline must apply for ER certification to prove its maintenance program is up to snuff. -- Even with ER certification, according to FAA standards, you still have to fly at all times no further than a specified number of minutes from an emergency field (90, 120, or 180 minutes depending on the carrier/aircraft). If you want to operate in REAL remote areas (i.e. the pacific, etc), you are out of luck. The A340 has 4 CFM56 engines (same basic type certified for B737 and B757). Thus (obviously) ER certification does not apply, and because these engines are pretty good, fuel economy-wise, they aren't sacrificing that much. Conversely, the A330, which has the EXACT same fuselage and wing (except for engine pylons) as the A340, because it is a twin: -- requires new engines (i.e. GE90, PW4080, and RR Trent) and the attendent engine certification, -- ER certification, which the flying prototype has been demonstrating flying from Paris to Singapore or some other huge stage length (aside: would YOU want to fly for 20 hours a pop?) -- New engine maintenance programs on the part of the airlines. One example: the RR Trent cannot be transported as an intact unit on the back of a tractor trailer; the fan must be removed and broken into a several components, which then must be reassembled before installation. This is because the fan diameter is too wide and/or high for the US interstates (without Wide Load trailers). Anyways, the difference in range/payload between the A330/A340 is small enough that some carriers are willing to eat the operating differences. BTW, the B777 will be delivered to United with an ER certificate, but will be the first aircraft to be so certified at initial delivery... Hope this helps, Ed Hahn -- //////// Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 \\\\\\\\ The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really. From kls Wed Feb 2 01:35:15 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Lufthansa advertisements, A340 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Feb 94 01:35:15 PST In article Ed Hahn writes:>-- Even with ER certification, according to FAA standards, you still >have to fly at all times no further than a specified number of minutes >from an emergency field (90, 120, or 180 minutes depending on the >carrier/aircraft). If you want to operate in REAL remote areas (i.e. the >pacific, etc), you are out of luck. There are *very* few spots where you can't go with 180-minute ETOPS, and they're so small that it's not terribly inconvenient to fly around them. Continental US to Hawaii is one of the worst but it can be done (and is done by at least American and QANTAS) with 180-minute ETOPS. Hawaii to the South Pacific is significantly easier. With the bases in the Aleutians, and perhaps now some Russian bases in Siberia, the North Pacific is surprisingly easy, perhaps even within 120-minute ETOPS. >The A340 has 4 CFM56 engines (same basic type certified for B737 >and B757). The 757 uses RB.211-524 or PW2000-series engines, both significantly larger th the CFM56. Besides the 737 and A340, the CFM56 is used on the 70-series DC-8s (re-engined 60-series aircraft). It's also one of the choices on the A320 family (including A319 and A321), the other being the IAE V2500. The CFM56 for the A320 is roughly 50% higher thrust than the 737 and DC-8, so certification was probably not a no-brainer. >Conversely, the A330, which has the EXACT same fuselage ... Minor nit -- the A330 has the same fuselage as the A340-300, while the A340-200 is somewhat shorter. >... requires new engines (i.e. GE90, PW4080, and RR Trent) and >the attendent engine certification, The Pratt and Whitney engine for the A330 is the PW4168. At 68,000 lbs. of thrust it's not that much of a leap from the 60,000 lbs. thrust PW4060 of the 767-300(ER), probably much less a new engine than the high-thrust CFM56-5C2/-5C3/-5C4 of the A340. While the GE90 will be available in the future, the early A330s have GE's CF6-80. Again, not a new engine, though a significant growth from previous versions. Even the Trent is not entirely new engine, being derived from the RB.211, though it has far less in common with its ancestor than the PW4168 or CF6-80E1 have with theirs. >BTW, the B777 will be delivered to United with an ER certificate, but >will be the first aircraft to be so certified at initial delivery... Not true according to what I've seen in the last six months. In fact, it appears the A330 will have a far easier time getting ETOPS ratings than the 777, partly because the engines aren't as substantial a departure (particularly for GE, which will only offer the GE90) and partly because the airframe and avionics have been largely proven by the A340 already. The latest rumblings from the FAA suggest that it will be very unlikely for the 777 to come with ETOPS on day 1. -- 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 Feb 2 01:35:17 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: ANA 747-400s References: <881@ohare.Chicago.COM> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Feb 94 01:35:17 PST In article , Christopher McGill wrote: > > Was curious if you know how long a down-time this required and what type > of modification has to take place to "clip-on" the winglets. I'm sure it > can't be too trivial, can it? This has not been done yet. The Domestic (was SR/LR) is designed to be run on the short hops for 15 to 20 years and then have the wingtip extensions and winglets installed to run out the rest of the airframe's life in long-haul service. This is actually a pretty nifty deal for those who run 747s on both long and short routes. My guess is that this mod would be performed during a heavy maintenance check (often a month or more in duration) and have the interior reconfigured at the same time. -- 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 Feb 2 01:35:18 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R Ebright) Subject: Re: Powering portables References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Feb 94 01:35:18 PST In article , Kurt W. Dekker wrote: >Regarding powering portables, I recently heard about an incident where an >aircraft was advised by ATC that they were several miles off their >assigned route, ... Is this stuff Urban Legend (Aircraft Legend?) or is it true? Delta now lets you run scanners except at takeoff/landing... ...some carriers seem not to mind shavers, PCs, radios... Some seem to ban them. There appears to be little consistancy. Given the huge amounts of RFI already existing, especially around airports, (some flight paths are quite near multi-hundred megawatt xmitters) I wonder what the facts are. Is there any non-anedotal, scientific information on this topic? (Karl, sorry to restart an old thread...but it died last time before we got any really useful information.) -- A/~~\A 'moo2u from osu' Jim Ebright e-mail: jre+@osu.edu ((0 0))_______ "Education ought to foster the wish for truth, \ / the \ not the conviction that some particular creed (--)\ OSU | is the truth." -- Bertrand Russell From kls Wed Feb 2 01:35:19 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) Subject: Re: Powering portables References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Omen Technology INC, Portland Rain Forest Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Feb 94 01:35:19 PST In article kwd@netcom.com (Kurt W. Dekker) writes: >Regarding powering portables, I recently heard about an incident where an >aircraft was advised by ATC that they were several miles off their >assigned route, and to check their heading, position, etc., to find out >what was up. They checked everything and even cross-checked with some >other navaids, and found their position to be correct. One computer bollixes muutiple navaids?? Does it glow in the dark? Sounds like a red herring. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX caf@omen.COM 503-621-3406 Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software" TeleGodzilla BBS:621-3746 FAX:621-3735 CIS:70007,2304 From kls Wed Feb 2 13:27:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Lufthansa and Boeing at psychological war? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Feb 94 13:27:23 PST In article , Jay Vassos-Libove wrote: >Lufthansa is hyping not only the newness of the A340, but >the fact that it is a four engine plane. I presume that this >is to play on the (irrational, unsupported by statistical fact) >fears of some travellers, about not having "as many engines >as possible". More psychology. There may have been efficiency rewards, but I heard from a Boeing planner at a public seminar, a couple years back, that the two-engine plane was Boeing's own effort at psychological warfare: appealing to the buyers and operators of airliners. "Two engines must run cheaper." Bob Jacobson From kls Wed Feb 2 13:27:27 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Lufthansa advertisements, A340 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Feb 94 13:27:27 PST In article you write: >Actually, I remember reading in AW&ST that Middle-Eastern countries >preferred four engine models over two engine -- I think because if they >lost an engine, there are a lot of places they don't want to HAVE to >land. It may not be rational, but not all buyers and fliers are >rational. Not rational? Of course it's rational. If you're going to plunk down 5% of the gross national product for an airplane, you don't want to risk having to land on the soil of a hostile neighbor, and then risk losing the service of the airplane (while accruing finance charges) while it is "processed." Case in point: has Iran given Iraq back all its fighters and airliners? I think not. :-) --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Wed Feb 2 13:27:31 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Powering portables References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Feb 94 13:27:31 PST In article , James R Ebright wrote: >In article , >Kurt W. Dekker wrote: >>Regarding powering portables, I recently heard about an incident where an >>aircraft was advised by ATC that they were several miles off their >>assigned route, >... > >Is this stuff Urban Legend (Aircraft Legend?) or is it true? It is very true. >Delta now lets you run scanners except at takeoff/landing... ...some carriers >seem not to mind shavers, PCs, radios... Some seem to ban them. There appears >to be little consistancy. There is a technical committee working on that. >Given the huge amounts of RFI already existing, especially around airports, >(some flight paths are quite near multi-hundred megawatt xmitters) I wonder >what the facts are. Is there any non-anedotal, scientific information on this >topic? Yes, but you can't have it. :-) Seriously, the FAA and AvWeek have published gobs on the subject. From an aircraft systems point of view, let me give you my two cents worth. The navaids come in all varieties. Some have a coax that runs from the antenna (typically near the midbody of the aircraft) to the box in the rack, some (like the ADF) have a box near the antenna and run unshielded wires in tracks under the floor and sidewalls in the passenger cabin to the box in the rack. The box in the rack is right underneath the first class cabin in most airplanes. Some aircraft have boxes in racks in the cabin with the passengers (Fokker 100 for example). All of you EE types should be familiar with the possibility of cross talk between and unshielded digital device such as a consumer-class CD player and another digital system running through unshielded wires. Aircraft flying by multi-megawatt transmitters are the subject of HIRF testing, a recent and very expensive certification requirement. However, the inverse square law works in your favor here, where it wouldn't with a portable computer or CD player in the cabin. BTW, a cellular phone is considered to be the most hazardous consumer electronic device on board the airplane, and there are a number of documented incidents involving their influence on the navigation systems. I think they may well be involved in the rash of rudder hard-overs on landing that commercial carriers have experienced lately. (Airplane is landing, the busy traveler sneaks out the cell-phone to confirm the rent-a-car or tell Boopsie he has arrived - BTW, he didn't believe the cabin crew when they asked him not to use his phone on the airplane until it arrived at the gate.) For those who didn't catch it, airplane wiring is rarely shielded. Shielding is very heavy (and there are several miles of wiring in every airplane these days) and costs the airlines in terms of more fuel burned to haul it through the air, which in turn costs the consumer more for the ticket (or makes the airline lose more money depending on your paradigm). >(Karl, sorry to restart an old thread...but it died last time before we >got any really useful information.) >-- > A/~~\A 'moo2u from osu' Jim Ebright e-mail: jre+@osu.edu >((0 0))_______ "Education ought to foster the wish for truth, > \ / the \ not the conviction that some particular creed > (--)\ OSU | is the truth." -- Bertrand Russell > -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Wed Feb 2 13:27:32 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: A340 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Feb 94 13:27:32 PST One of the reasons that the A340 didn't go with a larger engine (perhaps the PW2000 series) is that there was a strong sentiment to put a "French" engine on the "French" aircraft. This is just what I have heard, perhaps just France bashing! Indeed one of the reasons that the aircraft has four engines is because of the lack of available powerplants at the time of its development. The CF6 and PW4000 derivatives available then just wouldn't give it the sparkling range performance that Lufthansa was looking for. As it now stands, the aircraft can legitimately claim to be the long range king among commercial airliners. Just my $0.02... Toby From kls Wed Feb 2 13:27:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A340 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Feb 94 13:27:35 PST >One of the reasons that the A340 didn't go with a larger engine >(perhaps the PW2000 series) is that there was a strong sentiment >to put a "French" engine on the "French" aircraft. While there may be some truth to that, weight and expensere were probably far more serious concerns. The CFM56-5C series used on the A340 has a dry weight of 5,700 lbs. and is somewhat less expensive than the far heavier PW2037 at 7,160 lbs. or RB.211-535 at about 7,100 to 7,300 lbs., depending on exact model. Scaling either of these engines down to the size needed by the A340 probably would not have saved enough weight as they are fundamentally larger (hence heavier) engines. >Indeed one of the reasons that the aircraft has four engines >is because of the lack of available powerplants at the time of >its development. The CF6 and PW4000 derivatives available >then just wouldn't give it the sparkling range performance >that Lufthansa was looking for. The CF6 and PW4000 could easily have given the range performance -- they already give nearly that range performance on the 747-400 which is nearly twice as heavy. Trouble is, you'd have to schlep around a lot more fuel (no problem with the extra power but you've got to buy the stuff) and you'd have to *pay* for those engines, which would drive the A340's price tag up to, or beyond, 747-400 levels. The A340 seems to be something of a compromise. They're really pushing the CFM56, and there's probably not much growth room left in that engine. But the next step up in engines is too big, heavy, and expensive, plus would be incompatible with existing A340 fleets. A tri-jet with the bigger engines might have been a better choice, but that would have had significantly less commonality with the A330, driving up costs while also introducing the hassles of an afs-mounted engine. Long-term, I expect the A340 will follow in the footsteps of the DC-8-62 and 747SP -- impressive performers for which there just isn't that large a market, and which are rapidly eclipsed by more versatile 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 Tue Feb 8 02:15:28 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Joseph_Hall@sat.mot.com (Joseph Hall) Subject: Re: Lufthansa advertisements, A340 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Motorola Inc., Satellite Communications Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 94 02:15:28 PST Seems it was kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) who said: >There are *very* few spots where you can't go with 180-minute ETOPS, >and they're so small that it's not terribly inconvenient to fly around >them. Continental US to Hawaii is one of the worst but it can be done >(and is done by at least American and QANTAS) with 180-minute ETOPS. >Hawaii to the South Pacific is significantly easier. Hmm. Every time I fly American to Hawaii I'm on a DC-10. What Hawaii AA route is serviced by something other than a DC-10 or MD-11? Is ETOPS a purely overwater thing, or do remote land areas without facilities count too? -- Joseph Nathan Hall | "Fetch the comfy chair!" Software Architect | Gorca Systems Inc. | joseph@joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us (home) (on assignment) | (602) 732-2549 (work) Joseph_Hall-SC052C@email.mot.com From kls Tue Feb 8 02:15:30 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Lufthansa advertisements, A340 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 94 02:15:30 PST In article Joseph Hall wrote:>Hmm. Every time I fly American to Hawaii I'm on a DC-10. What Hawaii >AA route is serviced by something other than a DC-10 or MD-11? A recent OAG tells me AA only uses the DC-10 at the moment to get to Hawaii, unless I missed an MD-11 in there. However, a while ago they got 180-minute ETOPS ratings on their 767s, allegedly with the intent of using them DFW-HNL. I have no idea whether or not they actually used the capability in that service. United similarly got 180-minute ETOPS ratings for ten of their 757s, intending to use them on the lower density mainland-Hawaii routes (e.g. PDX-HNL or SFO-HLO) that used to rate a DC-8-71. They never actually began this service, I believe due to pilot objections, and most or all of the 757s are no longer ETOPS-rated. In fact, American may have followed the same course with their 757s, as I recall an article noting that American had become the first to achieve ETOPS certification on an RB.211-engined 757. I can't recall ever hearing where they intended to use this capability, nor am I aware of any current ETOPS service with 757s by American. >Is ETOPS a purely overwater thing, or do remote land areas without >facilities count too? It's generally thought of as overwater, but it's really 120-minutes or 180-minutes or whatever with an engine out from the nearest usable landing site, regardless is whether there's water or land underneath. -- 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 Feb 8 02:15:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: h andrew chuang Subject: Re: Lufthansa advertisements, A340 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 94 02:15:35 PST In article Karl Swartz write: |In article Ed Hahn writes: |EH>-- Even with ER certification, according to FAA standards, you still |EH>have to fly at all times no further than a specified number of minutes |EH>from an emergency field (90, 120, or 180 minutes depending on the |EH>carrier/aircraft). If you want to operate in REAL remote areas (i.e. the |EH>pacific, etc), you are out of luck. | |There are *very* few spots where you can't go with 180-minute ETOPS, |and they're so small that it's not terribly inconvenient to fly around |them. Continental US to Hawaii is one of the worst but it can be done |(and is done by at least American and QANTAS) with 180-minute ETOPS. |Hawaii to the South Pacific is significantly easier. With the bases |in the Aleutians, and perhaps now some Russian bases in Siberia, the |North Pacific is surprisingly easy, perhaps even within 120-minute |ETOPS. Agree. I don't think the 180-minute rule is the problem. The B767-200ER is the only twin that barely has the range to fly nonstop from the West Coast to Japan, let alone other North Pacific routes, and the -200 is way too small for the Japanese market. I think that's why you don't see any twins flying across the North Pacific. (The B-market B777 will have significant longer range.) In the South Pacific, Air New Zealand and QANTAS operate extensive over-water extended-range twin services with their B767's. Even with its extensive ETOPs, QANTAS still remains to be one of the world's safest airlines. [The rest of the article is kind of nitpicking, I hope Karl won't mind.] |EH>The A340 has 4 CFM56 engines (same basic type certified for B737 |EH>and B757). | |The 757 uses RB.211-524 or PW2000-series engines, both significantly |larger th the CFM56. The Rolls powerplant for the B757 should be the RB.211-535. |The CFM56 for the A320 is roughly 50% higher thrust than the 737 and |DC-8, so certification was probably not a no-brainer. If one compares the CFM56-5C (32,500 lb to 34,000 lb thrust for the A340) and the -5B (31,500 lb thrust for the A321), then the thrust increase is less dramatic. Nonetheless, -5C has one more booster and one more low pressure (LP) turbine stage than the -2/-3/-5A/-5B. I can be wrong, but I think the CFM56-5C is also the first non-Rolls-high-by-pass-turbofan engine that mixes the by-pass and core flows (for improved sfc and thrust). (If you don't know what I'm talking about, take a look at a -5C or a non-L1011 RB.211 engine, notice the fan cowling extend all the way to the exhaust.) |The Pratt and Whitney engine for the A330 is the PW4168. At 68,000 |lbs. of thrust it's not that much of a leap from the 60,000 lbs. |thrust PW4060 of the 767-300(ER), But P&W already has a lot of problems with its PW4460 on the MD-11's. Both Swissair and China Air Lines grounded their MD-11 fleet for serveral weeks(?) because of engine problems. |probably much less a new engine |than the high-thrust CFM56-5C2/-5C3/-5C4 of the A340. I think the -5C3 designation was skipped. |While the GE90 will be available in the future, the early A330s have |GE's CF6-80. Again, not a new engine, though a significant growth |from previous versions. GE only offers the CF6-80E1 for the A330's. The plan for a smaller GE90 on the A330 was cancelled a while ago. |Even the Trent is not entirely new engine, being derived from the |RB.211, though it has far less in common with its ancestor than the |PW4168 or CF6-80E1 have with theirs. To the best of my knowledge, Trent *is* a 'direct' derivative of the RB.211-524; I think Rolls just decided to call it something more 'trendy'. Comparing to the -524, the Trent 700 has one additional IP compressor stage (equivalent to booster) and one additional LP stage. Pratt did the same thing with their PW4168 (vs. PW4x60). |Not true according to what I've seen in the last six months. In fact, |it appears the A330 will have a far easier time getting ETOPS ratings |than the 777, partly because the engines aren't as substantial a |departure (particularly for GE, which will only offer the GE90) and |partly because the airframe and avionics have been largely proven by |the A340 already. The latest rumblings from the FAA suggest that it |will be very unlikely for the 777 to come with ETOPS on day 1. This is probably why Airbus chose the A330/340 path. Its development cost is minimal; it's also a lot less risky than the B777, at least, initially. Moreover, Airbus had secured nearly 200 A330/340 orders before Boeing could launch the B777. [ Personal opinions of ] Andrew Chuang From kls Tue Feb 8 02:15:38 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Lufthansa advertisements, A340 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 94 02:15:38 PST In article h andrew chuang wrote:>The B767-200ER is the only twin that barely has the range to fly >nonstop from the West Coast to Japan, let alone other North Pacific >routes, and the -200 is way too small for the Japanese market. United flies the 767-300(ER) LAX-LHR, and that's further than LAX-NRT, albeit by a measly 5 miles. Capacity, or lack thereof, is undoubtedly the concern in this case, even with the -300, but from Portland or Seattle or Vancouver it would seem that a -300 might do nicely. >The Rolls powerplant for the B757 should be the RB.211-535. Yup, several folks caught my mixup. I plead lack of sleep! %-) >|The CFM56 for the A320 is roughly 50% higher thrust than the 737 and >|DC-8, so certification was probably not a no-brainer. >If one compares the CFM56-5C (32,500 lb to 34,000 lb thrust for the A340) >and the -5B (31,500 lb thrust for the A321), then the thrust increase is >less dramatic. Sure, but those two were certified at about the same time, and likely shared whatever certification problems arose. >But P&W already has a lot of problems with its PW4460 on the MD-11's. Which I find rather amazing, given that the virtual identical PW4060 appears to have been doing just fine on 767s for a while now. Why the big difference? I checked all the numbers and the PW4060 and PW4460 are identical in dimensions, weight, compressor and turbine stage count, etc., so they appear to be identical except for auxiliaries and not substantially different engines that happen to have the same thrust. >|than the high-thrust CFM56-5C2/-5C3/-5C4 of the A340. >I think the -5C3 designation was skipped. I got that from AW&ST; they claim the three mentioned above are 31,200, 32,500, and 34,000 lbs. thrust respectively. Not that AW&ST never has obsolete data! -- 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 Feb 8 02:15:42 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis Jambon) Subject: Re: A340 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: IMAG, Grenoble, France Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 94 02:15:42 PST Just a short correction : The A340 and all the airplanes of the Airbus family are not "French" they are European. Usually wings are from British Aerospace (UK), Body from DASA (Gremany), Engines from Snecma (France) or General Electrics (USA) or RR (UK), avionics and nose from Aerospatiale (France). The assembly is done by Airbus Industries in France (and now for the A330 I think in Germany). Francis -- Francis JAMBON - E-mail: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr __|__ Interfaces Homme-Machine / Human-Computer Interaction *---o--(_)--o---* Tel./Phone: (+33) 76 51 48 54 - Fax: (+33) 76 44 66 75 ! ! ! LGI-IMAG, B206, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France _______________________ From kls Tue Feb 8 02:15:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A340 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 94 02:15:44 PST In article Francis Jambon writes:>Usually wings are from British Aerospace (UK) Right, except for the early (prior to the -600) A300s, which have wings designed by either Fokker or DASA or both. >Engines from Snecma (France) or General Electrics (USA) or RR (UK) Rolls-Royce engines on Airbus planes is a common misconception. While the A300 was originally announced with Rolls-Royce engines in order to keep with a European engine, all A300s and A310s have been build with either GE or Pratt & Whitney engines. RR is one of the many partners in IAE, so an A320 could be considered the first Airbus to fly with a RR engine; the first Airbus with a pure RR engine will be (or is, I'm not sure) an A330 with Trents. >The assembly is done by Airbus Industries in France (and now for the >A330 I think in Germany). Technically I believe it's Aerospatiale in France (Toulouse), not AI. The German final assembly (DASA, Hamburg) is the A321 and soon the A319. Final assembly for all other Airbus models is in Toulouse, with the the "green" airframes ferried to Hamburg for interior outfitting, maybe painting, and other such final details. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Tue Feb 8 02:15:47 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: h andrew chuang Subject: Re: A340 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 94 02:15:47 PST In article Karl Swartz writes: |>One of the reasons that the A340 didn't go with a larger engine |>(perhaps the PW2000 series) is that there was a strong sentiment |>to put a "French" engine on the "French" aircraft. | |While there may be some truth to that, weight and expensere were |probably far more serious concerns. The CFM56-5C series used on the |A340 has a dry weight of 5,700 lbs. and is somewhat less expensive |than the far heavier PW2037 at 7,160 lbs. or RB.211-535 at about 7,100 |to 7,300 lbs., depending on exact model. Scaling either of these |engines down to the size needed by the A340 probably would not have |saved enough weight as they are fundamentally larger (hence heavier) |engines. I doubt Airbus seriously explored the possibility of putting the PW2000 or RB.211-535 on the A340. It did propose a Superfan (an ultra high bypass [UHB] IAE V2500) version of the A340 that Lufthansa was very interested in. I would think that a UHB version of the V2500 could easily produce similar thrust and consume significant less fuel than the PW2000 or RB.211-535. The UHB engine would definitely be heavier than the CFM56-5C and might or might not have a weight advantage over the two bigger engines, but the fuel saving should outweigh the weight penalty. Due to technical difficulties, Airbus/IAE scratched that plan. However, P&W is working on an ADP (Advanced Ducted Prop which is another jargon for UHB) application for the A340, but I'm not sure if IAE is involved. |Long-term, I expect the A340 will follow in the footsteps of the |DC-8-62 and 747SP -- impressive performers for which there just isn't |that large a market, and which are rapidly eclipsed by more versatile |aircraft. With nearly 100 firm A340 orders in the book and two recent orders by Air Canada and Cathay Pacific (after a long drought), I find it hard to put the A340 in the 747SP-league (less than 40 747SP were made, am I right??). With a solid European market base, and with some financial incentives for airlines in other parts of the world, the A340 should do no worse that the L-1011 in terms of number of orders. Financially, the A340 should do well, after all, the A340 is just a stretched A300 with A320 avionics and four engines. In addition, the development cost is also shared by the A330 program. Nevertheless, I wonder if an ADP-powered A340 (i.e., a growth A340) will ever materialize. (Airbus will always have Lufthansa to count on if it decides to launch the program!) [ Personal opinions of ] Andrew Chuang From kls Tue Feb 8 02:15:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: Re: A340 Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 94 02:15:50 PST Karl, I'm not sure I follow your logic on the CF6/PW4000 on the A340. At the time of its development, *no* two engines could have provided the performance that Lufthansa was looking for. Now, things have changed, but the aircraft is already flying in service. The A340 started out as an A310-sized 4-engined aircraft for incredibly long routes, while the A330 started as a 2-engined aircraft larger than the A300. Commonality considerations drove the two aircraft to the same size (with the A340-200 being somewhat of a compromise, aimed specifically at Lufthansa). As an A310-sized aircraft, the TA11 as it was known was very compatible with a slightly larger A320 engine, but as the aircraft grew, the engine was pushed until it is now (as you said) near its limits. As for mounting PW2000/RB211-535s on the aircraft, you're right on the money. It is this Catch-22 which the A340 faces which Boeing is exploiting to sell 777B's. To modify the A330 to really compete with the 777B would be prohibitively expensive. In the short term, both products will sell well, but I see a fairly dim future for the A340 especially because of its limited growth potential. Toby From kls Tue Feb 8 02:15:55 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.folklore.urban Path: bounce-back From: pypbf@csv.warwick.ac.uk (D.M.Procida) Subject: DC 10-ski topples on to its rear when unloaded! Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban Organization: University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 94 02:15:55 PST Alt.folklore.urban people please note: I have cross-posted this to sci.aeronautics.airliners. s.a.a is a very polite group, so remember your manners, and change the followup line when things start to get silly. A friend-of-a-friend, who has spent the last several month in Russia, told the following story: The Russians 'copied' the DC-10 as soon as they could. That is, they immediately built an aeroplane with three engines- one on the tail- of approximately the same size and capabilities. However, since they were simply copying its general features, it so happened that 'they balanced it all wrong, and before all the passengers get out they have to put a wheel under it at the back otherwise its front tips up and the back hits the ground'. I expressed polite skepticism. The concept of 'copying' another aeroplane is a very familiar one in aviation folklore, but I think it's probably a very dubious one too. An aeroplane isn't the kind of thing which easily admits of copying. Have the Russians ever built an aeroplane along the lines of the DC-10 anyway? I know they're supposed to have copied just about every other aeroplane that the west has put into the air. The story of the tipping aeroplane rings a distant bell, but still sounds perfectly implausible. We on alt.folklore.urban would be delighted to have some True Knowledge from the aeroplane people. Daniele "How much should one tip an aeroplane?" Procida From kls Tue Feb 8 02:15:57 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.folklore.urban Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC 10-ski topples on to its rear when unloaded! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 94 02:15:57 PST In article D.M.Procida wrote:>sci.aeronautics.airliners. s.a.a is a very polite group, so remember your >manners, and change the followup line when things start to get silly. I'm glad you think we're polite! Polite or not, please, everyone, note that followups have been directed to alt.folklore.urban. If you really intent a reply to go to s.a.a, please edit accordingly. >The Russians 'copied' the DC-10 as soon as they could. (I can feel the flamefest brewing already! 8-) ) >That is, they immediately built an aeroplane with three engines- one >on the tail- of approximately the same size and capabilities. Other than the DC-10, and its close cousins the KC-10 and MD-11, the only example I've seen of a jetliner with an odd number of engines that has a straight duct for the center engine (instead of an S-duct like a 727, L-1011, or Tu-154) is an early sketch of the Trident. Moreover, while the Soviets had built some very large airplanes, the Il-86 was their first widebody jetliner, of very roughly comparable size and capability as the DC-10, but with four engines because their engine technology was comparatively lacking. All of their tri-jets were a lot smaller than the DC-10. >The story of the tipping aeroplane rings a distant bell, but still >sounds perfectly implausible. It's not at all implausible; I have photographic evidence that a DC-10 itself can tip if you misload it. (FedEx did this at LAX a couple of years ago.) True to a lot of folklore, there's probably some basis for the Russian tipping plane as well -- the Il-62 has a small strut and wheel at the rear that's used to keep the plane from tipping while it's parked. This isn't a design flaw but rather an artifact of the inherent weight imbalance of the Il-62's four aft-mounted engines. The 727 suffers the same problem, except the clever folks in Seattle disguised the prop as the aft stairs, which you always (or almost always) see down while the plane is at the gate. (The DC-9, VC-10, and Trident may also do the same, I'm not sure offhand.) There's more on this in the context of the Il-62 and VC-10 in the sci.aeronautics.airliners archives, on your choice of ftp.kei.com or rascal.ics.utexas.edu. -- 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 Feb 8 02:15:58 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: Why does Southwest want a jet with a longer range? Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 94 02:15:58 PST In response to a recent query about Southwest's purchase of the Next-Generation 737, I forward this article which appeared in a Boeing Newsletter: When Southwest Airlines ordered the longer-range Next- Generation 737, speculation began that it might move away from its traditional short-haul markets when it takes first delivery in 1997. "Southwest's bread and butter markets always have been less than 450 miles, while the 737-X can fly transcontinental distances," said Julius Maldutis of Salomon Brothers of New York. "Either Southwest perceives some extraordinary opportunities in U.S. long-haul markets by the end of the decade or it sees a growing risk to its traditional short-haul strategy." Another New York analyst sees the order as a response from Chairman Herb Kelleher to the US majors who are talking of copying Southwest. He suggests Kelleher's retort could be: "With this plane, I can take on anything you do to me. If you try to trash me at Midway or in California, I can throw the plane into the Los Angeles-Chicago market, charge a $79 fare and trash you." Dave Ridley, Southwest director of sales and marketing, maintains the order is merely a continuation of the airline's "traditional conservative expansion plan of adding some 12 to 15 new planes per year." He concedes, however, that the longer range "opens up options for us should we choose to fly greater distances." (Airline Business) 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 Tue Feb 8 23:33:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.folklore.urban Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: DC 10-ski topples on to its rear when unloaded! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 94 23:33:09 PST In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >True to a lot of folklore, there's probably some basis for the Russian >tipping plane as well -- the Il-62 has a small strut and wheel at the >rear that's used to keep the plane from tipping while it's parked. >This isn't a design flaw but rather an artifact of the inherent weight >imbalance of the Il-62's four aft-mounted engines. The 727 suffers >the same problem, except the clever folks in Seattle disguised the >prop as the aft stairs, which you always (or almost always) see down >while the plane is at the gate. (The DC-9, VC-10, and Trident may >also do the same, I'm not sure offhand.) Karl, the IL-62 is a clear copy of the _V_C-10. Couldn't that account for the story about the "DC-10 copy" that tipped? (especially if later on, someone heard that a DC-10 had tipped, and considering that few Americans even know the existence of the VC-10 (which, for you alt.folklore.urban folks, is a British aircraft unrelated to the DC-10)) Also, I read somewhere that the IL-62 _was_ badly designed re:weight, to the point that in some versions they had to carry water ballast in the nose. RNA From kls Tue Feb 8 23:33:10 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com Subject: Aircraft not toppling onto rear (VC10) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 94 23:33:10 PST To my knowledge the VC10 never had or needed a tail prop to prevent it tipping up. By contrast the Russian equivalent had a sort of tail 'pogo stick' to prevent this mishap. I don't know how the VC10 got around this potential problem especially as some variants (Super) had a tail fuel tank. I can only guess that the following points might be relevant. a) Main undercarriage mounted very far back (flap root) on the main wing. b) Main undercarriage oleos tilted 10 degrees back from vertical so main wheels even further back (see (a)) c) Overly strong fuelage and wing construction (Comet legacy) so lots of weight ahead of the main wheels. d) 90% + of payload located ahead of main wheels (I think that's about right). Related to the above. Does anyone know the fate of all the VC10s? I recall that two crashed - one on the approach to Lagos (pilot error) and one aborting a take off at Addis Ababa (anti-skid unit cross-channeled). One was blown up by the PLO and two were written off after being badly damaged. Most remaining VC10s are now flown by the RAF as tankers but that may not acccount for all of them. I beleive Air Malawi were the last civilian operators up to about 1980. Regards Julian Fitzherbert PS: I had many flights in the VC10s (Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Malawi) and am quite nostalgic about the plane.) From kls Tue Feb 8 23:33:12 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Lufthansa advertisements, A340 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 94 23:33:12 PST In article you write: >>Is ETOPS a purely overwater thing, or do remote land areas without >>facilities count too? > >It's generally thought of as overwater, but it's really 120-minutes >or 180-minutes or whatever with an engine out from the nearest usable >landing site, regardless is whether there's water or land underneath. True, and notably this includes much of Russia. While there are many suitable runways for diversion, there aren't many suitable *airports* (with suitable emergency facilities, approach and landing aids, etc). --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Tue Feb 8 23:33:13 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: ETOPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 94 23:33:13 PST Indeed, the 767 *can* do West Coast-Japan if equipped with the correct ETOPS equipment. American seriously considered putting 767-300ERs on the SJC-NRT route before they had enough MD-11s because the DC-10 just didn't give the right payload-range performance from San Jose's runway. MGM Grand Air toyed wiht the idea of using 757ERs (with extra tanks, of course) on the LAX-NRT route for an all-first class service. This never got off the ground, probably because of the lack of slots. As for the 767's range, Lauda Air operates nonstop LAX-MUC, SAS operates LAX-CPH (though not for much longer), and in the past Delta has operated LAX-FRA. One more thing, American was not the first airline to operate ETOPS equipped 757s. The European charter carriers, including LTU, Monarch, the former Air Europe, and others have been using the aircraft trans-Atlantic since before American received its first aircraft. Toby From kls Tue Feb 8 23:33:15 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sherry@a.cs.okstate.edu (Rob Sherry) Subject: American Airlines exhibit in Tulsa Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 94 23:33:15 PST For anyone who may be interested in airline history, should you ever find yourself in Tulsa, Oklahoma, check out the American Airlines exhibit on the lower level of the Tulsa International Airport. It's in an out of the way corner on the eastern side of the lower level. There's a nice display of models of past and present American planes, and a few photos, etc. For those who don't know, American has a large maintenance facility at the airport there. The south end of the main runway is a great place to sit and watch the DC-10's and MD-80's come and go. Rob -- rms sherry@a.cs.okstate.edu From kls Wed Feb 9 14:12:15 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: greg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) Subject: Re: Aircraft not toppling onto rear (VC10) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Indiana University Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Feb 94 14:12:15 PST In julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com writes: >c) Overly strong fuelage and wing construction (Comet legacy) so lots of > weight ahead of the main wheels. Comet legacy? I distinctly remember several Comets coming apart in mid-air. Or are you saying that the redesigned Comets were over-engineered to avoid embarassment? >d) 90% + of payload located ahead of main wheels (I think that's about right). Is this true? How the heck do you rotate, or flare, a VC10? I find this hard to believe, considering they have four aft-mounted engines! greg From kls Thu Feb 10 06:52:01 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: megazone@yoyodyne.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) Subject: Re: Aircraft not toppling onto rear (VC10) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Feb 94 06:52:01 PST greg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) shaped the electrons to say: >In julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com writes: >>c) Overly strong fuelage and wing construction (Comet legacy) so lots of >> weight ahead of the main wheels. >Comet legacy? I distinctly remember several Comets coming apart in >mid-air. Or are you saying that the redesigned Comets were over-engineered After the Comet problems, the industry over-built some designs, until testing methods allowed for less material as the designs we improved... >>d) 90% + of payload located ahead of main wheels (I think that's about right) >Is this true? How the heck do you rotate, or flare, a VC10? I find >this hard to believe, considering they have four aft-mounted engines! Payload... That's the key word, not structure weight. Though from looking at the aircraft, I don't think it's 90%, probably around 70% or so... But that's judging by the amount of fuselage fore and aft of the mains. -- megazone@wpi.wpi.edu megazone@world.std.com megazone@hotblack.schunix.dmc.com "I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think!" Moderator: WPI anime FTP site, 130.215.24.1 /anime, the anime FanFic archive; rec.arts.anime.stories, questions to anime-dojinshi-request@wpi.wpi.edu GTW d-- -p+ c++(++++) l u+ e+ m+(*)@ s++/+ !n h- f+ !g w+ t+@ r+@ y+(*) From kls Fri Feb 11 03:55:05 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Aircraft not toppling onto rear (VC10) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Feb 94 03:55:05 PST In article , Gregory R. TRAVIS wrote: >In julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com writes: > >>c) Overly strong fuelage and wing construction (Comet legacy) so lots of >> weight ahead of the main wheels. > >Comet legacy? I distinctly remember several Comets coming apart in >mid-air. Or are you saying that the redesigned Comets were over-engineered >to avoid embarassment? I rather doubt that the Comets are over-engineered for their time, the 1950s. Granted, they missed the stress buildup around the window holes and forgot to put in a flange to give themselves more area (P/A you know), but the big issue in that time, IMHO, was fatigue life vs weight (come to think of it, that is still a big issue driving gobs of materials work). Look at the DC-8 and the 707, and the Lockheed Electra, all designed in that same era with essentially the same alloys. Tremendously long lives. >>d) 90% + of payload located ahead of main wheels (I think that's about right). > >Is this true? How the heck do you rotate, or flare, a VC10? I find >this hard to believe, considering they have four aft-mounted engines! Um, I don't think so either. Typically, you'll find the main gear a few tens of inches behind the aft CG limit. Therefore, you shouldn't expect more than 55% of the airplane's weight in front of the main gear. But, after another millisecond's thought, I note that julian wrote 90% of the PAYLOAD is forward of the gear. Not that I agree with that either, even Douglas puts less than 70% in front of the mains. That number is eyeballed, by the way, and is strictly my uninformed opinion, your mileage may vary. Karl probably has better numbers than I do. Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Fri Feb 11 03:55:11 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Jackson D. Busenbark" <11JBUSENBARK@gallua.gallaudet.edu> Subject: Anti-collison lights Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Feb 94 03:55:11 PST I posted this question to rec.travel.air, but got no response. I figure this newsgroup is more appropriate. Here goes: Excuse me for being so technical, but a couple weeks ago when I was at DCA, I noticed that on, for example, the 727 the red anti-collison lights were the strobe type. Simple, right? But wait. On some other 727's, were the rotating-beacon types of anti-collison lights. This prompted me to come to a theory that customers opt for a certain type (strobe or rotating beacon) of anti-collison lights when they buy their planes. Now, why would they do this? What are the pros and cons of each? Just a nagging little detail that has been on my mind these past days... -Jackson D. Busenbark 11jbusenbark@gallua.gallaudet.edu Gallaudet University Washington, D.C. From kls Wed Feb 16 01:10:16 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: MANNING@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU Subject: Tupolev TU-144: Where are you now? Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 94 01:10:16 PST Organization: University of Houston I recently read a book by Howard Moon about the development and ultimate failure of the Tupolev TU-144, the Soviet SST. The book ended without a clear indication of what actually happened to the prototype and production models of the aircraft. This is most likely due to the cool relations our nations had in the past. Since the collapse of the old Communist order, has any information been learned about the current disposition the the TU-144? Additionally, the plane was in very limited and sporadic scheduled service for a short time. Did anyone happen to fly on the TU-144? I would think that such an experience by a Westerner would be EXTREMELY rare. Just wondering..... Ken Houston, Texas From kls Wed Feb 16 01:10:17 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kchan@jplsp2.jpl.nasa.gov (Khee Chan) Subject: Re: Anti-collison lights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: kchan@jplsp2.jpl.nasa.gov Organization: What? Me Organised? Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 94 01:10:17 PST In article , "Jackson D. Busenbark" <11JBUSENBARK@gallua.gallaudet.edu> writes: > >Excuse me for being so technical, but a couple weeks ago when I was at DCA, I >noticed that on, for example, the 727 the red anti-collison lights were the >strobe type. Simple, right? But wait. On some other 727's, were the >rotating-beacon types of anti-collison lights. This prompted me to come to a >theory that customers opt for a certain type (strobe or rotating beacon) of >anti-collison lights when they buy their planes. > >Now, why would they do this? What are the pros and cons of each? For the bits that are required to generate the flashes, the following applies: Rotating beacon == mechanical == moving parts == more maintenance Strobe == electronic == no moving parts == less maintenance The difference between the type of anti-collision lights on the above mentioned 727's is probably more likely to be correlated to the vintage of the aircraft. Maybe customer preference has something to do with it - perhaps someone from Boeing can answer this. ----- Khee Chan kchan@jplsp.jpl.nasa.gov, kchan@esoc.bitnet, jplsp::kchan <> From kls Wed Feb 16 01:10:21 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark.Brown@dcs.qmw.ac.uk Subject: Re: Aircraft not toppling onto rear (VC10) Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 94 01:10:21 PST > > In julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com writes: > > >c) Overly strong fuelage and wing construction (Comet legacy) so lots of > > weight ahead of the main wheels. > > Comet legacy? I distinctly remember several Comets coming apart in > mid-air. Or are you saying that the redesigned Comets were over-engineered > to avoid embarassment? > > >d) 90% + of payload located ahead of main wheels (I think that's about right). > > Is this true? How the heck do you rotate, or flare, a VC10? I find > this hard to believe, considering they have four aft-mounted engines! > Don't think 90% of payload is located ahead of main wheels in the VC-10, but anyway, have you seen the size of the horizontal tail on the VC-10, or seen how far above the ground it is (T-tailed)? With a mutha that size and the nice moment arm you get, I'd say elevator authority was pretty good! Re the overengineering on the Comet, the fuselage etc. were pretty strong, and designed so from the outset -- the only problem was that pressurisation was still relatively new when that aircraft was designed, and the differential pressures were pretty high (given the cruise altitude). Also, the number of cycles was higher than other previous pressurised aircraft were likely to have encountered, so experience at that time was scarce. The static test article was tested in a water tank, but not enough, and stress-related fatigue due to the high number of cycles built up at the corner of one of the apertures in the fuselage (I think a window above the forward fuselage, which had sharpish corners -- not good for stress buildup), eventually leading to failure of the fuselage at that point, followed by explosive decompression. The Comet IVs were safe, but by that time they'd a bad reputation, so everybody bought DC-8s and 707s instead. The rest is history. Mark. -- Mark A. Brown Department of Computer Science, Queen Mary & Westfield College, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS email: eeyore@uk.ac.qmw.dcs, Tel: +44 71 975 5220 From kls Wed Feb 16 01:10:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.folklore.urban Path: bounce-back From: John.Stone@bris.ac.uk (JR. Stone) Subject: Re: DC 10-ski topples on to its rear when unloaded! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.folklore.urban Reply-To: John.Stone@bris.ac.uk Organization: University of Bristol, England Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 94 01:10:23 PST Robert Ashcroft (rna@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote: > Also, I read somewhere that the IL-62 _was_ badly designed re:weight, > to the point that in some versions they had to carry water ballast in > the nose. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I understand that 747's (and possibly others) carry depleted uranium in the nose for ballast - lots of mass in a small volume. Don't suppose you could say that _they_ were badly designed :-) Does create a bit of local concern when they crash, though. -- John Stone, Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK John.Stone@bristol.ac.uk - Tel: +44 272 288262 - FAX: +44 272 303889 From kls Wed Feb 16 01:10:27 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.folklore.urban Path: bounce-back From: dmitri@acs4.bu.edu (Christopher Hutton) Subject: Re: DC 10-ski topples on to its rear when unloaded! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Reply-To: dmitri@acs4.bu.edu (Christopher Hutton) Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 94 01:10:27 PST I remember hearing about the need for ballast in the nose on some British air-craft due to union out-cries when the planes were outfitted with mechanical stairs in the front. After trying to simply remove this option it was found that due to ensuing balance problems they had to put concrete in the nose to solve the problem. Could this be related to this discussion? -- ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Hutton dmitri@acs/acs2/cgl/hendrix.bu.edu From kls Wed Feb 16 01:10:31 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mpalmer@encore.com (Mike Palmer) Subject: Little red strips of fabric on the wing???? Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Encore Computer Corporation Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 94 01:10:31 PST On a recent US Air flight the aircraft had 4 or 5 strips of 1" wide cloth type material (~12" long) attached to the wing, about 2' from the fuselage. Anyone know what they are for? Regards, Encore Computer Corporation Mike Palmer 6901 W Sunrise Boulevard Parasight Project Leader Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33313 email: mpalmer@encore.com Telephone: (305) 797-2326 From kls Wed Feb 16 01:10:32 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Little red strips of fabric on the wing???? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 94 01:10:32 PST >On a recent US Air flight the aircraft had 4 or 5 strips of 1" wide cloth >type material (~12" long) attached to the wing, about 2' from the fuselage. This was an MD-80, or perhaps a DC-9, right? If so, these were added after the SAS crash several years ago. The problem is that the fuel tank arrangement on the MD-80 has a tendency to create wing icing problems even in conditions where one would not normally expect to see any icing. The cloth strips are there to help make the ice visible. -- 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 Feb 16 01:10:39 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com Subject: Vickers VC10 (4 aft engines+ T tail) Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 94 01:10:39 PST Greg Yes the VC10s were over-engineered and most other UK aircraft after the Comet. An Air Malawi pilot told me and I quote, "They are built like brick shit-houses but fly like fighters - a very nice aircraft." This is why the RAF is able to get more air time out of them despite the airframes already having lots of hours. I think 60,000 hours (this could be way out) is the airframe life. I don't know how that compares with others but seem to recall the Concorde life being similar. >>d) 90% + of payload located ahead of main wheels (I think that's about right). Re: My point (D) about the position of the payload. On reflection this does sound a bit daft but if you look at the VC10 nearly all of the passenger compartment is ahead of the main wheels and the aft cargo bay is tiny. The high 'T' tail plane is a long way back and those 4 Conway engines must weigh a bit. I would guess about 2 tons each. As you suggest the CofG must be close to the wheels or you have major difficulty rotating. Presumably the CofG does not move much with a full load so tipping isn't an issue. Can anyone comment further? I wonder how the MD80 manages to rotate???? Julian PS: Gentle with those flames - I'm not an aircraft engineer 8-) From kls Wed Feb 16 01:10:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wave@u.washington.edu (David A. Lee) Subject: Re: DC 10-ski topples on to its rear when unloaded! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 94 01:10:41 PST In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >imbalance of the Il-62's four aft-mounted engines. The 727 suffers >the same problem, except the clever folks in Seattle disguised the >prop as the aft stairs, which you always (or almost always) see down >while the plane is at the gate. (The DC-9, VC-10, and Trident may >-- >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 > BZZZT! NOT! The aft stairway in the 727 was NOT meant as some sort of stabilizer. It was simply a built in stairway for smaller airports without moving stairways. Note the built in stairway in the 737-100 that retracts out from below the front side main entry door. The rear stairway use for passenger loading was discontinued for security reasons sometime in the mid-1980s. D.B. Cooper jumped out of a 727 somewhere over Washington State from the stairway in mid flight. David (Seattle resident, Boeing is in my backyard, my dad a 37 year vetren of the Lazy B as an engineer) -- "But can a giant ant-eater get hold of Vicks Vapor Rub? WELL NO! But he can ask a FRIEND to get some!" - From the Monty Python sketch, "The Wonderful World of Sounds." n8941448@henson.cc.wwu.edu --or-- wave@stein.u.washington.edu From kls Wed Feb 16 13:13:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: MD-11 Control Characteristics Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 94 13:13:41 PST The Washington Post reports today that the National Transportation Safety Board said yesterday the McDonnell Douglas MD-11's design can lead to violent in-flight upsets in the hands of pilots not trained in its peculiar control characteristics. The board recommended that the FAA establish new requirements for MD-11 flight control handling characteristics and require flight demonstrations to ensure that pilots can safely recover from high-altitude upsets. 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 Wed Feb 16 13:13:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: assorted Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 94 13:13:43 PST >If so, these were added after the SAS crash several years ago. Karl, I think these have been on DC-9s/MD-80s for many years in recognition of the dangers of ice-contaminated wings. It was only after SAS that people got serious about ice leaving these wings and ending up in engines. THe main result of this has been the addition of heater pads to the inner wings of these aircraft. This is still in flight test on some Continental and (I believe) American aircraft. >BZZZT! NOT! > >The aft stairway in the 727 was NOT meant as some sort of stabilizer. This is flamebait!!! As was stated earlier, the aft stairway is a very clever combination of a stabilizer *and* a means for passengers and crew to get in and out. David, aircraft with aft-mounted engines have very restrictive c.g. ranges and trying to load them (with people or cargo) without some type of support is not practical. Of course, once loaded, the aircraft should be able to stand on it's three legs with no problem. I don't think this is true of the IL62 because I have seen pictures of the aircraft taxiing with its aft wheel extended. Toby From kls Wed Feb 16 13:13:46 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: Little red strips of fabric on the wing???? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: spagiola@leland.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 94 13:13:46 PST Karl Swartz writes > > On a recent US Air flight the aircraft had 4 or 5 strips of 1" > > wide cloth type material (~12" long) attached to the wing, about > > 2' from the fuselage. > > This was an MD-80, or perhaps a DC-9, right? If so, these were > added after the SAS crash several years ago. ... The cloth > strips are there to help make [wing icing problems] visible. I believe you're right about what they are, but I'm not sure you have the timing right. I distinctly remember seeing these on a Finnair MD-87 in December 1988. The SAS MD-80 crash was Jan.92 or thereabouts, was it not? Perhaps they had been an option and were made mandatory after the SAS crash? -- Ciao, Stefano --- Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305-6084 Tel 415-725-0939, Fax 415-725-7007 Email spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Wed Feb 16 13:13:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Anti-collison lights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 94 13:13:51 PST In article kchan@jplsp2.jpl.nasa.gov (Khee Chan) writes: >Now, why would they do this? What are the pros and cons of each? For the bits that are required to generate the flashes, the following applies: Rotating beacon == mechanical == moving parts == more maintenance Strobe == electronic == no moving parts == less maintenance The difference between the type of anti-collision lights on the above mentioned 727's is probably more likely to be correlated to the vintage of the aircraft. Maybe customer preference has something to do with it - perhaps someone from Boeing can answer this. ----- Khee Chan kchan@jplsp.jpl.nasa.gov, kchan@esoc.bitnet, jplsp::kchan <> --- I'll take a shot if you don't mind. I agree with you regarding the maintenance aspects of the two systems, first off. >From an operator's perspective, whether an airline would standardize at all, or even which to standardize would depend on the following: 1) Operator experience in component consumption (how many burned out lights/motors, etc.) on a per year basis, 2) Spares commonality with other fleets. 3) Spares which would become obsoleted. 4) Engineering manpower to write a modification order and CERTIFY it. (Could be non-trivial, depending on which region of the FAA the operator reports to). As with most operator decisions, the economics usually decides: For example, Airline X has 20 B727s, mostly delivered before strobes became an option. Airline X also has 10 B737-200s, which happen to use the same mechanical system components (I don't know for sure, I'm just creating a hypothetical case). Airline X operates mostly in the southern part of the US, without much time spent in salt environments. They also tend to fly a daylight charter schedule. Airline X's consumption of parts is rather insignificant compared with the cost of retrofit. Example 2: Airline Y has 95 B727s, about 30 of which were delivered before strobes were an option. Airline Y, which flys mostly cargo, operates a heavy night schedule between Chicago and Florida/Caribbean. After getting rid of all of its B707s, the airline only has newer aircraft like the EFIS MD83 (aside from the B727s). The yearly maintenance costs for the older system has been increasing over the last few years. Because the newer aircraft are all strobe equipped, it may make sense to retrofit these aircraft, especially since the management has decided to hush-kit these aircraft to meet Stage III noise regulations. Now I will wait for the usual bandits to pick apart the details, but you get the idea. ;-) Hope this helps, ed (ex. American Airlines/Trans World Airlines Avionics Engineering) //////// Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 \\\\\\\\ The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Wed Feb 16 13:13:52 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Comet IV References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Feb 94 13:13:52 PST In article , wrote: >The Comet IVs were safe, but by that time they'd a bad >reputation, so everybody bought DC-8s and 707s instead. The rest is history. There were other advantages to the DC-8/707s too: Faster Engines more accessible (not buried in wings). Larger (?). When did Comet IVs last fly scheduled service? RNA From kls Mon Feb 21 23:41:30 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.math.num-analysis,sci.aeronautics,sci.engr,sci.engr.biomed,sci.engr.control,sci.engr.mech,sci.med.physics,sci.geo.fluids,sci.environment Path: bounce-back From: latypov@server.uwindsor.ca (Azat M. Latypov) Subject: "Numerical solution of steady Euler equations in streamline-aligned orthogonal coordinates." (Preprint Announcement). Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.math.num-analysis, poster Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Feb 94 23:41:30 PST Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada Institute for Mathematics and Its Applications, University of Minnesota has made the following preprint available via anonymous ftp: A.M.Latypov Numerical solution of steady Euler equations in streamline-aligned orthogonal coordinates. The PostScript version of the preprint can be obtained by ftping to ftp.ima.umn.edu. It is in the file /preprints/1182.ps. The preprint can be of interest to people working or interested in the following fields of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD): o. Solution-adaptive grid generation; o. Free or elastic boundaries; o. Inverse or optimal design. More details can be found in the enclosed abstract. The author shall greatly appreciate any suggestions and/or critique to be sent to the address given in the preprint. ABSTRACT: ~~~~~~~~~ Formulating the governing equations of fluid motion in streamline coordinates allows one to avoid difficulties associated with grid generation and to solve problems of inverse design or problems with free boundaries. The governing equations for steady inviscid two-dimen- sional gas motion are written in an orthogonal system of independent coordinates consisting of the streamfunction and its orthogonal complimentary function. The result is a system of differential conservation laws, expressing con- servation of mass, momentum and energy. The conservative finite volume approximation of these equations can be used to calculate flows with strong shocks. For the case of potential velocity vector field, two different simplified formulations of the governing equations are derived. In order to compute purely supersonic flows, a conservative hybrid grid-characteristic scheme has been developed. To cal- culate transonic potential flows, two iterative algorithms have been implemented. The calculated examples include supersonic flow over a wedge, supersonic flow in an axisymmetric channel and in a jet emerging from this channel, transonic flow in a nozzle and an axisymmetric bumpy channel. ----- Azat M Latypov (Mr) Fluid Dynamics Research Institute, and Dept. of Maths&Statistics, University of Windsor, E-MAIL: latypov@server.uwindsor.ca 401 Sunset Ave., Phone: (519)253-4232 (ext 3582) Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4 CANADA PS: This announcement has earlier been posted to the CFD mailing list. My apologizes to those who received it twice. PPS: To answer a potential question: To obtain an info on the procedure to be followed to subscribe to the CFD mailing list, send "help" (no quotes) in the body of your email to listserv@perelandra.cms.udel.edu. In order to subscribe, one will need to know the name of the list. It is "cfd" (no quotes). Notice that it took me almost 24 hours to receive the help file. The list is moderated by John D. McCalpin . This is all the information that I have. From kls Tue Feb 22 13:50:19 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wohlsen@sri.com Subject: Algorithms for TCAS Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Feb 94 13:50:19 PST Organization: SRI International I understand that the collision detection and avoidance algorithms used in TCAS products were developed by MITRE Corporation for the FAA. I also understand some TCAS systems, when operated around airports, tend to be a little paranoid and warn of possible collisions when in fact there is no threat. Better to be safe than sorry I suppose. Does anyone know if the TCAS algorithms employ any mechanism for reasoning with uncertainty, e.g., fuzzy logic, belief networks? Also, can someone please direct me to the correct group within MITRE to ask this question directly? Thank you. Bob Wohlsen bob_wohlsen@qm.sri.com From kls Tue Feb 22 13:50:22 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve West Subject: Lockheed: What's on the Horizon? Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Feb 94 13:50:22 PST Organization: University of Virginia Have seen discussions by this group on the latest Airbus and Boeing products. As a fan of the L-10ll, is there any current competition by Lockheed? Any new commercial aviation products by Lockheed on the horizon? Thanks! Steve West From kls Tue Feb 22 13:50:25 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Lockheed: What's on the Horizon? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Feb 94 13:50:25 PST In article Steve West writes:>Any new commercial aviation products by Lockheed on the horizon? None whatsoever. After the drubbing they took on the L-1011 it's very unlikely that Lockheed would *want* to get back in the commercial air- craft business, and even if they wanted to the entry cost for the large jetliner market. Smaller planes, commuters and such, are still a possibility, but that seems unlikely for Lockheed. Note that many aerospace companies are sub-contractors on projects of other companies. Convair, for example, while long gone from being a visible player in the commercial airliner market, designed and manu- factures most of the MD-11 fuselage. Lockheed may well be involved in the commercial aviation market in this manner, but that's a far cry from the glory and visibility of having the Lockheed name on a plane. -- 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 Feb 23 12:05:39 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jkkuchar@athena.mit.edu (James K. Kuchar) Subject: Re: Algorithms for TCAS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 94 12:05:39 PST In article , wohlsen@sri.com writes: |> I understand that the collision detection and avoidance |> algorithms used in TCAS products were developed by MITRE |> Corporation for the FAA. I also understand some TCAS systems, when |> operated around airports, tend to be a little paranoid and warn of |> possible collisions when in fact there is no threat. Better to be |> safe than sorry I suppose. Does anyone know if the TCAS |> algorithms employ any mechanism for reasoning with uncertainty, |> e.g., fuzzy logic, belief networks? Also, can someone please |> direct me to the correct group within MITRE to ask this question |> directly? Current TCAS specs are found in RTCA DO-185 (that's Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics), "Minimum Operational Performance Standards for TCAS". DO-185 has the algorithms etc. for TCAS II which is what is currently on civil jet transports. TCAS II uses range, range rate, altitude, and altitude rate information to determine if an alert should be issued. All TCAS II alerts give vertical guidance (climb, descend, etc.). TCAS III was proposed a while back & would use lateral information also (bearing & bearing rate). A recent report by Lincoln Labs, however, has shown that TCAS III is unfeasible given current plans for sensor data accuracy. Effort is now being focused on TCAS IV, which will use datalink of aircraft flight management computer data (latitude, longitude, altitude, I think) to increase the accuracy of position estimates. I've talked to several people at Lincoln and Mitre who you may want to contact as well for more info on TCAS III or IV (I don't know how much they've worked on TCAS II): At Lincoln: Vince Orlando (617)-981-7428 Doug Burgess (617)-981-3610 Loren Wood -3380 At Mitre: Ned Spencer (703)-883-6463 Hope this helps some. Jim Kuchar jkkuchar@mit.edu From kls Wed Feb 23 12:05:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Vickers VC10 (4 aft engines+ T tail) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 94 12:05:41 PST In article , wrote: >Re: My point (D) about the position of the payload. On reflection this does >sound a bit daft but if you look at the VC10 nearly all of the passenger >compartment is ahead of the main wheels and the aft cargo bay is tiny. The high >'T' tail plane is a long way back and those 4 Conway engines must weigh a bit. >I would guess about 2 tons each. As you suggest the CofG must be close to the >wheels or you have major difficulty rotating. Presumably the CofG does not move >much with a full load so tipping isn't an issue. Can anyone comment further? >I wonder how the MD80 manages to rotate???? I still have yet to locate a photo of a VC-10. :-) I know what they look like, and you'd think someone in this office would have one, but no! Lots on all grades of shoot 'em up bang-bang airplanes (even as far back as Der Grosse Krieg), but nothing past 1978 otherwise. And Jane's says that the VC-10 was last listed in the 1970-71 edition. Never mind. On with more interesting technical discussions. :-) Movement of the CG does take place in flight, particularly on swept wing aircraft with integral wing tanks. Aircraft with aft-mounted engines tend to have problems loading out the forward CG limit. That is, with full passengers, fuel, and cargo the actual CG of the airplane can easily be forward of the most forward allowable position. In that case, the aircraft does not have enough tail power to rotate at the normal speeds. And it doesn't get better in flight; as the fuel burns off, the CG will typically move forward (it gets more complicated with tail fuel and transfering fuel out of the center section into the wing tanks as *they* burn off, but in general...) making it more difficult to flair. To make up for this, the aircraft must come in faster, using more field length, making the brakes absorb more energy (and they will only absorb a specific amount, after which the airplane is on its own). BTW, it is not legal to fly an aircraft loaded beyond either CG limit. Loading beyond the aft limit is particularly dangerous as you affect the aerodynamic stability of the aircraft. Tip back on this type of configuration is generally a concern when the airplane is empty, not full. It is designed to be safe when fully loaded, but in the past not much attention was paid to the empty condition. This is changing. I've sat in meetings where obscure ferry conditions were discussed, so we as an industry are learning. Anyway, the problem is that the airplane balances acceptably on its gear with anything like a full payload, but once that mass is removed from the front part of the airplane the balancing mass aft (engines mostly on the VC-10) stays put, and like a teeter-totter with only one child on it, the airplane can settle down the wrong way. One further word on the 727 airstair, the previous poster was correct in that the stair was not intended to prop the airplane; however, in actual operational use, the stair is put down to prevent the airplane from tail-tipping. >Julian > >PS: Gentle with those flames - I'm not an aircraft engineer 8-) Gosh, what happened to our reputation as a genteel group? :-) Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Wed Feb 23 12:05:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sherry@a.cs.okstate.edu (Rob Sherry) Subject: Re: Comet IV References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Oklahoma State University Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 94 12:05:43 PST >From article , by rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft): > In article , > wrote: >>The Comet IVs were safe, but by that time they'd a bad >>reputation, so everybody bought DC-8s and 707s instead. The rest is history. > > There were other advantages to the DC-8/707s too: > > Faster > Engines more accessible (not buried in wings). > Larger (?). > > When did Comet IVs last fly scheduled service? > > RNA According to "The World's Greatest Aircraft", the last flights were by Dan-Air London, on November the 3rd, 1980. As for size, the Dan-Air planes could carry up to 119 passengers, though originally the Comet was designed for 101 (in the 4B). I still think this is one of the neatest looking planes (at least the Mk 1 was) Trivia: The nose section was used in deveolping the Caravelle. Take a look at the cockpit windows and you'll see the similarity... Rob -- rms sherry@a.cs.okstate.edu From kls Wed Feb 23 12:05:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: Comet IV References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: spagiola@leland.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 94 12:05:44 PST Robert Ashcroft writes > When did Comet IVs last fly scheduled service? 1981 sometime. With Dan Air on a pleasure flight out of Gatwick and back. (Don't you wish US airlines organized special flights for things like the last United DC-8 flight and the like? British Airways had a special flight for its last VC-10 service -- also about 1980-81 -- and for its last Trident service, in about 1986) Ciao, Stefano --- Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305-6084 Tel 415-725-0939, Fax 415-725-7007 Email spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Wed Feb 23 12:05:46 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hrose@kei.com (Helen T. Rose Davis) Subject: Re: DC 10-ski topples on to its rear when unloaded! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: The Evil Fascist IRC Admins From Hell, Inc. Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 94 12:05:46 PST DAL> == David A Lee KLS> == Karl L Swartz KLS> imbalance of the Il-62's four aft-mounted engines. The 727 suffers KLS> the same problem, except the clever folks in Seattle disguised the KLS> prop as the aft stairs, which you always (or almost always) see down KLS> while the plane is at the gate. (The DC-9, VC-10, and Trident may DAL> BZZZT! NOT! DAL> The aft stairway in the 727 was NOT meant as some sort of DAL> stabilizer. It was simply a built in stairway for smaller airports DAL> without moving stairways. Note the built in stairway in the 737-100 DAL> that retracts out from below the front side main entry door. This may or may not be true on the 727 (sadly, I have no way of finding out), but it *is* true on the MD-80. One of the first things you hear on an MD-80 after docking at the gate is the rear-stairs deploying. DAL> The rear stairway use for passenger loading was discontinued for DAL> security reasons sometime in the mid-1980s. Nope, you can still board and deplane through the rear stairs on the Delta Shuttle (maybe USAir too, I don't know, I've not flown them) at Washington National. DAL> D.B. Cooper jumped out of a 727 somewhere over Washington State from DAL> the stairway in mid flight. The most perfect crime.... I've seen the DB Cooper plane at BOS-Logan (it was in Key Air livery at the time). --Helen -- Helen Trillian Rose Davis Kapor Enterprises, Inc. Flames to: Systems and Networks Administration women-not-to-be-messed-with@kei.com I like: DL, WN, Boeing I don't like: NW, HP, Airbus From kls Wed Feb 23 12:05:47 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bwalts@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Brandon Walts) Subject: Re: DC 10-ski topples on to its rear when unloaded! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 94 12:05:47 PST In article wave@u.washington.edu (David A. Lee) writes: >In article , >Karl Swartz wrote: >>imbalance of the Il-62's four aft-mounted engines. The 727 suffers >>the same problem, except the clever folks in Seattle disguised the >>prop as the aft stairs, which you always (or almost always) see down >>while the plane is at the gate. (The DC-9, VC-10, and Trident may >> > >BZZZT! NOT! > >The aft stairway in the 727 was NOT meant as some sort of stabilizer. >It was simply a built in stairway for smaller airports without >moving stairways. Note the built in stairway in the 737-100 >that retracts out from below the front side main entry door. True- it may have been intended for pax loading, but it came in handy to hold up the tail, after it was discovered that the 727 had an annoying tendency to tip backward in certain configurations. There was an extensive discussion of this on this group a few months ago. >The rear stairway use for passenger loading was discontinued >for security reasons sometime in the mid-1980s. >D.B. Cooper jumped out of a 727 somewhere over Washington State >from the stairway in mid flight. After the D.B. Cooper incident, the rear stairway was modified so the door could not be opened in flight. The rear-stairs are still used for loading. There's a 1992 issue of Air Transport World where the "cover model" is a USAir shuttle 727 unloading via the rear stairs. bwalts@lamar.colostate.edu | ude.etatsoloc.ramal@stlawb My opinions, not CSU's | s'USC ton ,snoinipo yM From kls Wed Feb 23 12:05:49 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: DC 10-ski topples on to its rear when unloaded! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 94 12:05:49 PST I remember hearing about the need for ballast in the nose on some British air-craft due to union out-cries when the planes were outfitted with mechanical stairs in the front. After trying to simply remove this option it was found that due to ensuing balance problems they had to put concrete in the nose to solve the problem. Could this be related to this discussion? ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Hutton dmitri@acs/acs2/cgl/hendrix.bu.edu ------- I don't know about the VC-10 or the Il-62, but on the DC9-1X series, you can't remove the forward airstairs without carrying the same weight in ballast. I understand that TWA, for example, is currently removing the airstairs from all of its DC9s EXCEPT for the DC9-15s it operates to free up some weight. I also seem to recall that the MD80 requires ballast in the forward cargo compartment when being towed around empty to prevent inadvertent wheelies on the taxiway. These were on aircraft without the airstairs installed. I think that the ballast only had to be added when there was less than a specified amount of fuel in the center tank... BTW, there is a tail skid on the B727, but I think it is only there to help if there is over rotation on takeoff. Also, the aft airstairs now have an airspeed switch that prevents the aft airstairs from being lowered in flight. Maintenance crews occassionally call this the "DB Cooper" switch. ed //////// Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 \\\\\\\\ The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Wed Feb 23 12:05:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rma@ahrens.rtp.dg.com (Rich Ahrens) Subject: Re: DC 10-ski topples on to its rear when unloaded! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Data General Corporation, Irvine, CA Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 94 12:05:50 PST In article wave@u.washington.edu (David A. Lee) writes: >The aft stairway in the 727 was NOT meant as some sort of stabilizer. >It was simply a built in stairway for smaller airports without >moving stairways. Note the built in stairway in the 737-100 >that retracts out from below the front side main entry door. > >The rear stairway use for passenger loading was discontinued >for security reasons sometime in the mid-1980s. Well, not entirely. I have had to enter and leave 727s via the rear stairs several times on Alaska Airlines since then. The occasion I remember most vividly may have been exceptional though. We landed VERY hard on a rainy, foggy night in Ketchikan (is there any other kind?), popping most of the ceiling panels loose and rattling a lot of teeth. The crew then had difficult opening the forward left door to the jetway, and there was an announcement about having bent something. So they unloaded down the tail stairs and reboarded the same way. Lots of wet people were wondering aloud about the safety of continuing on, but we made it to to Juneau with no incident. Can't remember if the tail stairs were used again there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Rich Ahrens, Data General Corporation rma@irvine.dg.com | |2603 Main St, Ste 400, Irvine,CA 92714-6232 rich_ahrens@dgc.ceo.dg.com | |Voice: 714-724-3934 | |FAX: 714-724-3989 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Rich Ahrens, Data General Corporation rma@irvine.dg.com | |2603 Main St, Ste 400, Irvine,CA 92714-6232 rich_ahrens@dgc.ceo.dg.com | |Voice: 714-724-3934 | From kls Wed Feb 23 12:05:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.folklore.urban Path: bounce-back From: bdickey@cc.brynmawr.edu (Dickey Bradley F) Subject: Re: DC 10-ski topples on to its rear when unloaded! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Bryn Mawr College Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 94 12:05:51 PST In article John.Stone@bris.ac.uk writes: > > I understand that 747's (and possibly others) carry depleted uranium in > the nose for ballast - lots of mass in a small volume. Don't suppose > you could say that _they_ were badly designed :-) Does create a bit of > local concern when they crash, though. I think that the isotope they carry is the U^238, which is a harmless and non-radioactive one (well, OK a bit radioactive, but so is Connecticut). The report of this indeed caused a stir during the Lockebie incident, when the locals found out about it. The Scottish environmental groups realized that there was no danger, and let it lie; I do remember one spokesman for GreenPeace, I think, who was reported to say; "I would be more afraid of the thing dropping on my head than of the danger to the environment later" [sic]. So Pan Am certainly was using Uranium as balast, supposed to be quite cheap, as well as the qualities you mention - small and heavy. Brad_. From kls Wed Feb 23 12:05:52 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sherry@a.cs.okstate.edu (Rob Sherry) Subject: Re: Little red strips of fabric on the wing???? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Oklahoma State University Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 94 12:05:52 PST Karl Swartz writes > > On a recent US Air flight the aircraft had 4 or 5 strips of 1" > > wide cloth type material (~12" long) attached to the wing, about > > 2' from the fuselage. > This was an MD-80, or perhaps a DC-9, right? If so, these were > added after the SAS crash several years ago. ... The cloth > strips are there to help make [wing icing problems] visible. About a year ago, I noticed these on an AA MD-80 in DFW. On this plane, they looked more like loops of red cord run through small clear plastic tabs, which were affixed to the wing, inside yellow triangles painted on the wing surface. Really worried me at the time, I had visions of us leaving the ground with 'Remove Before Flight' streamers still stuck all over the plane :) Rob -- rms sherry@a.cs.okstate.edu From kls Wed Feb 23 12:05:54 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Dr. Martin Erdelen" Subject: Re: Little red strips of fabric on the wing???? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 94 12:05:54 PST On 16 Feb 94 01:10:32 PST Karl Swartz said: >>On a recent US Air flight the aircraft had 4 or 5 strips of 1" wide cloth >>type material (~12" long) attached to the wing, about 2' from the fuselage. > >This was an MD-80, or perhaps a DC-9, right? If so, these were added >after the SAS crash several years ago. The problem is that the fuel >tank arrangement on the MD-80 has a tendency to create wing icing >problems even in conditions where one would not normally expect to see >any icing. The cloth strips are there to help make the ice visible. > Karl, would you elaborate, please? To my (layman's) ear this sounds rather bizarre in the (supposed) high-tech age: - What kind of cloth do they use? There must be quite a bit of wear (and tear?) on it... - How is it fixed to the wing? (I love the idea of it merrily fluttering in the (500 knots or so) wind, but probably this isn't the case. - How do they check it? Captain or purser or whoever taking regular trips to the cabin to have a peek out the window? (like the time and movie honoured way of finding out about oil loss). High-tech forever...! MArtin From kls Wed Feb 23 12:05:55 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: westin@dsg42.nad.ford.com (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Tupolev TU-144: Where are you now? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: westin@jake.nad.ford.com Organization: ECC at Ford Motor Company, Dearborn Michigan Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 94 12:05:55 PST MANNING@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU writes: > ... > Since the collapse of the old Communist order, has any information > been learned about the current disposition the the TU-144? > ... The February, 1994 issue of Flying magazine has an article on the Moscow airshow, held at Zhukovsky Airfield, "the U.S.S.R.'s equivalent of Edwards Air Force Base", according to the article. They also state, "The TU-144 ... was built at Zhukovsky. Four are still there (five if you count the one in the boneyard), and two still fly regularly on ozone research missions." -- -Stephen H. Westin westin@jake.nad.ford.com The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford's. From kls Wed Feb 23 12:05:56 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rteasdal@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu (Russell Graham Teasdale) Subject: Re: Tupolev TU-144: Where are you now? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Computer Science Department, Cal Poly SLO Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 94 12:05:56 PST In article , wrote: >I recently read a book by Howard Moon about the development and >ultimate failure of the Tupolev TU-144, the Soviet SST. >The book ended without a clear indication of what actually happened >to the prototype and production models of the aircraft. This is most >likely due to the cool relations our nations had in the past. Since >the collapse of the old Communist order, has any information been >learned about the current disposition the the TU-144? >Additionally, the plane was in very limited and sporadic scheduled >service for a short time. Did anyone happen to fly on the TU-144? >I would think that such an experience by a Westerner would be >EXTREMELY rare. Just wondering..... > The remaining TU-144s are still flying, mostly as testbeds for supersonic research. They've been debugged to the point where there don't seem to have been any repeat performances of the 1973 Paris Air Show disaster, but they'll never see scheduled passenger service again. There was a recent article in World Airpower Journal about a visit to the Ramenskoye flight test center outside Moscow - or what I'd been in the habit of calling Ramenskoye, at least, the name used by native Russians being different. (Can't recall what it's really named, sorry.) There are a couple of TU-144s sitting about on ramps with instrumentation packages, differing nose assemblages, and so forth. I believe that a handful of Western passengers managed to get onto the Aeroflot supersonic service. The TU-144 interior was apparently extremely noisy and there were unpleasant airframe vibration problems throughout. Hardly up to Concorde standards. -- |||||||| Russ Teasdale -- rteasdal@galaxy.CalPoly.EDU -- (Rusty) ||||||||| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Gentlemen, if we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure." - D. Quayle From kls Wed Feb 23 12:05:57 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pmc@merit.edu (Philip M. Chuang) Subject: Re: Tupolev TU-144: Where are you now? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Michigan Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 94 12:05:57 PST >I recently read a book by Howard Moon about the development and >ultimate failure of the Tupolev TU-144, the Soviet SST. The book is very well-researched, and well-written. >has any information been >learned about the current disposition the the TU-144? Ron Davies' book on Aeroflot say two have been making ozone research flights from Zhukovsky, near Moscow. >Did anyone happen to fly on the TU-144? One of Aviation Week's Editors (James Ott, I believe) took such a ride between Moscow and Alma Ata, and wrote an article about his experience. From kls Wed Feb 23 12:05:58 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: assorted References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 94 12:05:58 PST In article Tobias Henry Lutterodt writes: >>The aft stairway in the 727 was NOT meant as some sort of stabilizer. > >This is flamebait!!! As was stated earlier, the aft stairway is >a very clever combination of a stabilizer *and* a means for >passengers and crew to get in and out. The AIAA case study of the 727, which was published around 1976, and authored by several members of the 727 design team, indicated that on one of the early test flights, the crew were startled to have the airplane rock back, due to an aft CG with empty tanks. The airstair-down position followed as a recommended practice, first on the -100 series, and was complemented with screw-in posts for later aircraft. I've never seen any suggestion that this was an a priori design feature. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Wed Feb 23 12:05:59 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: allenk@garnet.berkeley.edu (Keith Allen) Subject: old DC10 crash in Portland Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: University of California Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 94 12:05:59 PST I'm trying to chase down a story about a DC10 that ran out of fuel while in a holding pattern over Portland, OR and was forced to land on a highway within the city limits. I posted this to rec.aviation.misc, and one respondent said that the plane came down on Burnside Ave and was pretty well wrecked, while another fellow wondered if this had actually been a DC8. Anyone out there know any more about this? From kls Wed Feb 23 12:06:01 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: old DC10 crash in Portland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 94 12:06:01 PST >I'm trying to chase down a story about a DC10 that ran >out of fuel while in a holding pattern over Portland, OR >and was forced to land on a highway within the city limits. >... another fellow wondered if this had actually been a DC8. The other fellow was almost certainly right. If any DC-10s have crashed in Portland, they've done it very clandestinely. However, this sounds very much like the United DC-8-61 (N8082U) which went down on December 28, 1978. The landing gear indicators indicated that one or more of the landing gear were not down and locked, and instead of dealing with the problem the flight crew ended up having a debate about what should be done -- apparently the three of them had been at odds right from the start, and these personal problems prevented them from dealing with a far more serious problem when it came along. As a result of this crash, United greatly reworked their training programs around the idea called Cockpit Resource Management, and most (hopefully all) other airliners have taken similar steps. (Contrary to at least one incident, this does *NOT* involve all the pilots sitting around a bar and drinking their problems away! :-) ) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Feb 24 23:40:42 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bdickey@cc.brynmawr.edu (Dickey Bradley F) Subject: Re: Little red strips of fabric on the wing???? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Bryn Mawr College Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Feb 94 23:40:42 PST In article "Dr. Martin Erdelen" writes: >- How do they check it? Captain or purser or whoever taking regular trips > to the cabin to have a peek out the window? (like the time and movie > honoured way of finding out about oil loss). >High-tech forever...! > >MArtin > Recently a friend of mine was returning to Europe on a TAP 747 from Caracas. A Danish chap in front of him summoned the stewardess, and after the mandetory waiting period that TAP seems to insist on for answering the calls, informed the stewardess that there was ice on the wing. "Not a problem" she explained and ran off, forward. On returning, she asked to be shown the ice and know the extent of it. One of the pilots came back, looked at it; and the plane ended up making an unscheduled stop in the Canaries for 24 hours. My friend talked to one of the TAP engineers who explained that there wasnt really any danger, but that they had stopped to make sure everything was ok. So, yes, the pilots will come back and take a look, occassionally. Brad_. From kls Thu Feb 24 23:40:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Little red strips of fabric on the wing???? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Feb 94 23:40:43 PST In article "Dr. Martin Erdelen" writes: On 16 Feb 94 01:10:32 PST Karl Swartz said: >>On a recent US Air flight the aircraft had 4 or 5 strips of 1" wide cloth >>type material (~12" long) attached to the wing, about 2' from the fuselage. > >This was an MD-80, or perhaps a DC-9, right? If so, these were added >after the SAS crash several years ago. The problem is that the fuel >tank arrangement on the MD-80 has a tendency to create wing icing >problems even in conditions where one would not normally expect to see >any icing. The cloth strips are there to help make the ice visible. > Karl, would you elaborate, please? To my (layman's) ear this sounds rather bizarre in the (supposed) high-tech age: - What kind of cloth do they use? There must be quite a bit of wear (and tear?) on it... - How is it fixed to the wing? (I love the idea of it merrily fluttering in the (500 knots or so) wind, but probably this isn't the case. ---- They are cords, and are part of an Airworthiness Directive from the FAA after several wing ice ingestion incidents. Yes, they do flutter "merrily" in the breeze. AD's must be complied with, or the aircraft isn't airworthy. However, because, as you stated, it's hard for them to stand up to Mach 0.72+ flight for any significant period of time, they do tend to fall off after a while. Which is making many airlines go to an Alternate Means of Compliance, using a textured paint pattern in the danger area. Obviously, you'd have to fly a lot faster to make this stuff fall off :-). ---- - How do they check it? Captain or purser or whoever taking regular trips to the cabin to have a peek out the window? (like the time and movie honoured way of finding out about oil loss). ---- Actually, the FO is supposed to catch it on his walk around. Maintenance crews will also check it before leaving the gate area. Because the ice is caused by supercooled fuel in the wings, it usually forms pretty quickly while on the humid ground, and would be caught in the walkaround. However, the AD was issued so that IF the crew had to look at the wing through the window, they could see it was a problem. ---- High-tech forever...! MArtin ---- Actually, if the airlines can find a simple low-tech solution, they will take it every time. High-tech usually equals big-bucks - acquisition and maintenance. ed //////// Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 \\\\\\\\ The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Thu Feb 24 23:40:45 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cfhxl@eiu.edu (Herbert Lasky) Subject: A340 fire Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Eastern Illinois University Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Feb 94 23:40:45 PST Does anyone know anything about the A340 fire in Paris a few weeks ago? From kls Thu Feb 24 23:40:47 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.folklore.urban Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: DC 10-ski topples on to its rear when unloaded! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Feb 94 23:40:47 PST In article , Dickey Bradley F wrote: >In article John.Stone@bris.ac.uk writes: >> >> I understand that 747's (and possibly others) carry depleted uranium in >> the nose for ballast - lots of mass in a small volume. Don't suppose >> you could say that _they_ were badly designed :-) Does create a bit of >> local concern when they crash, though. > >I think that the isotope they carry is the U^238, which is a harmless and >non-radioactive one (well, OK a bit radioactive, but so is Connecticut). >The report of this indeed caused a stir during the Lockebie incident, when >the locals found out about it. The Scottish environmental groups realized >that there was no danger, and let it lie; I do remember one spokesman for >GreenPeace, I think, who was reported to say; >"I would be more afraid of the thing dropping on my head than of the danger >to the environment later" [sic]. > >So Pan Am certainly was using Uranium as balast, supposed to be quite cheap, >as well as the qualities you mention - small and heavy. Actually, I think everyone is referring to the mass balance in the elevators. They used to be depleted uranium, but because of the ecological extremists (and I am by nature a tree-hugger myself) we have changed to lead, which isn't as efficient (dense). Brad is correct about the relative danger from the radiation in his note above. BTW, mass balance in the elevators, and other control surfaces, is to prevent flutter damage, and well as make the controls easier to move. Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Thu Feb 24 23:40:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jtwatson@dal.mobil.com (John Watson) Subject: Re: Comet IV References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Feb 94 23:40:48 PST In article , spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes: |> Robert Ashcroft writes |> > When did Comet IVs last fly scheduled service? |> |> 1981 sometime. With Dan Air on a pleasure flight out of Gatwick and |> back. |> |> (Don't you wish US airlines organized special flights for things like |> the last United DC-8 flight and the like? British Airways had a |> special flight for its last VC-10 service -- also about 1980-81 -- |> and for its last Trident service, in about 1986) |> Actually, some last flights have celebrated by US airlines. Several years ago (my memory fails to recall when), Len Morgan of Flying magazine wrote about the last schedule airline service flight of the Locheed Electra by Eastern Airlines. The flight was departing from LaGuardia and as it taxied to takeoff down the ramp, each aircraft parked lowered its flaps in salute. As a former Electra pilot Morgan had been dooly touched! John Watson jtwatson@dal.mobil.com From kls Thu Feb 24 23:40:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: iwcox@tucson.princeton.edu (Isaiah Watas Cox) Subject: Re: old DC10 crash in Portland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Princeton University Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Feb 94 23:40:50 PST In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>I'm trying to chase down a story about a DC10 that ran >>out of fuel while in a holding pattern over Portland, OR >>and was forced to land on a highway within the city limits. It has been a while, but I grew up in Portland. In the early 80s, when many DC-10s were going down, one did have a landing gear problem, and ran out of fuel. It landed in a tree grove on the east side of the city near the airport. No fatalities -- the trees supported the plane. I am positive it was a DC-10, not a DC-8. Isaiah From kls Thu Feb 24 23:40:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: old DC10 crash in Portland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Feb 94 23:40:51 PST >It has been a while, but I grew up in Portland. In the early 80s, when >many DC-10s were going down, one did have a landing gear problem, and >ran out of fuel. It landed in a tree grove on the east side of the city >near the airport. No fatalities -- the trees supported the plane. >I am positive it was a DC-10, not a DC-8. I've got a list of DC-10 hull losses which I believe is fairly complete, and none of the 20 were anywhere near Portland. I would expect a "landing" such as you describe to destroy the aircraft. Furthermore, I lived in Eugene from 1980 thru 1982 and certainly would have noticed a DC-10 loss in Portland during that time, or later, but I have no recollection of such an event. I still believe the incident in question was the 1978 United DC-8 crash. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Tue Mar 1 01:31:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: wcox@austin.wireline.slb.com () Subject: Re: old DC10 crash in Portland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: wcox@austin.wireline.slb.com () Organization: Schlumberger Well Services, Inc. Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Mar 94 01:31:40 PST I lived in Portland at the time, and it was a United Airlines DC-8 that went down just short of the airport. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the plane had landing gear problems and circled the airport repeatedly. Finally, they ran out of fuel and went down about a mile southeast of the airport. It was a very cold night (about 10 deg F) and there was no fire on the ground. As I recall, the wings sheared off the plane, but the fuselage was mostly intact. I do not recall any fatalities. -- Bill Cox wcox@austin.wireline.slb.com 1-512-331-3306 From kls Tue Mar 1 01:31:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: robd@shotgun.tektronix.com (Rob Dixon) Subject: Re: old DC10 crash in Portland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Reply-To: robd@orca.wv.tek.com Organization: Network Displays Reliability Engineering Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Mar 94 01:31:41 PST In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > > >I am positive it was a DC-10, not a DC-8. > I still believe the incident in question was the 1978 United DC-8 > crash. > Native Oregonian, born and raised...my department secretary was on the DC-8 that went down in '78. Remember it well, although compared to Karl's sources this is probably best classed as heresay. According to Grace, gear indicators said 2 of 3 points wouldn't lock. The thinking was that while dealing with this the crew ran the craft out of fuel with the ensuing loss of performance. However, she swears that right after the crash, the pilot was telling anyone who would listen that the instruments indicated, as I recall, 200-300 lbs of fuel left in each wing when the engines went down. One final bit, I remember looking at the crash site and thinking that there was one hell of a pilot on that craft, regardless of whatever mistakes MAY have been made. He put it down in a grove of trees, at night, in a suburb east of the airport. Right between two housing developments. 50 feet either way and he would have been into houses. As it was, Grace "de-planed" through a wing exit and stepped off the wing onto the roof of a small shed behind one of the houses. I've not heard of a DC-10 going down anywhere close to PDX. +====================================================+ | Robert Dixon, Reliability Engineering Proj. Leader | | Network Displays Division, Tektronix, Inc | | email - robd@shotgun.WV.TEK.COM | | DoD #0176 AMA # unlisted 1KSPI 7.89 | | Ignorance can be cured, but stupid is forever | | my words, my views, my opinions, not Tek's | +====================================================+ From kls Tue Mar 1 01:31:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: einart@estonia.labs.tek.com (Einar Traa) Subject: Re: old DC10 crash in Portland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Mar 94 01:31:43 PST It was a DC8. I saw it go down, although I didn't see the impact, and I didn't realize it was even a crash until I heard it on the news a few hours later. My wife and I were driving east on I84, east of 122nd off-ramp when she asked "what's that airplane doing over there?" I assured her they know what they are doing, and we drove on. The DC8 was coming towards us, but much lower than normal approach, and veering south instead of slightly north of the freeway. The initial problem was a broken damper strut, which allowd the landing gear to come down hard. The crew were concerned that the gear may have been damaged, and were circling away from the airport for several hours while evaluating the situation. Finally they were low enough on fuel they had to land, and discovered they had waited too long. When they knew they couldn't make the air port, they saw a green patch in the city, and put it down at around 156th and Burnside. Two houses were flattened, both empty at the time. About 10 people were killed. The captain survived, lost his license, and has been spending most of the time since trying prove that the landing gear was broken. The FAA thinks that broken or not, they still wanted him to put the airplane down at the airport. I don't think he has his license back yet. The captain said afterwards that he considered landing on the Columbia, or on I84. I sometimes wonder what it would have been like to come face to face with a DC8 on the freeway. From kls Tue Mar 1 01:31:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com Subject: A340 Fire at Paris Airport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Mar 94 01:31:44 PST Herbert lasky wrote >Does anyone know anything about the A340 fire in Paris a few weeks ago? A friend of mine who works for the British Airports Authority at Gatwick Airport told me that this Air France A340 was completely burnt out following the fire. The cause was unknown, last he heard. However, there is some speculation that it was the result (either directly or indirectly) of the disturbances during the Air France strikes. Incidently we get a few A340s (Virgin Atlantic) at Gatwick and as my office (Schlumberger House) is just north of the eastern approach I see them fly past on occassions. Very distracting for a plane spotter! From kls Tue Mar 1 01:31:45 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis Jambon) Subject: Re: A340 fire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: IMAG, Grenoble, France Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Mar 94 01:31:45 PST An A340 F-GNIA had been destroyed in Paris-Roissy on January 20th. The airliner was empty (no crew, no PAX, no mecanics). Maybe the fire begin in one of the galleys (from the Fench police). Francis -- Francis JAMBON - E-mail: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr __|__ Interfaces Homme-Machine / Human-Computer Interaction *---o--(_)--o---* Tel./Phone: (+33) 76 51 48 54 - Fax: (+33) 76 44 66 75 ! ! ! LGI-IMAG, B206, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France _______________________ From kls Tue Mar 1 01:31:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: A340 lost References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Mar 94 01:31:48 PST The A340 which burned at CDG was Air France's first -200 model, leased from SABENA (F-GNIA). I read in the WSJ or somewhere like that that it was on the books for about $110 million, so some insurer somewhere had a very bad day. Toby From kls Tue Mar 1 01:31:53 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: JOHNWAT@dlmv0b.dal.mobil.com (John T. Watson - 214-951-2813) Subject: DC-10/DC-8 crash in Oregon Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Schlumberger Well Services, Inc. Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Mar 94 01:31:53 PST Karl is correct in regards to the DC-10/DC-8 crash in Oregon. It was a United stretched DC-8. Also to my knowledge, no DC-10 has crashed in the Oregon area. I was working on my instrument rating shortly after the crash became well known and my instructor talked about it. The United flight had a unsafe gear light and the captain chose to move out of the airport traffic area to a holding pattern to try and correct the problem. The flight engineer began dumping fuel in preparation for a partial wheels up landing. After some slight period of time, it was discovered that with fuel dumping they were too low on fuel they headed toward the airport. They flamed out on a long final and went down in a wooded section. Because of the lack of fuel there was no fire. However, there were fatallities including at least one of the cockpit crew. It was the second crash of a large airliner that can be blamed on an unsafe gear light, or lack of a safe (green) light. The other being the Eastern L-1011 that went down in the Florida Everglades. john watson jtwatson@dal.mobil.com Dallas, Texas From kls Tue Mar 1 01:31:57 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hager@gsf.de (Christoph Hager) Subject: 737-100 ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: GSF Forschungszentrum fuer Umwelt und Gesundheit mbH Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Mar 94 01:31:57 PST Hi can someone please tell me what a 737-100 looks like ? I'm working at munich airport, but I have never seen such a plane. Christoph p7003ab@sunmail.lrz-muenchen.de From kls Tue Mar 1 01:31:59 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 737-100 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Mar 94 01:31:59 PST >can someone please tell me what a 737-100 looks like ? >I'm working at munich airport, but I have never seen such a plane. Actually you may have seen it and not known it -- the 737-100 looks like a short 737-200, with the difference not realy noticeable unless you look carefully. Only about thirty were built and virtually all of those were for Lufthansa. Lufthansa still has -200s, but the -100s were sold some time ago. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Tue Mar 1 01:32:01 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bob.Coggeshall@HK.Super.NET (Bob Coggeshall) Subject: NASA DC8 #717 Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Hong Kong SuperNET Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Mar 94 01:32:01 PST .So there has been an interesting aircraft sitting on the tarmac at Kai Tak here in Hong Kong - it looks like a short DC8 but with modern turbofans, and several odd-looking sensors and intakes mounted about the fuselage. So it is a research aircraft. But what kind ? From kls Tue Mar 1 01:32:04 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wohlsen@sri.com Subject: Sleeve-valve engines Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: SRI International Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Mar 94 01:32:04 PST What ever became of the 2- and 4-stroke sleeve-valve engine technology developed in the '30s and used extensively by Bristol and Rolls-Royce in radial and inline aircraft engines. (I don't know of any airliner that employed the engines but the SeaFury was powered by a 4-stroke radial sleeve-valve engine called the Hercules made by Bristol.) I believe Continental licensed the technology at one time to build a radial engine. I recall claims that such engines were capable of running at significantly higher compression ratios on the same fuel as they did not have a hot exhaust valve in the combustion chamber to cause knock. I assume they lost out to the radial poppet valve engines of Pratt and others as they were probably more expensive to build. Can anyone confirm this? What other factors were involved? Bob Wohlsen bob_wohlsen@qm.sri.com From kls Tue Mar 1 01:32:07 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Cooper (was: DC 10-ski topples on to its rear when unloaded!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Mar 94 01:32:07 PST > > The rear stairway use for passenger loading was discontinued > > for security reasons sometime in the mid-1980s. > > D.B. Cooper jumped out of a 727 somewhere over Washington State > > from the stairway in mid flight. > > After the D.B. Cooper incident, the rear stairway was modified so the > door could not be opened in flight. The rear-stairs are still used > for loading. ... Well, actually, that wasn't D.B. Cooper. I dropped in on alt.folklore.- urban the other day and saw the following posting by Bob Hiebert (hibob@interceptor.cds.tek.com), whose site doesn't get this group, so he gave me permission to repeat it here: | First, and most importantly (bad form to respond to an English Dept. | type) D.B. Cooper was the name of a suspect from early in the | investigation. D.B. Cooper was later released with an un-beatable | alibi. | | The name, and identity, of the actual hijacker was never known. The | media (just as good or bad as those in the U.K. BTW) latched onto the | D.B. Cooper name and just wouldn't let it go. | | Ain't Folklore great?! Having seen the same statements in print somewhere myself, but not remembering where, I asked Bob where he got this information from. He said: | In Search Of; that trashy show that Leonard Nimoy hosted that also covered | such great events as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster). I happened to see | an episode a couple of weekends ago when I had *nothing* to do. | | What convinced me that the data was factual was the level of detail | provided. D.B. Cooper was a real hood (in L.A. I think). His face | matched the composite drawings. The show had photographs. So there you are. Someone did jump out of a 727 in flight with a large quantity of money; but it was someone *else*. -- Mark Brader "Every new technology carries with it SoftQuad Inc., Toronto an opportunity to invent a new crime" utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- Laurence A. Urgenson From kls Mon Mar 7 15:12:33 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sdd@larc.nasa.gov (Steve Derry) Subject: Nose high during cruise? Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 94 15:12:33 PST Reply-To: s.d.derry@larc.nasa.gov Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA On many flights on jet airliners, I have noticed that during cruise the aircraft appears to maintain a nose-up pitch angle. This is not only based on personal perception, but also the stewardesses say that the push carts tend to move downhill (i.e. toward the rear of the aircraft). Now during straight-and-level steady-state flight, the only noticeable body acceleration should be gravity, which is balanced by upward lift. All other forces should be balanced so as to produce no acceleration. I thought that for efficiency, airliners were designed with the appropriate angle of incidence between wings and fuselage so that at cruise angle of attack, the fuselage would be "level" with the oncoming airstream to minimize drag. Why then do I notice this "uphill" effect? Is the fuselage actually pitched up slightly? I have noticed this on many flights on jet airliners, but have never noticed a "level / nose on the horizon" attitude during a lengthy cruise. -- Steve Derry From kls Mon Mar 7 15:12:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: Re: 737-100 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 94 15:12:36 PST > can someone please tell me what a 737-100 looks like ? > I'm working at munich airport, but I have never seen such a plane. Many of Lufthansa's 737-100s went to People Express based at Newark, and many of these went on to Continental. Within the past year, I've still seen some of these old workhorses in service with Continental, b but with the new crop of 737-524s now being delivered, they are probably going to be retired soon. Incidentally, other operators of 737-100s included Ansett New Zealand (with ex-Lufthansa aircraft) and NASA with one aircraft (I believe the first one built) used for running experiments. Two questions: Is NASA replacing its 737 with a 757 as I have read somewhere? (Why) is there no 777-100, not even as a paper "light" version of the aircraft which entered production? Toby From kls Mon Mar 7 15:12:37 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shroff@cadence.com (Saurin B. Shroff; x6284) Subject: Soft ride mode on B747 Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Cadence Design Systems Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 94 15:12:37 PST On a recent trip from London to Boston on British Ariways, at around FL310, the ride suddenly became rough due to turbulance. The captain then announced that the turbulance was unexpected and he has turned on soft ride mode to give us softest ride possible (we were being served lunch then). We were flying B747. Does anyone know what is soft ride mode and how does it work? After the announcement the ride seemed bit softer but not whole lot. -- Saurin B. Shroff shroff@cadence.com From kls Mon Mar 7 15:12:38 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com Subject: Re: Sleeve-valve engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 94 15:12:38 PST Bob Wohlsen wondered about sleve-valve engines...... A recent copy of the magazine Takeoff had an article about the Bristol Brabazon. I pretty sure it said that the original engines for this were sleeve valved. A bit of backround on this beastie. The Brabazon was developed at Filton just after the war as non-stop Atlantic flier. Up to that time I believe aircraft refueled at Gander, Shannon or Prestwick. The Brabazon was a monster, mid fuselage diameter was about 18ft and it was the biggest thing around at the time (early fifties). Inside it was laid out like a liner with bars, a cinema, restaurant, 3 decks and sleeping areas. There were very few passengers, the whole emphasis being on luxury. A similar sized aircraft today would hold about 300 people! The engines were 8 sleeve-valved (rotaries?) paired to drive four sets of 3 bladed contra-rotating propellors. Later they went for the Proteus Turbo-prop engine. These were paired to drive four sets of 4 bladed contra-rotating propellors. The use of the Proteus upped the speed from about 200mph to about 300mph and improved the rather poor power to weight ratio. Weight was always a problem so the airframe was shaved to the minimum. There was a gust alleviation system to save the wings snapping. Wing span was immense and the wings were fat. A mechanic could stand up inside and walk from the fuselage to the engine bays. BOAC were the intended customer but they never expressed much interest preferring the Boeing products though BEA nearly had some. Main problem was that killed it was a lack of orders, speed and the few passengers it could carry. The arrival of the smaller faster jets Comets, 707, DC8 really finished it off. No airframes exist today. Julian Fitzherbert julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com From kls Mon Mar 7 15:12:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jharuni@london.micrognosis.com (Jonathan Haruni) Subject: Re: Sleeve-valve engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Micrognosis, a division of CSK(UK) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 94 15:12:43 PST Bob Wohlsen (wohlsen@sri.com) wrote: > What ever became of the 2- and 4-stroke sleeve-valve engine technology > developed in the '30s and used extensively by Bristol and Rolls-Royce ... They have some sleeve-valve engines at London's Science Museum, including one which has been cross-sectioned quite nicely. Check it out if you're in London. -- Jonathan Haruni From kls Mon Mar 7 15:12:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: old DC10 crash in Portland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 94 15:12:48 PST However, she swears that right after the crash, the pilot was telling anyone who would listen that the instruments indicated, as I recall, 200-300 lbs of fuel left in each wing when the engines went down. ---- 200-300 pounds of fuel is well within the realm of uncertainty in fuel quantity measurement, especially with the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) of the era. FQIS is a perennial headache to maintain, as there is no good way to measure it. The standard method is to look at the capacitance of the fuel, which is loosely proportional to the amount of fuel in the wings. The capacitance is measured by looking for the resonant frequency in a fuel quantity probe, ala first year electronics. Naturally, the probe leads, which are soaked in fuel, will fall out of calibration fairly quickly. Most of the time, this doesn't matter, as the fuelers use dipsticks to verify the amount of fuel in the wings. However (this may be hindsight), they just aren't that accurate when the tanks are THAT empty. Even with new digital FQIS systems, FQIS is still a leading cause of maintenance delays ("call maintenance, the FQ is reading too low"), at least among the airlines I've worked with. Just my $0.02, ed //////// Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 \\\\\\\\ The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Mon Mar 7 15:12:49 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: d_peters@uoft02.utoledo.edu Subject: PDX crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Toledo Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 94 15:12:49 PST The crash you reference in Portland was a United DC8. I no longer have the NTSB report but I looked in my training materials to refresh myself. My materials did not address the original problem/delay issue which led to the fuel starvation/exhaustion, but was concerned with "crew concept" and "cockpit resource management" A captain that did not listen to warnings from his crew and a first officer that was not "forceful" enough presenting the EXTREME fuel state to the captain. An unfortunate part of the accident is the Engineer was concious, VERY concious, of the fuel state and repeatedly mentioned to the captain. The captain subsequently *ordered* him to leave the cockpit (he was killed in the accident). This accident did not have to happen (obviously) and was a major factor in forcing airlines to adopt CRM techniques and to put the "heat" on old time "authoritarian" captains. In some cases actually forcing early retirement on those who would just not listen. I wish I could say I didn't know many of this kind of captain - not true. My early days in the airlines were filled with this type of captain. Now, however they are mostly gone and captains listen more, though some still must be forced to listen - occasionally. Dave Peters -= d_peters@uoft02.utoledo.edu =- ATP: Lr-jet,DC9,B727 12,000+ afh former Midway (and a couple of others) From kls Mon Mar 7 15:12:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kbarr@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: NASA DC8 #717 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept. Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 94 15:12:51 PST In article , Bob Coggeshall wrote: >So there has been an interesting aircraft sitting on the tarmac at >Kai Tak here in Hong Kong - it looks like a short DC8 but with modern >turbofans, and several odd-looking sensors and intakes mounted about >the fuselage. > >So it is a research aircraft. But what kind ? NASA 717 is a research DC-8. In fact, I was at Ames (working with NASA 709, an ER-2) when it left for HK about two weeks ago. I don't know all of the instruments on board for this project, which is called PEM-WEST and is a stratospheric chemistry project, but normally there are numerous air samplers that analyze the size and types of particles the aircraft flies through. _____________________________ _____ | Keith Barr \ \ \__ _____ | barr@ncar.ucar.edu \___________\ \/_______\___\_____________ | Commercial/AS&MEL/Inst/A&IGI / ( /_/ ..................... `-. |_____________________________/ `-----------,----,--------------' _/____/ From kls Mon Mar 7 15:12:56 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Subject: Re: NASA DC8 #717 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Worldwide Pants, Inc. Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Mar 94 15:12:56 PST In article Bob.Coggeshall@HK.Super.NET (Bob Coggeshall) writes: >So there has been an interesting aircraft sitting on the tarmac at >Kai Tak here in Hong Kong - it looks like a short DC8 but with modern >turbofans, and several odd-looking sensors and intakes mounted about >the fuselage. >So it is a research aircraft. But what kind ? NASA 717 is a DC-8-72, upgraded with CFM56 turbofans. It is based at the Ames Research Center, and I believe is used for a variety of astmospheric research projects. From kls Thu Mar 10 02:39:52 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer) Subject: Re: 737-100 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Mar 94 02:39:52 PST In article Tobias Henry Lutterodt writes: [snip] >Incidentally, other operators of >737-100s included Ansett New Zealand (with ex-Lufthansa aircraft) and >NASA with one aircraft (I believe the first one built) used for >running experiments. Yup. Airframe Number 1. Has two cockpits... the one up front is normal, while the one in back (near where coach-class seating would start) is all glass with sidestick controllers. Much of the original design work that ended up in the B757/767 was done using this aircraft by a team of NASA and Boeing engineers way back when. It was recently used for a whole spate of windshear sensor and display tests, and has also hosted an experiment in which national and regional radar information is datalinked to the cockpit. Interesting stuff! >Two questions: >Is NASA replacing its 737 with a 757 as I have read somewhere? Yes. But I haven't heard yet what the disposition of the old aircraft will be. Wanna put in a bid? :-) >(Why) is there no 777-100, not even as a paper "light" version of the > aircraft which entered production? Can't answer this one... Karl? Robert? --Mike Michael T. Palmer (m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov) Flight Deck Research Branch, Flight Dynamics and Control Division M/S 321, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001 Voice: +1 804 864-2044, Fax: +1 804 864-7793 From kls Thu Mar 10 02:39:55 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: SCA@pab5.larc.nasa.gov (Scott C. Asbury) Subject: Re: 737-100 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: SCA@pab5.larc.nasa.gov (Scott C. Asbury) Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Mar 94 02:39:55 PST NASA 515, the first 737 ever built is still in operation here at Langley. It was recentely used for wind-shear detection research, the focus of a recent article in Air&Space magazine. There have been rumors that NASA may acquire a 757 from now defunct Eastern Airlines. I've heard that the cost/difficulty of maintaining the aircraft is the factor behind this. From kls Thu Mar 10 02:39:57 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: STOCKER@alpha.salem.ge.com (David Stocker) Subject: Re: Nose high during cruise? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: GE Drive Systems, Salem, VA, USA Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Mar 94 02:39:57 PST In sdd@larc.nasa.gov writes: > On many flights on jet airliners, I have noticed that during cruise the > aircraft appears to maintain a nose-up pitch angle. This is not only > based on personal perception, but also the stewardesses say that the push > carts tend to move downhill (i.e. toward the rear of the aircraft). > [snip snip] > > Why then do I notice this "uphill" effect? Is the fuselage actually > pitched up slightly? I have noticed this on many flights on jet > airliners, but have never noticed a "level / nose on the horizon" > attitude during a lengthy cruise. > I've noticed this too - I always assumed that the plane was trimmed out to that attitude. The lift produced by the wings is a function of the airspeed and angle of the relative wind over them, this must balance with the weight of the plane, which is of course not all located at the CG but distributed about. While I suppose it is possible for everything to balance in a perfectly level flight attitude, I would think this is rarely the case. When I am flying (not jetliners, mind you!), and I sense that I am flying in a nose high attitude, I adjust the trim (nose down) and power (up) accordingly. But this makes the plane less stable in pitch, and it becomes harder to hold a fixed altitude. Perhaps there is a stibility margin involved with such a nose high attitude. Of course this is not as efficient (i.e. most any airplane that doesn't have afterburners can get "behind the power curve" - it can be in such a nose-high attitude that it will take full power just to hold altitude, and climb is not possible without bringing the nose DOWN) - but the added stability is desired. David Stocker stocker_dg@salem.ge.com (PP-ASEL, CAP, EAA, AOPA) GE Drive Systems, 1501 Roanoke Blvd, Salem, Virginia, USA 703-387-7844 GE Dial Comm: 278-7844 Fax: 703-387-7651 From kls Thu Mar 10 02:40:00 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kwd@netcom.com (Kurt W. Dekker) Subject: Re: Soft ride mode on B747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Mar 94 02:40:00 PST Saurin B. Shroff; x6284 (shroff@cadence.com) wrote: : On a recent trip from London to Boston on British Ariways, at around FL310, : the ride suddenly became rough due to turbulance. The captain then announced : that the turbulance was unexpected and he has turned on soft ride mode to : give us softest ride possible (we were being served lunch then). We were : flying B747. : Does anyone know what is soft ride mode and how does it work? After the : announcement the ride seemed bit softer but not whole lot. Unless it's a simple reduction in forward airspeed [which has attendant increases in airline operating costs, so I doubt that was it!], I say it's a psychological thing. "The ride will now be smoother with our 'smooth ride' controls enabled" will probably fool around 95% of people into thinking things actually got smoother. Placebos work. It's been proven again and again. The mind is a powerful thing. Kurt From kls Thu Mar 10 02:40:03 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: Phil Condit, Boeing President Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Mar 94 02:40:03 PST It's amazing, it's incredible, yes, I actually met Phil Condit!!! He came to our campus last Thursday to give a talk and for some other reasons and students got a chance to chat with him in a small group for an hour and a half. After this and after his speech to a general campus audience, there was a chance to talk to him at a small reception. I'll try to sum up some of the main points he made: - After I asked him about Boeing's drive to improve flowtimes, he said that he had started an initiative to cut the time it took to make an aircraft in half in the next three years. Making better use of existing human resources and moving to just-in-time inventories can reduce the flowtime for critical parts by a factor of ten. One of his examples was the wording on lavatories which must be done in the language of the customer and which was the longest lead-time part on lavatories for some reason! - He said that by 1995 customers will be able to take delivery of a new aircraft built to their specifications within six months, much sooner than in the past. - He said that though Boeing has no current interest in the regional aircraft market, if the kinds of cost improvements that he expects from his reduced flow-time initiative come to pass, Boeing will be so much more competitive than even subsidized producers that the market may become appealing. He reiterate that the experience with de Havilland Canada has not been forgotten in Seattle, though. - Concerning the VLCT, he said that he was not at all convinced that the plane was needed or would even be built. - He said that future modifications of existing aircraft would try as much as possible to digitize their designs but that this was very difficult because the 737-67s currently being produced are very different from their drawings. Tools have been modified over the production run which make this so. For instance, he said that on one aircraft (767, I believe), the aircraft is asymmetrical in cross-section by as much as an inch! A digital redefinition of the plane would have to account for all such changes. These were the main points as I found relevant to sci.aeronautics.airliners. As you can imagine, the experience (seeing and getting to talk to him) was unbelievable... Toby From kls Thu Mar 10 02:40:06 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: sdd@larc.nasa.gov (Steve Derry) Subject: HQ 94-39 / Boeing 757 Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: s.d.derry@larc.nasa.gov Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Mar 94 02:40:06 PST Drucella Andersen Headquarters, Washington, D.C. March 9, 1994 (Phone: 202/358-4733) H. Keith Henry Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va. (Phone: 804/864-6124) RELEASE: 94-39 NASA ACQUIRES BOEING 757 FOR AERONAUTICAL FLIGHT RESEARCH NASA is scheduled to take delivery on March 24 of a Boeing 757-200 aircraft that will serve as a "flying laboratory" for aeronautical research. The aircraft will be modified extensively for a broad range of flight research programs to benefit the U.S. aviation industry and commercial airline customers. The aircraft will be used to conduct research to increase aircraft safety, operating efficiency and compatibility with future air traffic control systems. It will serve as a vital research tool in support of the agency's Advanced Subsonic Transport and High-Speed Research programs. The 757 will continue the work begun by the NASA 737-100 in state-of-the- art technologies such as electronic cockpit displays, flight management systems and flight safety devices such as airborne windshear detection sensors. Current and projected research needs greatly exceed the capabilities of the 737. The NASA 757 was located after an extensive survey of the jet airliner market. It was used by Boeing for Federal Aviation Administration certification of the 757 class of jet airliners. The second generation, digitally-equipped transport designated N501EA, will be obtained from the Eastern Airline bankruptcy estate. NASA is acquiring the aircraft for $24 million, to be paid over 2 fiscal years. The 757 will be maintained and flown by NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va. From kls Thu Mar 10 02:40:07 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wendler@resumix.portal.com (Bruno Wendler) Subject: touch down on the road..... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: wendler@resumix.portal.com Organization: Resumix, Inc., Santa Clara, CA Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Mar 94 02:40:07 PST Do you know any case in which a commercial airplane has t-downed on a highway or a road ? Best wishes..... From kls Thu Mar 10 13:07:22 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Paul Vijgen" Subject: Re: Nose high during cruise? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Mar 94 13:07:22 PST In article , sdd@larc.nasa.gov (Steve Derry) writes: > > On many flights on jet airliners, I have noticed that during cruise the > aircraft appears to maintain a nose-up pitch angle. > > I thought that for efficiency, airliners were designed with the > appropriate angle of incidence between wings and fuselage so that at > cruise angle of attack, the fuselage would be "level" with the oncoming > airstream to minimize drag. > > Why then do I notice this "uphill" effect? Is the fuselage actually > pitched up slightly? (i) Most currently used jet aircraft were originally designed in the 1960's (747, DC10, 737, 727), i.e., before the '73 oil "crisis". To reduce fuel burn, cruise Mach number in modern operation is likely lower than the original design Mach number to reduce wave drag. For fixed weight and altitude, a higher CL, and a higher angle of attack is needed.To test this hypothesis, check the cabin attitude during cruise of recent designs, e.g. A330/340 or 777. (ii) Similarly, many current airliners are stretched and heavier versions of original designs: increased weight requires again more lift and higher angle of attack while other parameters are constant. (iii) A relatively large fraction of weight of long-range aircraft is burnt- off during cruising flight. Initially (i.e., first hours on transpacific flight), a high aircraft incidence angle is required. Paul Vijgen p.m.vijgen@larc.nasa.gov From kls Thu Mar 10 13:07:25 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Nose high during cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Mar 94 13:07:25 PST There has been speculation in the "Nose high during cruise" discussion as to the reason for this phenomona. Its really rather simple. At the beginning of a flight, especially a long range one, the airliner is rather heavy, particularly with fuel. To generate the lift necessary to maintain altitude, it most fly at a certain angle of attack. As the fuel burns off, the lift necessary decreases and the angle of attack decreases. The angle that the wings are at (incidence) relative to the fuselage is determined by defining a "typical" flight condition, but as one might imagine, aircraft only fly at this "typical" condition for short periods, hence you can sense a nose up or nose down floor angle. Incidentally, changing the trim tab setting on an aircraft does not affect the stability - it only changes the elevator hinge moment and stick force. The Boeing 727 is notorious for cruising rather nose up. This led to the famous "bootleg" manuver that those TWA pilots got caught using over Michigan. In cruise, 727 pilots would throw the breakers on the slats and then put the flaps out 5 deg or so to decrease the angle of attack necessary to generate the lift required and thereby decrease the floor angle. Legend has it that on the TWA flight, the flight engineer didn't know what was going on and flipped the breakers for the slats back on, leading to slat deployment in cruise. The pilots then tried to retract the slats, but one stuck from the high airloads, resulting in a wild ride before it ripped off. The airplane landed safely at Detroit Metro and the cockpit voice recorder was found to be erased! Some of the debris landed in one of my friend's front yard. When we helped Valsan add winglets to the 727, we ran into a problem with the loads, so we fell back on the same trick. We found that by rigging the flaps several degrees down, we could move the loads back in where they needed to be and at the same time we gained a slight fuel burn decrease. Currently there are two wingletted 727s in Delta's fleet and several privately owned ones (I think one is the Limited's - not only do they have winglets, but they also have the Valsan reengining on a a 727-100 - giving them one hot ship!). ps - I haven't been getting airliners for a while - it seems that some weeny deleted my subscription! ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Thu Mar 10 13:07:27 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: d.alan.johnson@larc.nasa.gov (Dave J.) Subject: Re: Soft ride mode on B747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Mar 94 13:07:27 PST . The captain then announced >: that the turbulance was unexpected and he has turned on soft ride mode to >: give us softest ride possible (we were being served lunch then). We were >: flying B747. >: Does anyone know what is soft ride mode and how does it work? Quite a few autopilots have a "soft ride" or turbulence mode associated with altitude hold, what this does is it will reduce the loop gain in the autopilot control laws to be less agressive in correcting for altitude deviation. In effect the autopilot lets the aircraft altitude deviate, say +/- 150 feet rather than +/- 30 feet. This gives a smoother ride since part of the rough ride in turbulence is due to control inputs, not just atmospheric energy. ................................................................. ....my opinions, my time, my disclaimer.......................... ................................................................. From kls Thu Mar 10 13:07:29 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spitz@parc.xerox.com (Larry Spitz) Subject: Re: touch down on the road..... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Xerox Palo Alto Research Center Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Mar 94 13:07:29 PST wendler@resumix.portal.com (Bruno Wendler) writes: >Do you know any case in which a commercial airplane has t-downed >on a highway or a road ? A long time ago, late 50's?, a TWA? Super Constellation on approach for Newark landed on the New Jersey turnpike by mistake. This is as I remember it and the facts may be different from my memorY after approximately 40 years. Larry -- Larry Spitz Fuji Xerox Palo Alto Laboratory Spitz@pal.xerox.com 415-813-7767 415-813-7081 Fax From kls Thu Mar 10 13:07:32 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mitch@mhs.mendocino.k12.ca.us (Mitchell Sprague) Subject: Your Ideal Aircraft Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Mendocino Middle School Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Mar 94 13:07:32 PST As part of the NASA K12NREN School Partnership Program, fourth grade students at Mendocino Middle School in California are studying the history and the future of aeronautics. The theme of their unit is "The Confluence of Technology and Ideas"--i.e., how do ideas and technology come together to move inventions forward. Our students have a few questions we think you can help us with if you are involved in any way in aeronautics design of any kind. Please feel free to answer any or all of them and to post this widely. 1. What type of aircraft would you design if you had any technology available? 2. What keeps designers from taking the next "big step"? 3. What technology, in your opinion/experience has had the biggest impact on aircraft design? What will impact design the most in the coming years? What are the next problems to solve in terms of materials and manufacutre? 4. What features do you want to see in an airplane? 5. Briefly describe any work you do related to aircraft design. Please respond to mitch@mhs.mendocino.k12.ca.us and not to the conference. Mitchell Sprague mitch@mhs.mendocino.k12.ca.us Mendocino Middle School California State Telemation Project NASA K-12NREN Partner School Program "Perhaps we may frighten away the ghosts of so many years ago with a little illumination." From kls Fri Mar 11 00:56:46 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mdw@ccu1.auckland.ac.nz (Woodhams) Subject: BAe 146 (was Re: 737-100) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Auckland Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Mar 94 00:56:46 PST Tobias Henry Lutterodt writes: >probably going to be retired soon. Incidentally, other operators of >737-100s included Ansett New Zealand (with ex-Lufthansa aircraft) and Ansett NZ operated 737's briefly when they started up until they got delivery of their BAe 146's several years ago. Why is the BAe 146 so different from other airliners? It has a high wing and 4 wing mounted jets for a small airplane, compared to the now almost universal low wing two engine arrangement. Is it to allow landing on grass, keeping the engines high to avoid ingesting crud? Michael W. From kls Fri Mar 11 00:56:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: raveling@netcom.com (Paul Raveling) Subject: Re: Nose high during cruise? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Mar 94 00:56:48 PST Steve Derry (sdd@larc.nasa.gov) wrote: : On many flights on jet airliners, I have noticed that during cruise the : aircraft appears to maintain a nose-up pitch angle. ... ... : I thought that for efficiency, airliners were designed with the : appropriate angle of incidence between wings and fuselage so that at : cruise angle of attack, the fuselage would be "level" with the oncoming : airstream to minimize drag. Actually the nose-high attitude is deliberate a deliberate measure to improve fuel economy. If you look at the fuselage alone it adds a bit of drag, but that's far overshadowed by the improvement it makes in the wing/fuselage's span loading (spanwise pressure distribution). An additional contribution is that a positive deck angle reduces the aircraft's nose-down pitching moment; that allows using a slightly smaller horizontal stabilizer and slightly lighter structure. If you look at an aircraft nose-on, the optimal spanwise lift distribution is elliptical. That means it's a nice smooth curve even where it crosses the fuselage. Typically there's a huge area of low pressure over the wings at their roots. If the fuselage doesn't have an area of low pressure over it, the airframe will pump energy into generating a vortex of sorts -- well, at least some screwy airflow -- at the wing/fuselage junction. To minimize this mess airliner designers deliberately gave the planes a significant positive deck angle in order to minimize this pressure discontinuity. The effect is quite significant on airliner economy. When Eastern Airlines complained about the deck angle on their new L1011's in 1974, Lockeed responded with a letter whose second paragraph is this quote: "Had Lockheed designed the L-1011 to fly with a level floor in cruise, EAL's operating costs for their present fleet of these airplanes would have increased by three million dollars per year." That quote was based on a fleet of 25 L1011's and a fuel cost of 22 cents per gallon. Lockheed cited these penalties for leveling the fuselage: "In summary, the total drag increase associated with the effect of fuselage rotation is equal to 2.2% of total aircraft drag for each 1 degree that the floor angle is decreased. ... on the L-1011 the structural penalties associated with each 1 degree reduction in floor attitude is about 900 pounds..." ------------------- Paul Raveling Raveling@netcom.com From kls Fri Mar 11 00:56:49 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pmc@merit.edu (Philip M. Chuang) Subject: Re: Nose high during cruise? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Michigan Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Mar 94 00:56:49 PST > On many flights on jet airliners, I have noticed that during cruise the > aircraft appears to maintain a nose-up pitch angle. This is especially true for ultra-long-range cruise. I read in FLIGHT International that Cathay Pacific took this into account and adjusted their engine nacelles of their long-range 747's 2 degrees downward, and manageed to save fuel burn and increase the payload- range of these planes. They call it POD-NOD. From kls Fri Mar 11 11:57:13 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: Soft ride mode on B747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards CA Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Mar 94 11:57:13 PST On 10 Mar 94 02:40:00 PST, kwd@netcom.com (Kurt W. Dekker) said: Kurt> Saurin B. Shroff; x6284 (shroff@cadence.com) wrote: : On a recent trip from London to Boston on British Ariways, at around FL310, : the ride suddenly became rough due to turbulance. The captain then announced : that the turbulance was unexpected and he has turned on soft ride mode to : give us softest ride possible (we were being served lunch then). We were : flying B747. : Does anyone know what is soft ride mode and how does it work? After the : announcement the ride seemed bit softer but not whole lot. Kurt> Unless it's a simple reduction in forward airspeed [which has Kurt> attendant increases in airline operating costs, so I doubt that Kurt> was it!], I say it's a psychological thing. "The ride will now Kurt> be smoother with our 'smooth ride' controls enabled" will Kurt> probably fool around 95% of people into thinking things actually Kurt> got smoother. Placebos work. It's been proven again and again. Kurt> The mind is a powerful thing. While the mind is a powerful thing, so are modern flight control systems. They have a ride-smoothing mode in the flight control system--it uses accelerations fed into the FCS computers. We did a lot of studies on this using a variable-stability executive jet aircraft in the mid to late 60's and did find that it was fairly useful, even though it doesn't make the ride totally smooth. The ride is improved enough, however, to reduce motion sickness symptoms. As far as I know, the 747 was the first to have this; I don't know what other aircraft have it. The F-111 terrain-following mode has the opposite sort of system. You can dial in various levels, up to hard ride, to select the amount of acceleration that you're willing to accept. I have not tried this firsthand, but pilots who have assure me that the hard ride really is. -- Mary Shafer DoD #362 KotFR SR-71 Chief Engineer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, 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 Sat Mar 12 00:41:46 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hedleyj@wl.aecl.ca (No, that's me over here!) Subject: RE: touch down on the road..... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Mar 94 00:41:46 PST I have 2 memories concerning road touchdowns...one very fuzzy, the other less so. In the 50's a Trans-Canada Airlines (now Air Canada) Super G Constellation landed 'short' of Toronto Int'l on Hwy 401, fortunately with no injuries or really significant damage - except possibly to underwear. This was I believe about 1956-57, after a long night flight from Port of Spain, Trinidad. I believe the pilot-in-command basically fatigued out and mistook the highway lights for approach lighting. This was related to me by my father who worked for Big Red (Air Canada) 1944-1977. As well, I recall him saying that the pilot was later killed (along with all others) in a charter crash about 1959 returning from Europe to Canada and having a fuel starvation situation. I believe this was a Maritime Central Airways DC-4. The other recollection is of a Southern Airways (who bought them out, anyway?) DC-9 encountering a super severe hailstorm in, I believe, Georgia, sometime in about the 1969-1971 time frame (I think this is about right since I seem to recall I was in university then). The hail knocked out _both_ JT8Ds and the pilot managed to put the a/c down on a State highway alright, but, very tragically clipped a telephone pole with a wing, cartwheeled, hit a gas station, and exploded. There were quite a lot of fatalities, but about 12-15 (?) people survived. Unfortunately neither of the up-front guys made it, which shows how unfair life can be, at times. The pilots were _true_ heroes. If anyone has more info on either of these events I'd appreciate reading it either directly or on the net. Bruce Hedley AECL Research From kls Sat Mar 12 00:41:49 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rathinam@ins.infonet.net Subject: Re: Soft ride mode on B747 References: , Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rathinam@ins.infonet.net Organization: INFOnet - Iowa Network Services, Inc. Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Mar 94 00:41:49 PST In article , shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >While the mind is a powerful thing, so are modern flight control >systems. They have a ride-smoothing mode in the flight control >system--it uses accelerations fed into the FCS computers. We did a >lot of studies on this using a variable-stability executive jet >aircraft in the mid to late 60's and did find that it was fairly >useful, even though it doesn't make the ride totally smooth. The ride >is improved enough, however, to reduce motion sickness symptoms. As >far as I know, the 747 was the first to have this; I don't know what >other aircraft have it. Can someone (BCAG people?) verify that the B747 indeed has these? What the pilot interfaces are to this system to turn it on and off, like the original poster quoted? I don't see anything in the autoflight interfaces that give the pilot a switching mechanism. Is it part of a different (other than auto flight) system on the B747? -sethu rathinam From kls Sat Mar 12 10:30:32 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cyberoid@u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) Subject: Those swinging engine pods! Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Mar 94 10:30:32 PST Organization: WORLDESIGN, Seattle While I've now flown enough miles not to get alarmed, I'm still surprised to look out the window of the 747 in which I'm traveling and see the engines swaying in turbulence. How much do the engines actually travel, how does this affect their efficiency, and what type of construction is used that permits such wild movement without the engines tearing off and leaving us without power? Thanks for your answers. Bob From kls Sat Mar 12 10:30:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wendler@lia.univ-savoie.fr (Bruno Wendler) Subject: Re: touch down on the road..... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: wendler@lia.univ-savoie.fr Organization: Laboratoire d'IA Univ. Savoie, france Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Mar 94 10:30:35 PST >I have 2 memories concerning road touchdowns...one very fuzzy, the other >less so. > See, the point is that touchdowning on a road or over a forest needs a very brave decision. I was wondering, in the case of this DC-8 which run out of fuel (cause of dealing with the gear pb. .. donnu when and where... :-) One could assume that touching down on a road could be a better choice (of course, it depend on the situation, the road, traffic, etc ,etc.), because it "look like a runway". Is it however a forest smoother to place a plane in case of ...... ? I was thinking also on the UA 232 case at Sioux City. The pilot ( a real hero !) had eventually the choise of tchdwn on a highway. I know it is not an easy answer (it depends on lots of parameters..) but anyway here comes the question: What would you choose: road vs forest (no runway :-0 ) ? I which nobody will have to take the decision one day ! Still have a nice day..... Bruno Wendler LIA/Universite de Savoie France wendler@lia.univ-savoie.fr From kls Sat Mar 12 10:30:39 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: laewell@iastate.edu (Lars A Ewell) Subject: Date of Construction Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa (USA) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Mar 94 10:30:39 PST I recently flew Northwest Airlines from Des Moines to LaGuardia. When boarding the DC-9 from Detroit back to DesMoines I noticed a black stamp inside the door that had the place of manufacture (Long Beach) as well as the date. The date was 1966. I was surprised that the plane was that old. Are many of the DC-9's this old? In addition, are planes required to have the date of manufacture posted like this? thanx, Lars Ewell From kls Sat Mar 12 10:30:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: flloyd@l1-a.West.Sun.COM (Fred Lloyd [Phoenix SE]) Subject: Re: 737-100 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Sun Microsystems, Phoenix Arizona Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Mar 94 10:30:40 PST In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>can someone please tell me what a 737-100 looks like ? >>I'm working at munich airport, but I have never seen such a plane. > >Actually you may have seen it and not known it -- the 737-100 looks >like a short 737-200, with the difference not realy noticeable unless >you look carefully. Only about thirty were built and virtually all >of those were for Lufthansa. Lufthansa still has -200s, but the -100s >were sold some time ago. > America West has a -100, number 708. It is used to carry the Phoenix Suns around the country and carries the Suns logo on the rear of the fuselage. When not being used for the team, it does regular service. -fred [ Fred Lloyd, AA7BQ Fred.Lloyd@west.sun.com ] [ Sun Microsystems, Systems Engineer ] [ Phoenix, AZ (602) 224-3517 ] From kls Sun Mar 20 22:29:42 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: showie@uoguelph.ca (Steve Howie) Subject: Re: Date of Construction References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: showie@uoguelph.ca Organization: Haggisland Inc Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Mar 94 22:29:42 PST Lars A Ewell (laewell@iastate.edu) wrote: : I recently flew Northwest Airlines from Des Moines : to LaGuardia. When boarding the DC-9 from Detroit back : to DesMoines I noticed a black stamp inside the door that : had the place of manufacture (Long Beach) as well as the date. : The date was 1966. I was surprised that the plane was that : old. Are many of the DC-9's this old? In addition, are : planes required to have the date of manufacture posted like : this? In 1989 I flew on a charter flight with an outfit called Crownair to Glasgow in a DC-8 Series 20. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this series was one of the very first DC-8s which were produced. Quite a short fuselage on it. I was also a little concerned about the general shabiness of the plane (although it functioned just fine on the flight), and was a bit leery of flying in a plane this old. Anyone know exactly when this vintage was built? I imagine the maintenance crews must spend some very long hours on planes this old. Are there actually limits on the age of an airframe imposed on carriers, beyond which the aircraft must be mothballed? Scotty -- =================================================================== Steve Howie showie@uoguelph.ca NetNews and Gopher Admin. Computing and Communications Services University of Guelph (519)824-4120 x2556 If it's not Scottish .. It's C-r-r-r-r-r-a-a-a-a-a-p-p =================================================================== From kls Sun Mar 20 22:29:46 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: Date of Construction References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: spagiola@leland.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Mar 94 22:29:46 PST Lars A Ewell writes > I recently flew Northwest Airlines from Des Moines > to LaGuardia. When boarding the DC-9 from Detroit back > to DesMoines I noticed a black stamp inside the door that > had the place of manufacture (Long Beach) as well as the date. > The date was 1966. I was surprised that the plane was that > old. Are many of the DC-9's this old? In addition, are > planes required to have the date of manufacture posted like > this? Most DC-9s are younger, but there are many that are, in fact, that old. All aircraft have, somewhere, a manufacturer's data plate that gives model, serial number, and date of manufacture information. On DC-9s, its always on the inside front of the forward passenger door (ditto on DC-10s). Ciao, Stefano --- Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305-6084 Tel 415-725-0939, Fax 415-725-7007 Email spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Sun Mar 20 22:29:47 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Date of Construction References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Mar 94 22:29:47 PST In article , Lars A Ewell wrote: > > I recently flew Northwest Airlines from Des Moines >to LaGuardia. When boarding the DC-9 from Detroit back >to DesMoines I noticed a black stamp inside the door that >had the place of manufacture (Long Beach) as well as the date. >The date was 1966. I was surprised that the plane was that >old. Are many of the DC-9's this old? In addition, are >planes required to have the date of manufacture posted like >this? I doubt that there are many DC-9s made in or before 1966. Seems to me the DC-9 entered service right about then. Our distinguished moderator will no doubt have more precise data. However, all commerical airliners are indeed required to have that data plate right there at door 1. An interesting point on the DC-9, it has been shown to have a service life in excess of 200,000 hours. Incredible! They really knew how to build them back then. :-) Also, you find operators like Northwest who depend on the DC-9 to keep bringing in the cash in bad times because they are relatively easy to maintain (read cheap to operate). Interesting counter-point Finnair decided not to upgrade their fleet of DC-9s to the DC-9X standard (new cockpit, etc), but to replace them with some yet to be named 100 seat airplane (737-X maybe?). Any of you guys know the number of lug nuts on the nosewheel? :-) Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Sun Mar 20 22:29:49 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Date of Construction References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Mar 94 22:29:49 PST >... a DC-8 Series 20. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this series was >one of the very first DC-8s which were produced ... Anyone know exactly when >this vintage was built? The first DC-8-21 was the second DC-8 off the line, first flying on November 29, 1958. The -21 differed from the series 10 by having 15,800 lb thrust JT4A-3 engines instead of the 13,500 lb JT3C-6 engines of the DC-8-11/12, with the wing modifications of the -12. Only 34 series 20 aircraft were built, while some of the series 10 production was upgraded to series 20 specs. Getting back to the DC-9, the first flight of a DC-9 was on February 25, 1965, and the 77th one appears to have been the last delivery of 1966, so there were indeed a fair number of DC-9s of 1966 or older vintage. Quite a few of them still seem to be in service. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Sun Mar 20 22:29:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Those swinging engine pods! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Mar 94 22:29:51 PST In article , Robert Jacobson wrote: > >While I've now flown enough miles not to get alarmed, I'm still surprised >to look out the window of the 747 in which I'm traveling and see the >engines swaying in turbulence. How much do the engines actually travel, >how does this affect their efficiency, and what type of construction is >used that permits such wild movement without the engines tearing off and >leaving us without power? Thanks for your answers. > >Bob Well, not to alarm anyone anymore than they are ordinarily, but those engines will move about even in still air. This is a result of the speed the airplane flies, and how it damps out flutter. The engines are out of phase with the wing. The engine struts incorporate a "spring beam" to change the natural frequency of the engine & strut with respect to the wing. I didn't know this until recently, but a four-engine airplane can cruise faster than a twin (given the same wing construction) because it has those ouboard engines to damp the flutter. Not being all that familiar with the A330/A340, I was wondering if this effect showed up with them? Granted the A340 doesn't fly very fast to begin with (M 0.82 nominal), but does the A330 fly any slower? Say, Mach 0.80? Kurt? -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Sun Mar 20 22:29:56 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gregory@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Greg Wright) Subject: 777 Rollout.....April 9th, coming? Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Mar 94 22:29:56 PST Organization: Boeing Computer Services >From a recent 777 News Bulletin.. "...which commemorates the completion of the No. 1 777 . At the event, scheduled for Saturday, april 9, almost 100,000 invited Boeing employees and guests will gather to view the ceremonial rollout of the airplane in presentations repeated throughout the day." Unfortunatly, "....Personal cameras and video equipment are not allowed on site. The Boeing News will provide extensive coverage about the celebration. A special BTV News also will be produced and distributed afterwards to capture the event for those who don't attend.", and "...Currently, flight test equipment is installed in the air- plane, so it is not feasible to open it for viewing." I can personally vouch for this, it is PACKED. :-) Full of water cans and electronic racks. Further info, "....Yes. special 777 merchandise will be available the day of the event. The items include: mugs, poloshirts, sweat- shirts, hats and T-shirts....." And now the most important, "...All Everett site employees will receive tickets. Tickets have also been allocated to other divisions and organizations that have supported the 777 program, as well as representatives from our customers, partner, suppliers, and community." I have heard that each of us will recieve 2 tickets per person. So, if you know anybody up here you better give them a call. The public doesn't get too many chances too get inside the plant, down with the planes. -- ________Greg Wright________ Software Development | gregory@bcstec.boeing.com | 777 Division. | gregory@halcyon.com | |___uunet!bcstec!gregory____| NOT A BOEING SPOKESPERSON. From kls Sun Mar 20 22:29:57 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: matthews_d@gold.colorado.edu Subject: winglet-equipped 727-200 Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Mar 94 22:29:57 PST Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder While flying through SLC yesterday, I saw a Delta 727-200 with winglets (N511DA). Since I have never heard of such a beast before, I thought this would make a good post to sci.aeronautics.airliners. Before I get a chance to post, David Lednicer posts a description of the plane: a Valsan conversion. This group is amazing: you only have to THINK of a question and it gets answered. I would, however, be curious to hear any details about these planes. Dewayne Matthews matthews_d@cubldr.colorado.edu From kls Sun Mar 20 22:29:58 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Soft ride mode on B747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Mar 94 22:29:58 PST In article , Kurt W. Dekker wrote: >Saurin B. Shroff; x6284 (shroff@cadence.com) wrote: >: On a recent trip from London to Boston on British Ariways, at around FL310, >: the ride suddenly became rough due to turbulance. The captain then announced >: that the turbulance was unexpected and he has turned on soft ride mode to >: give us softest ride possible (we were being served lunch then). We were >: flying B747. > >: Does anyone know what is soft ride mode and how does it work? After the >: announcement the ride seemed bit softer but not whole lot. > >Unless it's a simple reduction in forward airspeed [which has attendant >increases in airline operating costs, so I doubt that was it!], I say it's >a psychological thing. "The ride will now be smoother with our 'smooth >ride' controls enabled" will probably fool around 95% of people into >thinking things actually got smoother. Placebos work. It's been proven >again and again. The mind is a powerful thing. I'm sorry I missed this the first time through, our server has been down. The 747 does indeed have a ride quality system. It adjusts the gains on the yaw damper system. The idea to equalize some of those lateral accelerations that gusts impart to the aircraft through the vertical tail. That is, with the ride quality system (actually called the MSAS - Modal Suppression Augmentation System) off, the cockpit has a nice ride but those in the aft end of the airplane get moved about a bit. With the MSAS on, the cockpit shares in the sideways accelerations, with a decrease in the felt accelerations by those passengers well aft. It does not, and cannot, remove all the accelerations felt by everyone on the airplane. -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Sun Mar 20 22:30:00 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Nose high during cruise? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Mar 94 22:30:00 PST In article , sdd@larc.nasa.gov (Steve Derry) writes: > > On many flights on jet airliners, I have noticed that during cruise the > aircraft appears to maintain a nose-up pitch angle. > > I thought that for efficiency, airliners were designed with the > appropriate angle of incidence between wings and fuselage so that at > cruise angle of attack, the fuselage would be "level" with the oncoming > airstream to minimize drag. > > Why then do I notice this "uphill" effect? Is the fuselage actually > pitched up slightly? I love the questions that come off this group. I always end up learning quite a bit myself. Keep them coming! I cornered one of the senior aero guys and sure enough, the aero fraternity is responsible for the deck angle you've noticed. The body, as a surface of revolution, develops a moment when flown through the air at a positive angle of attack (nose up). Inviscid effect. If too much angle of attack in used, the body begins to develop lift along with the moment. Viscous effect. The body is incredibly inefficient at making lift, so the angle of attack must be kept quite small. Also, the cabin crew has a heck of a time moving those serving carts uphill if the deck angle is too large. What does this moment buy us? Reduction in trim drag through reduction in the amount of moment (lift times tail arm) generated by the horizontal tail. Less lift/moment generated by the tail, less induced drag generated by the tail. Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Sun Mar 20 22:30:01 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mentor21@aol.com (Mentor21) Subject: Re: Reverse Thrust References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Mar 94 22:30:01 PST Use of powerback is limited by hot gas ingestion of the engine, the different engines having a varying amount of susceptibility to the core engine eating it's own efflux; some as little as 3 deg C temp rise. Aircraft geometry also has a limiting role: but the key thing to remember is...NO BRAKES ON POWERBACK! From kls Sun Mar 20 22:30:04 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Seeking typical leak flow rate Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Mar 94 22:30:04 PST I'm looking for information/references on typical leak airflow rates that need to be considered in the design of cabin pressurization systems. This is between-the-cracks leakage, and doesn't leakage for the cabin outflow valve(s). So I'm looking for typical values in lbs/sec at altitude, sea level, etc. Any pointers or values would be appreciated. Thanks. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From kls Sun Mar 20 22:30:06 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Valsan 727 modifications Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Mar 94 22:30:06 PST I have been asked what the Valsan reengining program is, so I will describe it here. The Valsan program was intended to make 727-200s compliant with the Stage 3 noise rules. The outer (#1 and #3) JT8D-9, -11, -15 or -17s are replaced with JT8D-217s, which have a higher bypass ratio and are quieter. The -217s are the engine found on the MD-82. The center (#2) engine, being buried in the tailcone, could not be easily replaced, so instead it looses its thrust reverser and gets an internal (bypass/core) mixer, to lower its noise signature. The first modified aircraft, for Sterling Airways of Denmark, re-entered service in October 1988. Aircraft modified have included some Continental aircraft and high gross-weight Federal Express -200s (late model aircraft). After certifying the modified -200, Valsan also certified a similarly modified 727-100. I believe that the first aircraft was a corporate aircraft owned by the Limited. Stories I heard indicate that the reengined -100 is a real hotrod. Since this time, Valsan has also certified and put into service winglets on the -100 and -200. These are intended to cut cruise fuel burn. A 5% improvement is claimed. The RR Tay reengining program is being conducted by Dee Howard for United Parcel Service. In this case, all three engines are replaced by Tay 651-54s. This is a more extensive mod, as the #2 engine air duct has to be completely replaced. The aircraft also gets a glass cockpit at the same time. Dee Howard is under contract to modify 80 aircraft for UPS. Several are now in service. The other 727 program is a Federal Express hushkit. This kit adds internal mixers to all three engines of a -100 or -200. Fedex has installed them on most of their older 727s and Trump/USAir shuttle and Delta also have sprung for this kit. My impression is that this is a cheap modification that involves some gross weight trade-offs for Stage 3 compliance. Both the Valsan and Dee Howard kits up the aircraft's available thrust. Some Valsan engineers told me about taking off in a modified 727-100 with the spoilers inadverantly actuated. They claimed that the rate of climb was still better than with the old engines! In fact, they were talking at one point about removing the #2 engine altogether and turning the 727 into a twin! ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sun Mar 20 22:39:12 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: richn@vcd.hp.com (Richard Nute) Subject: TCAS incident at PDX Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Mar 94 22:39:12 PST Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD >From "The Oregonian," Monday, March 14: ....................................................................... "A system designed to avert air collisions sent two planes heading toward one another near Portland International Airport, and federal authorities are trying to figure out why. "The Feb. 3 incident involved an Alaska Airlines jetliner and a HorizonAir commuter jet. "Each plane was equipped with the Traffic Collision Avoidance System, which alerts pilots to other air traffic and sounds an alarm if there is a chance of collision. "'The question is not whehter TCAS did its job. The question is why did the logic of TCAS tell the upper plane to go down and the lower plane to climb,' said Dick Meyers, a Federal Aviation Administration spokesman based in Renton, Wash. "A crash would not have resulted if the pilots had continued obeying the instructions of the system, but the planes would have come uncomfortably close, FAA officials said. "Alaska Airlines pilot Thomas Hedrick had been instructed by an air traffic controller to climb to 9,000 feet and level off. At the same time, a HorizonAir commuter jet piloted by Brian Penwell was approaching the airport and was instructed to descend to 10,000 feet and level off. "In both planes, the FAA-required collision avoidance system alarm sounded -- a common occurence in the traffic-congested skies around airports -- letting pilots know they were close to other aircraft. "Then a second alarm sounded indicating the aircraft were on a potential collision course. Rather than advising the pilots to level off, the system instructed the higher-flying plane to descend below the lower-flying plane and the lower-flying plane to climb above the other. "An air traffic controller noticed the HorizonAir plane descending toward the Alaska plane and ordere the pilot to level off. "'I told him we could not because we were receiving a Resolution Advisor,' Penwell wrote in a report filed with the FAA. A Resolution Advisory in this case was the system's directive to descend. "Penwell said he finally saw the Alaska plane and banked to the left at about 9,200 feet. Penwell estimated that the planes came within about a mile of each other." ....................................................................... Unrelated information: Alaska Airlines owns HorizonAir. Richard Nute Vancouver, Washington, USA From kls Mon Mar 21 14:52:07 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: Date of Construction References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: spagiola@leland.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Mar 94 14:52:07 PST Steve Howie writes > In 1989 I flew on a charter flight with an outfit called Crownair > to Glasgow in a DC-8 Series 20. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I > believe this series was one of the very first DC-8s which were > produced. Quite a short fuselage on it. I don't believe Crownair was flying a DC-8-20 in 1989. They did have a DC-8-50, though, and several DC-8-50s were modified from DC-8-20s, so this might be one of them (I'm the middle of a move, with all my production lists packed away, so I can't check). The DC-8-20s were pretty early machines, but not the earliest. The DC-8-10s came first (back then manufacturers hadn't yet being afflicted by the "Boeing Syndrome" of starting series numbering at 200 :-). As for fuselage length, all DC-8s prior to the -60 series had the exact same fuselage length. They differed only in things like engine fit and minor details. > I imagine the maintenance crews must spend some very long hours > on planes this old. Are there actually limits on the age of an > airframe imposed on carriers, beyond which the aircraft must be > mothballed? Yeah, there's more maintenance, but as long as you do it properly you can fly the things pretty much forever. Still lots of DC-8s flying around, although practically all of them are -50s and -60s these days. The airframes have so much life left in them that the idea of restarting the CFM-56 re-engining program resurfaces periodically. One bit of trivia: there were twice as many 707s built as DC-8s, but today there are twice as many DC-8s still flying as there are 707s. Ciao, Stefano --- Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305-6084 Tel 415-725-0939, Fax 415-725-7007 Email spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Mon Mar 21 14:52:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ctillier@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Clemens Emmanuel Tillier) Subject: DC-10 Engine pod fins Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Princeton University Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Mar 94 14:52:09 PST I've noticed on several DC-10's that the wing engines have two small fins (one on each side of the engine pod, sort of at the 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock positions). I noticed that these often produce a stream of condensation on takeoff- a great way to see the airflow over the wing. What function do these fins serve? Regards, Clem Tillier Princeton, New Jersey, USA From kls Mon Mar 21 14:52:12 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Donald A. Hazle" Subject: Re: Reverse Thrust References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Penn State University Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Mar 94 14:52:12 PST Is reverse thrust used on some aircraft in flight to slow a decent? I thought I had read in this newsgroup that reverse thrust was locked out during flight on most aircraft. However, on a 1968 approach to Washington National (from northwest to southeast over the Potomac), the flight attendant announced; "the noise you hear are the engines running in reverse to control airspeed during our descent". The aircraft was a DC-9 an there was a higher amount of noise than normal coming from the rear. I never heard this announced on any other flight. Don Hazle Penn State University From kls Mon Mar 21 14:52:13 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) Subject: Re: Valsan 727 modifications References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Mar 94 14:52:13 PST Anybody care to comment on the financial implications of modifying older 727s rather than replacing them outright? 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 Mon Mar 21 14:52:15 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shepherd@courier6.aero.org (Walter Shepherd) Subject: Level Flight Deck revisited Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: The Aerospace Corp Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Mar 94 14:52:15 PST There have been a number of postings related to cabin attendants pushing carts up hill and whether or not it is efficient to fly airliners with a positive AOA on the fuselage. Everyone seems to be assuming that the flight deck and the longitudinal axis of the fuselage are parallel... are they? does anyone out there know for sure? I have a dim distant recollection that in fact, they are not one and the same for the DC-10. I recall hearing that substaintial structural weight was saved (remember the floor buckling accidents??) at the cost of tiring out the cabin attendants by having a 3 degree tilt on the flight deck. || 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 Tue Mar 22 09:52:34 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Thomas.Enblom@eos.ericsson.se (Thomas Enblom) Subject: Re: Date of Construction References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Thomas.Enblom@eos.ericsson.se Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 94 09:52:34 PST > One bit of trivia: there were twice as many 707s built as DC-8s, but > today there are twice as many DC-8s still flying as there are 707s. Stefano, that trivia is not all true I mean if you just count airframes the 707 will definitely outnumber the DC-8. I'm talking about E-3,E-6,E-8 and a whole lot of RC/KC/C-135's which are all based on the 707 airframe. /Thomas ================================================================================ Thomas Enblom M.Sc. !\ /\ /\ /! Ericsson Telecom, Stockholm, Sweden ! \ / \ / \ / ! ALEA JACTA EST E-mail: etxtebb@eos.ericsson.se ! \/ \/ \/ ! From kls Tue Mar 22 09:52:38 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Reverse Thrust References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 94 09:52:38 PST In article "Donald A. Hazle" writes: Is reverse thrust used on some aircraft in flight to slow a decent? I thought I had read in this newsgroup that reverse thrust was locked out during flight on most aircraft. However, on a 1968 approach to Washington National (from northwest to southeast over the Potomac), the flight attendant announced; "the noise you hear are the engines running in reverse to control airspeed during our descent". The aircraft was a DC-9 an there was a higher amount of noise than normal coming from the rear. I never heard this announced on any other flight. Don Hazle Penn State University ---- For an airliner, reverse thrust is never used to slow an aircraft (in flight, that is). In fact, a Lauda Air B767 came apart in flight when one of the thrust reversers deployed in flight accidentally over Southeast Asia a few years back. (The FAA has issued an Airworthiness Directive about this.) My conjecture regarding the noise in the DC9 is that the aircraft was flying with full flaps, thus creating a lot of drag, in turn requiring a fairly high power setting to maintain airspeed (not an unusual situation on the River Visual approach to DCA). In general, aircraft will use wing spoilers (i.e. mid-chord wing panels that deploy upward - easily seen on B727s) for speed control. The one exception is the F28/F100 (Fokker), which has a clamshell spoiler at the tip of the rear fuselage (you can see the hinges for the shells a few feet forward of the end of the fuselage). The wing actuated panels on these aircraft are LIFT DUMPERS, and are ONLY actuated on the ground for braking purposes. American Airlines, USAir, and the new Midway are the primary US operators of this Dutch twinjet. Hope this helps, with a minimum of unintentional disinformation... ed From kls Tue Mar 22 09:52:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Valsan 727 modifications References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 94 09:52:41 PST In article jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) writes: Anybody care to comment on the financial implications of modifying older 727s rather than replacing them outright? ---- Well, for one airline, the financial considerations they undertook when considering retiring the B727-100 and -200 fleets hinged on three things: 1) Windshear Detection Equipment retrofit (FAR 121.358) 2) Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System retrofit (FAR 121.356) and 3) Stage III noise regulations (can't recall the exact FAR) Nos. 1 & 2 were required on all airliners (more than 30 seats) by December 30, 1993. The ballpark cost of retrofit per aircraft for Windshear is 40K(USD), and for TCAS is 150K+(USD). Number 3, Stage 3, is required in 1999. Basically, to meet Stage 3 noise regulations, the current engines (JT8D-17s et al) must be modified in some way, or be replaced. This, of course, is VERY expensive (hundreds of thousands to millions of USD). Earlier posts regarding the Valsan conversions have detailed what is involved here. Offsetting the cost is the fact that the B727 can be a very useful aircraft on some routes. The airline that I am familiar with operated 125 B727-200s in 1992, and is slowly retiring the older aircraft so that there will be about 67 of them left by 1997. The main reason they are hanging on to them are that they are VERY profitable on Caribbean routes because: 1) Fairly good takeoff performance. 2) Good payload carrying capacity (-200A version), especially when you consider that flying over the Caribbean requires HF radios and full overwater crash survival equipment (rafts, etc). 3) Three engines, which is useful for avoiding some of the hassles of trying to fly overwater with only two engines in a small aircraft (i.e. MD80 class). Therefore, this airline will continue to operate the B727-200 until 1999, when they will retire the remaining 67. The costs of reengining and aging aircraft modifications will make further service not cost effective. It should be noted that there was some concern at this airline about which aircraft was going to replace it on these profitable routes. BTW, the airline retired the last of its -100s before the end of 1993. The reduced payload capacity of the -100 made it not cost effective for TCAS/Windshear retrofit. Note that this was the case for only one airline, and that the plan was pretty firm at the time I left. Furthermore, this airline was in good financial shape, and has plenty of brand new aircraft on the delivery schedule, so they weren't hurting for seats. Just one point of view... ed //////// Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 \\\\\\\\ The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Tue Mar 22 09:52:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Level Flight Deck revisited References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 94 09:52:44 PST In article shepherd@courier6.aero.org (Walter Shepherd) writes: There have been a number of postings related to cabin attendants pushing carts up hill and whether or not it is efficient to fly airliners with a positive AOA on the fuselage. Everyone seems to be assuming that the flight deck and the longitudinal axis of the fuselage are parallel... are they? does anyone out there know for sure? I have a dim distant recollection that in fact, they are not one and the same for the DC-10. I recall hearing that substaintial structural weight was saved (remember the floor buckling accidents??) at the cost of tiring out the cabin attendants by having a 3 degree tilt on the flight deck. ---- Not sure about the older aircraft in service, but I DO know that the A330 and A340 have a significant nose-down attitude on the cabin floor when sitting on the landing gear. Furthermore, the floor is not flat, and increases in slope toward the rear of the aircraft. I think that if you find a picture of the A340 looking down the fuselage, this effect will be very noticable... ed //////// Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 \\\\\\\\ The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Tue Mar 22 09:52:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: DC-10 Engine pod fins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 94 09:52:48 PST In article , Clemens Emmanuel Tillier wrote: >I've noticed on several DC-10's that the wing engines have two small >fins (one on each side of the engine pod, sort of at the 10 o'clock >and 2 o'clock positions). I noticed that these often produce a stream >of condensation on takeoff- a great way to see the airflow over the >wing. > >What function do these fins serve? They are called 'chines.' They provide a strong vortex at high angles of attack to keep the flow more or less attached to the wing behind the engine. What we find is that the high bypass ratio turbofans tend to blanket the wing at high angles of attack, particularly when tucked up close to the wing, causing flow separation and loss of lift. This is generally frowned upon by the aerodynamics community. You will also find chines on the 737-3/4/500 airplanes. Probably on the 737-6/7/800s as well, but I haven't seen any drawings yet. -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Tue Mar 22 09:52:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: DC-10 Engine pod Fins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 94 09:52:51 PST To quote from Dick Shevell's AIAA paper "Aerodynamic Bugs: Can CFD Spray Them Away": "DC-10 wind tunnel tests showed a significant loss in maximum lift coefficient in the flap deflected configurations, with landing slat extension, compared to predictions. This resulted in a stall speed increase of about 5 knots in the approach configuration. The initial wing stall occured behind the nacelles and forward of the inboard ailerons. The problem was traced by flow visualization techniques to the effects of the nacelle wake at high angles of attack and the absence of the slat in the vicinity of the nacelle pylons. The solution was developed in the NASA Ames Research Center 12 ft. pressurized tunnel and turned out to be a pair of strakes mounted forward on each side of the nacelles in planes about 45 degrees above the horizontal. The final strake shape was optimized in flight tests. The strakes are simply large vortex generators. The vortices mix the nacelle boundary layer air with the free stream and reduce the momentum loss in the wake. The vortices then pass just over the upper surface of the wing, continuing this mixing process. The counterrotating vortices also create a downwash over the wing region unprotected by the slat, further reducing the premature stall. The effect of the strakes is to reduce the required takeoff and landing field lengths by about 6%, a very large effect." Rumor has it that Douglas has the patent on nacelle strakes, but the patent calls for pairs of strakes (one on each side). Hence, Boeing aircraft only use single nacelle strakes (737-300, -400, -500 and 767-200 and -300). Boeing calls them "nacelle chines". John McMasters relates that Boeing had a similar problem on the 707-700 (the last civil production 707, which had CFM-56s) and used nacelle strakes to fix the stall. ps - as to why there are now more than twice as many DC-8s in service than 707s - the US government has been a major buyer of airline surplus 707s. The last I heard they had bought over 200 old 707s, of which nearly 100 are at Davis-Monthan, stripped of parts. It must be nice to have the US government supporting your hull value! ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Thu Mar 24 14:01:30 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: raveling@netcom.com (Paul Raveling) Subject: Re: Level Flight Deck revisited References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Mar 94 14:01:30 PST Walter Shepherd (shepherd@courier6.aero.org) wrote: : There have been a number of postings related to cabin attendants pushing : carts up hill and whether or not it is efficient to fly airliners with a : positive AOA on the fuselage. Everyone seems to be assuming that the : flight deck and the longitudinal axis of the fuselage are parallel... are : they? does anyone out there know for sure? You may be misinterpreting the meaning of the term "deck angle". It really refers to the cabin floor, which could also be called the cabin deck. The term "flight deck" is more akin to the nautical equivalent, "poop deck", as a label for "the place where we steer this sucker". Of course "poop deck" the place originally was a true deck on galleons & such, but the name stuck longer than the separate structure did. : I have a dim distant : recollection that in fact, they are not one and the same for the DC-10. I : recall hearing that substaintial structural weight was saved (remember the : floor buckling accidents??) at the cost of tiring out the cabin attendants : by having a 3 degree tilt on the flight deck. 3 degrees is a common enough (cabin) deck angle in cruise. Most of the structural weight saving in question is common to all airliners I can think of and derives from having much more fuselage length forward of the center of lift than aft of it. This makes the fuselage produce a net nose-up pitch moment; that reduces the downward (*) pitch moment that the tail must generate to maintain pitch stability. (*) means that at aft CG's the tail may actually generate an upward pitch moment. In this case the positive deck angle allows the tail to produce more lift than it would with no deck angle at all. ------------------- Paul Raveling Raveling@netcom.com From kls Thu Mar 24 14:01:32 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Level Flight Deck revisited References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Mar 94 14:01:32 PST In article , Walter Shepherd wrote: >There have been a number of postings related to cabin attendants pushing >carts up hill and whether or not it is efficient to fly airliners with a >positive AOA on the fuselage. Everyone seems to be assuming that the >flight deck and the longitudinal axis of the fuselage are parallel... are >they? does anyone out there know for sure? I have a dim distant >recollection that in fact, they are not one and the same for the DC-10. I >recall hearing that substaintial structural weight was saved (remember the >floor buckling accidents??) at the cost of tiring out the cabin attendants >by having a 3 degree tilt on the flight deck. Deck angle is the angle of the passenger cabin floor with respect to the ground. It is too expensive to manufacture an aircraft body with the floor attachments at a different point on each frame. If one were to design an airplane in that manner, one would be forced into the expense of making each fuselage frame different. The flight deck floor is usually at a slightly different level than the passenger cabin floor, but parallel to it. The Lockheed Constellations had an interesting floor design, and I believe the A300-600 has a 1.5 degree break in the floor somewhere in the aft cabin. I could be wrong on the particular Airbus model - Karl? -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Thu Mar 24 14:01:34 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Level Flight Deck revisited References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Mar 94 14:01:34 PST >I believe the A300-600 has a 1.5 degree break in the floor somewhere in >the aft cabin. I could be wrong on the particular Airbus model - Karl? All of the widebody Airbus models have this feature, which is fairly noticeable both inside and out. If you look at the aft fuselage from the side, the top is fairly straight, while the bottom tapers up, in a kind of skewed cone. The 747 is like this as well (except for the 747SP, which is really odd), whereas the 757 and 767 taper from both top and bottom in a more pure cone shape. I'm not sure how well words describe it but if you compare an A300/A310 to a 767 it's obvious. The Airbus design raises the tailcone, allowing shorter landing gear or a longer fuselage before worrying about tail strikes, which I assume is why they did it. I would *guess* it's not quite as clean aerodynamically (just a guess, mind you -- I'd welcome concurrence or correction from anyone who knows what they're talking about!). It also means the widest cross-section of the fuselage, which generally is just above cabin floor level to allow maximum seating, is not level but rather goes up, hence the angle to the floor in that section. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Mar 24 14:01:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: westin@dsg42.nad.ford.com (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Level Flight Deck revisited References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Reply-To: westin@dsg42.nad.ford.com Organization: ECC at Ford Motor Company, Dearborn Michigan Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Mar 94 14:01:36 PST In article shepherd@courier6.aero.org (Walter Shepherd) writes: > > There have been a number of postings related to cabin attendants pushing > carts up hill and whether or not it is efficient to fly airliners with a > positive AOA on the fuselage. Everyone seems to be assuming that the > flight deck and the longitudinal axis of the fuselage are parallel... are > they? does anyone out there know for sure? I have a dim distant > recollection that in fact, they are not one and the same for the DC-10. I > recall hearing that substaintial structural weight was saved (remember the > floor buckling accidents??) at the cost of tiring out the cabin attendants > by having a 3 degree tilt on the flight deck. > There is at least one Airbus where the deck slopes upward toward the tail at the rear of the fuselage, where it begins to taper. Most of the cabin has a level deck. I don't know the model; I just noticed it one boring day at Heathrow. I assume this is to keep the passengers sitting at the widest part of the fuselage as it tapers upward. For the same reason, I would bet that the deck follows the C/L of the tube pretty closely; otherwise cabin space would be lost. -- -Stephen H. Westin westin@jake.nad.ford.com The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford's. From kls Thu Mar 24 14:01:37 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Level Flight Deck revisited References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Mar 94 14:01:37 PST >I would bet that the deck follows the C/L of the tube >pretty closely; otherwise cabin space would be lost. Assuming the cabin has a circular cross-section, the floor is a little below the C/L -- you want the widest section to be around waist or arm level of a seated passenger, rather than down by their feet. However, few, if any jetliners actually have a circular cross-section. I really found this surprising -- the 727/737/757 certainly look to be circular, or nearly so, but then I saw an actual cross-section and was quite surprised at just how far off they are from being circular. The section looks more like an 8, with the lower lobe being smaller, and the floor beams holding the pinched-in part 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 Thu Mar 24 14:01:39 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jbrevard@aol.com (JBrevard) Subject: Re: Level Flight Deck revisited References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Mar 94 14:01:39 PST In article , ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) writes: Not sure about the older aircraft in service, but I DO know that the A330 and A340 have a significant nose-down attitude on the cabin floor when sitting on the landing gear. Furthermore, the floor is not flat, and increases in slope toward the rear of the aircraft. I think that if you find a picture of the A340 looking down the fuselage, this effect will be very noticable... According to a friend (flugbegleiter/Cabin Attendant) with Lufthansa, two points to note. The A340 forward landing gear does indeed leave a distinct nose-down when sitting on the gear; this is due to that gear being very close in design to the nose gear on A300/310's. The A330 may have newer gear, allowing "flat" floor while on gear. Second, the upward slant on rear of A300/310/340/330's is supposedly to allow more containerized cargo to be placed in rear; Boeings have less space for this due to flat floor going all the way back. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Brevard GEnie: can't remember;who cares. aol: jbrevard@aol.com prodigy: cant remember; who cares. From kls Thu Mar 24 14:01:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Level Flight Deck revisited References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Mar 94 14:01:40 PST >The A340 forward landing gear does indeed leave a distinct nose-down >when sitting on the gear; this is due to that gear being very close >in design to the nose gear on A300/310's. The A330 may have newer >gear, allowing "flat" floor while on gear. This is true for an A340-200, such as Lufthansa flies, but not quite for the reasons you suggest. The nose gear is the same on all A330 and A340 models, which gives a slight nose-down attitude on the A330 and A340-300, but a more pronounced slope for the shorter A340-200. This makes the A340-200 a little bit harder to land gently according to the pilot report in AW&ST. It also causes the tail to be raised, which in early testing caused some concern that it might be too high for service trucks. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Mar 24 14:01:42 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: VERY Early DC-8s Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Mar 94 14:01:42 PST Ok Karl, here is a test of your knowledge (I must admit to not knowing the answer). The first DC-8s off the line had a problem with excess drag in cruise, which was traced to the wing encountering drag divergence earlier than expected. To fix this, a 4% extended leading edge was designed which cured this. My question is: how many aircraft were built with the original leading edge (and what was their designation) and how many of these were retrofitted with the new leading edge? ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Thu Mar 24 14:01:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: VERY Early DC-8s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Mar 94 14:01:43 PST >The first DC-8s off the line had a problem with excess drag in >cruise, which was traced to the wing encountering drag divergence >earlier than expected. To fix this, a 4% extended leading edge was >designed which cured this. The information I have describes the modification as "addition of wing leading edge slots." Also included was a wingtip extension plus MGTOW increase from 265,000 lbs to 273,000 lbs. >how many aircraft were built with the original leading edge (and what >was their designation) and how many of these were retrofitted with >the new leading edge? The references that I have are clear that all production DC-8-11 models (built for United and Delta) were upgraded to DC-8-12 standard except for line number 22, United's N8013U, which intercepted a TWA Constellation over New York City before it could be upgraded. The prototype DC-8 was also a DC-8-11; it was converted directly into a DC-8-51, becoming the prototype for that model. As for exact counts, one reference says there were 23 aircraft were built to DC-8-11 spec (though many appear to have been upgraded even before delivery), with 5 built to DC-8-12 spec. The production list shows 25 and 4, respectively. In both cases the counts exclude the prototype, and yes, I'm aware that they don't add up to the same total. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Mar 24 14:01:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ferg0012@gold.tc.umn.edu () Subject: Re: Reverse Thrust References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Mar 94 14:01:44 PST In "Donald A. Hazle" writes: >Is reverse thrust used on some aircraft in flight to slow a decent? The NASA shuttle simulator (a G-III?) was specially modified so that the thrust reversers could be deployed in flight so as to recreate the shuttle's drag. Rob Ferguson From kls Thu Mar 24 14:01:45 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) Subject: Re: DC-10 Engine pod Fins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Mar 94 14:01:45 PST David Lednicer shaped the electrons to say: >than 707s - the US government has been a major buyer of airline surplus >707s. The last I heard they had bought over 200 old 707s, of which >nearly 100 are at Davis-Monthan, stripped of parts. It must be nice to >have the US government supporting your hull value! That is to be expected, the governemt has quite a large fleet of aircraft that can use parts from the 707. All the C-135 family (KC/EC/C/RC/etc...), even though the fuselage is different, have a high degree of commonality. And then the E-3 Sentry which IS a 707 airframe, and also the VC-137. Since the 707 line is closed, it is easier to get spares buy grabbing the ex-civil aircraft. -- megazone@wpi.wpi.edu megazone@world.std.com megazone@hotblack.schunix.dmc.com "I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think!" Moderator: WPI anime FTP site, 130.215.24.1 /anime, the anime FanFic archive; rec.arts.anime.stories, questions to anime-dojinshi-request@wpi.wpi.edu GTW d-- -p+ c++(++++) l u+ e+ m+(*)@ s++/+ !n h- f+ !g w+ t+@ r+@ y+(*) From kls Thu Mar 24 14:01:46 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: Date of Construction References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: spagiola@leland.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Mar 94 14:01:46 PST Thomas Enblom writes > > One bit of trivia: there were twice as many 707s built as DC-8s, > > but today there are twice as many DC-8s still flying as there > > are 707s. > > that trivia is not all true I mean if you just count airframes > the 707 will definitely outnumber the DC-8. I'm talking about > E-3,E-6,E-8 and a whole lot of RC/KC/C-135's which are all based > on the 707 airframe. I said 707s flying, and I stand by my statement. C-135s in their various flavors don't count (they're a different airframe, as much as it might look like a 707). And all those engine-less (and often also tail-less) 707 airframes sitting in the sun at Davis-Monthan don't count either, since they're not flying. E-3s and E-8s do count, but there's not that many of them. Again. I'm in the middle of a move, so I can't supple exact numbers, but there were a little over 1,000 707 airframes built, and about 550 DC-8s built. The last _Flight_ airliner census showed something like 100 707s still in service, and over 200 DC-8s. Add in the E-3s and E-8s and the gap narrows, but does not close. Ciao, Stefano --- Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305-6084 Tel 415-725-0939, Fax 415-725-7007 Email spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Thu Mar 24 14:01:47 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pmc@merit.edu (Philip M. Chuang) Subject: Re: Date of Construction References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Michigan Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Mar 94 14:01:47 PST >that trivia is not all true I mean if you just count airframes the >707 will definitely outnumber the DC-8. I'm talking about E-3,E-6,E-8 >and a whole lot of RC/KC/C-135's which are all based on the 707 >airframe. 707's were to have based on the RC/KC/C-135 airframe, but when Boeing noticed that they were losing early orders to the "paper" DC-8, they widened the body 4 inches to allow for six-abreast seating. At the same time, this eliminated the possibility of using C-135 jigs for constructing 707's. Jack Steiner's papger in the book _The_Jet_Age_ describes this in detail, as well as the subtle differences between the fuselege cross-section of 707, 727, and 737. From kls Thu Mar 24 14:01:49 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Dr. Martin Erdelen" Subject: Airbus out of control (Moscow, 1991) Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Mar 94 14:01:49 PST According to the daily Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (Tuesday, 22 March), a "unique" incident involving an Airbus A-310 near Moscow in 1991 has now been analyzed by the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (German equivalent of FAA). The incident seems to have gone basically unnoticed by the public at the time it happened. Here's a partial translation (or attempt thereof...) of the newspaper article: On 11 February, 1991, the Airbus from Berlin-Schoenefeld is approaching Moscow when - due to a blocked runway - it is told by ATC to go around up to altitude 500 m [1640 ft]. The go-around is started fully automatically, but "too steep according to the pilot's feeling". The pilot de-activates the autopilot and tries to correct manually. However, the automatic is not yet switched off and reacts to the manual maneuvre by moving the trimming fin. Only after alt. 500 m has been reached, the autopilot is uncoupled automatically by pushing the stick. However, the pilots don't realize this, the plane goes sharply nose-up and skyrockets vertically at full thrust. Speed goes down, and at altitude 1318 m [4324 ft] is only 63 km/h [34.02 kn]. The plane goes over its left wing, and now dives vertically for nearly 900 m [2953 ft] in 29 seconds. It then starts to climb again, and does so for 1300 m [4265ft] in 29 seconds. This cycle repeats four times. Only after "instinctively" reducing power the crew regains manual control and lands the plane safely at Moscow. Noone of the 109 passengers is injured (seat belts fastened). The plane has been out of control for six minutes. The report (of the German FAA) puts the blame to the pilots apparently having insufficient experience with the modern "screen" [glass] cockpit, and maintains that they were overtaxed and violated basic essentials and rules. The plane involved (formerly owned by the then GDR "Interflug") was and is in flawless technical condition, and is today flown by the German Airforce. [Not all of this is making sense to me, but the article sounds "from the horses mouth", so I'll leave it to more knowledgeable comment. The gurus have the floor, esp. the Airbus lovers and "lovers"...] Martin Erdelen (~ , , (___/__/__-_ Dr. Martin Erdelen EARN/BITNET: HRZ090@DE0HRZ1A.BITNET (speaking for/to himself) Internet: erdelen@hrz.uni-essen.de From kls Thu Mar 24 14:01:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus out of control (Moscow, 1991) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Mar 94 14:01:51 PST >According to the daily Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (Tuesday, 22 March), a >"unique" incident involving an Airbus A-310 near Moscow in 1991 has now been >analyzed by the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (German equivalent of FAA). The incident >seems to have gone basically unnoticed by the public at the time it happened. Thanks for the info! I had read a very sketchy note about the incident some time ago and posted an article asking if anyone knew more about it. There were no responses, and all I had to go on was an A310 near Moscow, so there wasn't much to go on. >Not all of this is making sense to me, but the article sounds "from >the horses mouth", so I'll leave it to more knowledgeable comment. Well, we now have two references to what appear to be the same event, from completly different sources and at different times. If anyone happens to have more info, in particular access to the German report, please share it! >The gurus have the floor, esp. the Airbus lovers and "lovers"... I probably fall in the latter category when it comes to the A320 and later Airbus models, but I don't see any connection with this case. The A310 (and A300) is a solid, respectable, relatively conventional aircraft, the reputation of which doesn't deserve to be sullied by its younger and smaller stablemate. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Mar 25 11:33:12 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer) Subject: Re: Airbus out of control (Moscow, 1991) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Mar 94 11:33:12 PST In article "Dr. Martin Erdelen" writes: >According to the daily Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (Tuesday, 22 March), a >"unique" incident involving an Airbus A-310 near Moscow in 1991 has now been >analyzed by the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (German equivalent of FAA). The incident >seems to have gone basically unnoticed by the public at the time it happened. >Here's a partial translation (or attempt thereof...) of the newspaper article: If the article is not too much longer than what you have already translated, could you please translate the rest also? It would also be useful to have an electronic copy of the original text (auf Deutsch). And, as Karl mentioned, it would be a great help if someone could track down the identification number for the report issued by the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt. The only other report of this incident I know of is: Tailpieces: A310 Aerobatics. In _Airliners_, vol. 5 no. 4, Winter 1992, p. 64. Danke! --Mike Michael T. Palmer (m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov) Flight Deck Research Branch, Flight Dynamics and Control Division M/S 321, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001 Voice: +1 804 864-2044, Fax: +1 804 864-7793 From kls Fri Mar 25 11:33:15 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ctillier@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Clemens Emmanuel Tillier) Subject: Engine rotation Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Princeton University Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Mar 94 11:33:15 PST I was wondering about engines-- more specifically which way they rotate, and what effect this has. What I've observed seems to indicate that all the engines of a particular aircraft rotate the same way, usually CCW seen from the front. The best guess I can make is that this cuts down on costs, since making them all the same is cheaper. I also guess that the torque applied to the airframe in flight (through various forms of friction and drag within the engines) is essentially negligible. Is this true? What about the torque from spooling up in flight, e.g. for an aborted landing? Does this make the plane pull to the left appreciably? (What prompts me to ask is something I observed the other day: I was looking out over the left wing of a 747, and when the engines spooled up for the takeoff roll, the wingtip briefly sank a few feet.) Regards, Clem Tillier Princeton, New Jersey, USA From kls Fri Mar 25 11:33:17 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: 707 airframes (Re: Date of Construction) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Mar 94 11:33:17 PST In article you write: >I said 707s flying, and I stand by my statement. C-135s in their >various flavors don't count (they're a different airframe, as much as >it might look like a 707). And all those engine-less (and often also >tail-less) 707 airframes sitting in the sun at Davis-Monthan don't >count either, since they're not flying. E-3s and E-8s do count, but >there's not that many of them. > >Again. I'm in the middle of a move, so I can't supple exact numbers, >but there were a little over 1,000 707 airframes built, and about 550 >DC-8s built. The last _Flight_ airliner census showed something like >100 707s still in service, and over 200 DC-8s. Add in the E-3s and >E-8s and the gap narrows, but does not close. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the FI census covers executive aircraft (private and governmental), military transports (e.g., Israel, etc), or the smaller cargo feleets. I think the "flying" number is around 350, but I can't recall the number. The stretched DC-8 is clearly preferred by operators trying to show a profit, though-- mainly the cargo operators. Anyone think Boeing might be able to supply a number? :-) -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Sat Mar 26 00:35:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: VERY Early DC-8s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Mar 94 00:35:35 PST Thanks for the info Karl. The reason I asked is that we were doing some mod work on DC-8s in '93 and in the process we measured some wing geometry off an aircraft. Our measurements didn't agree with the theoretical wing shape, so we were concerned that we might have one of the early, unmodified aircraft. I now suspect that instead, a combination of measurement inaccuracy and a bent aircraft gave us the disagreement. If you ever want to see the guts of a DC-8 (or DC-9) there is an aircraft boneyard on the South side of Willow Run Airport in Ypsilanti Michigan. Connie Kalita's operation always seems to have a couple aircraft there being cut up and stripped of parts. During my infrequent business trips to Detroit, I have photographed (for work purposes!) the remains of two DC-8-61 or -63s a -50 and an ex-Midway DC-9 (-50?). One last question - what happened to the prototype DC-8? It would be a shame if it were scrapped. After all, Boeing donated Dash 80 to the NASM and the first 747 to the Museum of Flight here is Seattle. Hopefully NASA will donate the first 737 (which they own) to a suitable facility, now that they are replacing it with a 757. Unfortunately Boeing scrapped the first 727. Lockheed still owns the first L-1011. Come to think of it, what happened to the first DC-9 and DC-10? ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sat Mar 26 00:35:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: VERY Early DC-8s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Mar 94 00:35:36 PST >One last question - what happened to the prototype DC-8? It would be >a shame if it were scrapped. The most recent reference I have shows it as being stored at Marana, Arizona, since around 1987, so there's still hope. >Boeing donated ... the first 747 to the Museum of Flight here is Seattle. But recently borrowed it back for flight testing the PW4000 and Trent engines for the 777. (The GE90 is being tested on another 747 which is owned by GE, one that had been leased to Pan Am if memory serves.) >Hopefully NASA will donate the first 737 (which they own) to a >suitable facility NASA no longer owns it -- they sold it to a university in Ohio. >Unfortunately Boeing scrapped the first 727. Not true -- several years ago, United pulled it from service for a month or so and completely refurbished, including an original 1964 paint scheme, then flew it SFO-SEA on one last revenue flight. It then flew one final flight, to Boeing field, where United took the engines but donated the rest to the Museum of Flight. Of the other Boeings, the first *production* 707, crashed into Chances Mountain in Antigua in 1965, but the first 757 and 767 are both still in the hands of Boeing. >Lockheed still owns the first L-1011. Not true. They sold it in 1986 and it was broken up for spares in Ardmore, Oklahoma. >Come to think of it, what happened to the first DC-9 and DC-10? As of about 18 months ago the first DC-9 was stored in Clearwater, Florida. The MD-80 prototype was, unfortunately, scrapped rather recently. The first DC-10 is still in service with American as far as I can tell, the only one out of at least American's first 14 that has not yet been retired. -- 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 Mar 26 00:35:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kannan91@iastate.edu Subject: Information on book title requested Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Mar 94 00:35:41 PST I remember reading a very informative book on aircraft engine design and construction. Here is the hard part. The only thing I remember about the book is that it was published by Pratt & Whitney and is atleast 15 years old. It gave a pretty good description engine manufacturers faced during the early days of the high bypass-ratio turbofan engines for the C-5 and the Boeing 747. If there is anyone who can provide me with a complete title with author name and preferably an ISBN number, please send me an e-mail message to: kannan91@iastate.edu I would like to get this book soon as I am in the process of writing up my Masters' degree thesis. Any help will be of great assistance and very much appreciated. Thanks in advance Kannan Srinivasan From kls Sat Mar 26 00:35:45 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Old 707s Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Mar 94 00:35:45 PST I recently posted: > ps - as to why there are now more than twice as many DC-8s in service > than 707s - the US government has been a major buyer of airline surplus > 707s. The last I heard they had bought over 200 old 707s, of which > nearly 100 are at Davis-Monthan, stripped of parts. It must be nice to > have the US government supporting your hull value! In response to questions I received, I would guess that the government is parting them out to support the C-135, C-137, C-18, E-3, E-6 and E-8 fleet. I know that the JT3Ds off some of them replaced J-57s on some KC-135s, creating KC-135Es, though some -135Es are now being reengined again, this time with CFM-56s. Additionally, the JT3D has a high parts commonality with the TF-33 on the E-3 (C-141 and B-52H also). The C-18s and E-8s are surplus airline 707-320s themselves (and should really have a -137 designation). One last note - the J-STARS (E-8) program office bought one new 707 off the line, before deciding to go with airline surplus 707-320s. This aircraft has CFM-56s and I believe it is offically a E-6B or E-8B. Recently, I read that it was at the Dubai airshow with a "For Sale" sign. I would imagine it will find a military buyer, as I believe it doesn't have civil certification. I have heard that the RAF wants an aircraft like this so their E-3 pilots don't have to shoot touch and goes with expensive (and valuable) E-3s. Along these lines, NATO has bought surplus 707s to train E-3 cockpit crews, so that they don't have to tie up their E-3s. Getting back to my original point - does anybody know more about this airframe and its fate? ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sat Mar 26 00:35:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Boeing White Tails? Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Mar 94 00:35:48 PST Over the last couple of years, I have seen a number of aircraft parked around Boeing Field, in the Boeing part of the ramp, with no markings except three horizontal blue stripes on an otherwise all white aircraft. Usually there are the letters "AWW" painted on the forward fuselage. I have seen 737s and 757s like this (and maybe a 767). My guess is that these are aircraft that Ansett World Wide leasing has ordered, but been unable to place before delivery. At the peak, I counted eight aircraft at one time, but recently I have seen only one or two. Does anyone know more about these aircraft? ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sat Mar 26 00:35:49 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mentor21@aol.com (Mentor21) Subject: Re: Seeking typical leak flow rate References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Mar 94 00:35:49 PST In article , rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes: Robert, you should have no leakage. It's inefficient; leaks are usually associated with local structural problems (cracks, etc.)...I'll look around for actual allowables for you. Bill McCune ...my company, my opinions-caveat emptor... From kls Sat Mar 26 00:35:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: pmc@merit.edu (Philip M. Chuang) Subject: Re: DC9-MD80 References: <0097BDB2.21FABC74@pomona.claremont.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Michigan Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Mar 94 00:35:51 PST >This may be a very obvious question, but if it is then I would be >happy with a simple answer! I recently flew in the exit row on >a NW flight. Plastic lettering above the doors indicated that >the plane was a DC9. Yet the flight attendants refered to the plane >as an MD-80 and the seat-back information card was also for MD-80. > >Now I am no rocket scientist (just a humble history professor), but >this would suggest to me that old DC9's were somehow retrofitted >to become MD-80's (this was certainly an older plane -- soon if not >already NW will have the oldest fleet of any US carrier, due to all >its defered and canceled plane orders after the LBO). Could someone >tell me precisely how a DC-9 is turned into an MD-80? Or, if my >guess about retrofitting is incorrect, could someone explain to me >the relationship between the two planes? > >Thanks in advance. > >Ron This is indeed an obvious question, but with a complicated answer sure to delight a history professor: (from "Airliners" Winter 1993 issue, a reader noticed that the magazine did a story on the final Delta DC-9 flight, but one of his references says Delta has 125 DC-9's. The Editor answers:) The simple answer is that Delta calls a DC-9-32 a DC-9 and an MD-88 an MD-88. The complex answer revolves around the Type Certificate, issued in the USA by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which certifies the airworthiness of a particular type. This is a data sheet which, acording to the legal wording, "Prescribes conditions and limitations under which the product for which the Type Certificate was issued meets the air- worthyness requirements of the Civil Air Regulations." A Type Certificate (TC) is issued with the aircraft model designation exactly as it appears on the manufacturer's application, including use of hyphens or decimal points, and should match exactly what is stamped on the aircraft's data or name plate; what the manufacturer chooses to call an aircraft for marketing or promotional purposes is therefore irrelevant to the airworthiness authorities and 'unofficial.' In the case of the DC-9, the Douglas Aircraft Company (DAC) received TC No. A6WE for the DC-9-11,-12,-13, and-14 on November 23, 1965, which was subsequently amended to include versions up to the -51; in due course, the TC holder became the McDonnell Douglas Corporation (MDC). In the case of the DC-9-81, -82, and -83, DAC applied for and received certification under these designations as a further amendment to TC A6WE between August 1980 (DC-9-81) and Octover 1985 (DC-9-83). In mid-1983, the parent of MDC in St. Louis threw away 50 years of history and put forth the dictum that henceforth the DC-9-80 (Super 80) would be called the MD-80. However, instead of merely using the MD-prefix as a marketing name, an application was made to again amend TCA6WE to include the MD-81, MD-82, and MD-83. The change was dated March 10, 1986 and a note was made in the TC that although the official designator remained DC-9-81,-82,-83, the 'MD' designator could be used in parenthesis, but must be accompanied by the official verion (ie DC-9-81 (MD-81)). All aircraft thereafter have MD-81, MD-82, or MD-83 stamped on the name plate. Although not certificated until October 21,1987, DAC had already applied for models DC-9-87 nad DC-9-87F on February 13, 1985, and this derivative was similarly officially designated DC-9-87 (MD-87), althought no name plates were stamped DC-9-87 (the DC-9-87 F has not been certified) In the case of the MD-88, an application for a TC model amendment was made after the above change and therefore there was never a DC-9-88, only the MD-88 which was certified on December 10, 1987. (Interestingly, a proposed MD-88F did not appear). Thus any reference to a DC-9-88 is incorrect, and Delta was correct to say farewell to its DC-9s in early 1993. Footnotes: 1. Since Northwest inherited DC-9-82's from Republic, "Officially" they do not operate MD-80. 2. The last time I flew on an MD-88 it was on TWA. The pilot told me the plane was assembled by Shanghai Aircraft in China, though the Dataplate says Long Beach. He also told me that particular plane was an MD-88G because it was built with a glass cockpit, can anyone help me confirm this? 3. The MD-87 has the Wing, stablizers, engines, and tail of MD-88, but with a body almost exactly the length of the DC-9-50, but the wings are append further aft because the MD-80's engines are larger and heavier than that of the DC-9-50. MD-87 also as an extended vertical fin. From kls Sat Mar 26 00:35:53 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: yip@sybase.com (Michael Yip) Subject: Re: Those swinging engine pods! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Mar 94 00:35:53 PST In article , Robert Jacobson wrote: >While I've now flown enough miles not to get alarmed, I'm still surprised >to look out the window of the 747 in which I'm traveling and see the >engines swaying in turbulence. How much do the engines actually travel, >how does this affect their efficiency, and what type of construction is >used that permits such wild movement without the engines tearing off and >leaving us without power? Thanks for your answers. It seems to me that in recent years more engines are falling/tearing off from 747s than before. Here is a recent article (AW&ST 3/14/94) related to another incident in Tokyo: For the First time, Japan's Civil Aviation Bureau has asked the FAA to check the safety status of a US carrier after a Northwest Airlines 747-251B bound for New York from Hong Kong lost an engine while making an intermediate stop at Tokyo's Narita Airport on Mar. 1. The aircraft's landing was normal, but after several hundred yards its No. 1 engine fell foward and skidded on the ruway for about 1,000 yards. A fire broke out that damanged the wing, but the situation was not deemed serious enough by the cockpit crew to order emergency evacuation of the 228 passengers and 18 crew. Instead they used mobile stairways. =============================================================================== Michael E. Yip Sybase, Inc., Internet_style: Michael.Yip@sybase.com Emeryville, California. UUCP: {sun,lll-tis,pyramid}!sybase!yip =============================================================================== From kls Sat Mar 26 12:19:58 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bdickey@cc.brynmawr.edu (Dickey Bradley F) Subject: Re: Those swinging engine pods! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Bryn Mawr College Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Mar 94 12:19:58 PST In article yip@sybase.com (Michael Yip) writes: > > >It seems to me that in recent years more engines are falling/tearing >off from 747s than before. Here is a recent article (AW&ST 3/14/94) >related to another incident in Tokyo: > > The aircraft's landing was normal, but after several > hundred yards its No. 1 engine fell foward and skidded > on the ruway for about 1,000 yards. A fire broke > out that damanged the wing, but the situation was not > deemed serious enough by the cockpit crew to order > emergency evacuation of the 228 passengers and 18 crew. > Instead they used mobile stairways. > I remember the Business Week article over the summer about this little problem (It was mentioned on this group, so I daresay the archives should list the date, etc - I know it was during June/July 93 sometime..) The article mentioned that this was bad, particularly if the inboard engines went missing, since they tend to take the outboard engines with them. The question is, if an engine falls off a plane during flight, is that an automatic downer for the aircraft, or are there certain admissible scenarios? If an outboard engine falls off a 747 in flight, can the aircraft recover? Shortly after reading the Business Week article, I made personal note of the 'swaying engine pods' phenomenon on a PIA flight to Lahore. It really is rather disconcerting if you don't know what is going on. Does anyone know what degree of freedom they have - is it just in a single dimension perpendicular to the fuselage longtitudinal axis, or can they move back and forth as well? Are there any clean functions that describe the movement, or is it erratic? Terry? Brad_. From kls Sat Mar 26 12:20:01 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kau@haas.berkeley.edu (Kevin Au) Subject: Re: TCAS incident at PDX References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Berkeley Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Mar 94 12:20:01 PST This sounds like a familiar problem. AW&ST had been talking about problems with TCAS in situations where one aircraft is descending and another is ascending. The problem is that TCAS senses the approaching aircraft, but does not know that it is about level off. It projects the expected trajectories as if they were to continue their climbs or descents and issues an RA that may tell one plane to climb steeper or another plane to descend steeper. This seems to be what had happened again at PDX. From kls Wed Mar 30 00:06:25 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: laewell@iastate.edu (Lars A Ewell) Subject: Antenna? Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 94 00:06:25 PST Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa (USA) I recently flew on an Airbus 320 (Northwest). I noticed that underneath the wings there were what appeared to be support 'struts'. I think that there were three of them on each wing. On the end (tail side) of these 'struts' there was a black rod sticking out. It looked similar to a car antenna. There were similar rods (five I think) sticking out of the winglets. What are these rods? In addition, are the 'struts' called struts and are they used for support? thanx, Lars Ewell From kls Wed Mar 30 00:06:30 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Ferguson Subject: Sleeve valves Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Robert Ferguson Date: 30 Mar 94 00:06:30 PST In wohlsen@sri.com writes: > What ever became of the 2- and 4-stroke sleeve-valve engine technology >developed in the '30s and used extensively by Bristol and Rolls-Royce in >radial and inline aircraft engines. [text deleted] I assume they lost out >to the radial poppet valve engines of Pratt and others as they were >probably more expensive to build. Sleeve-valves were used through '40s by the British, and it might be more correct to say that along with radials, they lost out to jets. I used to volunteer on the Short Sunderland that is at Oakland airport. It uses four Pegasus engines, and according to those who worked with them, the sleave valves eat oil like nothing else. The aircraft, BTW is not in flying condition (yet) though you might have seen it with an engine running in one of the Indiana Jones movies. I believe sleeve-valves use fewer parts than poppet valves, but that doesn't mean they were cheaper to build or maintain. Ed Constant discusses them a little in his book, "Origins of the Turbojet Revolution." Rob Ferguson History of Science and Technology University of Minnesota, Twin Cities From kls Wed Mar 30 00:06:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rtf@ri.cadre.com (Read Fleming) Subject: Re: Valsan 727 modifications References: <1022@orchard.Chicago.COM> Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 94 00:06:35 PST In article 1022@orchard.Chicago.COM, David Lednicer writes: > > I have been asked what the Valsan reengining program is, so I >will describe it here. > [many interesting tidbits deleted] > Both the Valsan and Dee Howard kits up the aircraft's available >thrust. Some Valsan engineers told me about taking off in a modified >727-100 with the spoilers inadverantly actuated. They claimed that the >rate of climb was still better than with the old engines! In fact, they >were talking at one point about removing the #2 engine altogether and >turning the 727 into a twin! I believe about 10 years ago, American Airlines (and perhaps others) investigated a 727 reengining program that would turn them into twins, using modern high-bypass engines. The program also included glass cockpits, upgraded brakes, and a host of other improvements. American considered this approach when interest rates (and thus the cost of borrowing for new airplanes) went sky-high. However, the numbers still didn't come out right in the end. As I recall, interest rates started trending down while the estimates for the the hypothetical "new" 727 crept up to the $20M range, with all the "might-as-well-as" changes. Can one of you experts out there correct my hazy memory and fill us in on this? Is the 727 destined to become another DC-3 or (better analogy, perhaps) JU-52? From kls Wed Mar 30 00:06:38 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Valsan 727 modifications References: <1022@orchard.Chicago.COM> Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 94 00:06:38 PST >I believe about 10 years ago, American Airlines (and perhaps others) >investigated a 727 reengining program that would turn them into twins, >using modern high-bypass engines. I don't recall American doing this, though Delta did ask Boeing to consider a similar project. Delta seemed to be alone at the time, and Boeing, skeptical from the start, was more interested in selling 757s, so the idea died. A similar plan which I do know American promulgated was one to update their DC-10 fleet with many of the MD-11's improvements. At one point the updated plane was being referred to as an MD-14, but it, too, eventually died. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Mar 30 00:06:38 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: deck angle References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 94 00:06:38 PST The angled rear deck on Airbus aircraft may mean that more passengers can be shoehorned in, but it also means that the aircraft is not very easy to build derivatives for. Specifically, I refer to "Combi" and "Freighter" aircraft. When Fedex signed up for A300-600F's, Airbus had to go back and rework the fuselage so that the deck would be flat and not cause any operational headaches. This is a major change. If you notice, Airbus has built very few "combis" so far. Martinair took an A310 Convertible, but with the door at the front, and presumably without modifications to the rear fuselage. The A340 combi is a few years off, if we ever see it at all. It would be interesting to see how Korean Air and other airlines operating A300F's (modified after some years of passenger service) have got around the problem of the angled deck. Perhaps the rear is just used for bulk shipments and not pallets. Any comments? Toby From kls Wed Mar 30 00:06:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Webster <71352.340@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Those swinging engine pods! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 94 00:06:40 PST I have not been reading this line until Brad's message, so I may repeat some of what has been said, however regarding the following: >The question is, if an engine falls off a plane during flight, is that >an automatic downer for the aircraft, or are there certain admissible >scenarios? If an outboard engine falls off a 747 in flight, can the >aircraft recover? Engine mounts are made a weak link on purpose specifically for the survivability of the airplane should and engine seize. I flew Navy A-3s for many years which had wing mounted engines. Not often, but occasionally one of the old J-57 engines would seize and spin it off of the mounts. Usually it would be held by the cowling and drop a few inches. It was exciting, but the plane made it home. I recall one engine being lofted in a verticle loft manuver back when the A-3 was the Navy's long range nuclear bomber. The plane flew home, although I'm sure it was worth a round of beers at happy hour for the sheepish crew. My captain on a flight just two days ago described an identical incident which happened to him on a loft manuver of a B47; he was disgusted that the engine missed the target. Regarding the direction of movement, in almost any turbulence one can look out at a 747 engine and see it flexing in a twisting motion, which I'm sure is a gyroscopic response to the up and down movement of the wing. Allowing the engine to flex reduces the gyroscopic forces that would otherwise have to be resisted, or rather, allows those foces to be damped over a longer period of time. Don Webster 71352.340@compuserve.com From kls Wed Mar 30 00:06:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: New TWA MD80s (was Re: DC9-MD80) References: <0097BDB2.21FABC74@pomona.claremont.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 94 00:06:41 PST In article pmc@merit.edu (Philip M. Chuang) writes: 2. The last time I flew on an MD-88 it was on TWA. The pilot told me the plane was assembled by Shanghai Aircraft in China, though the Dataplate says Long Beach. He also told me that particular plane was an MD-88G because it was built with a glass cockpit, can anyone help me confirm this? ----- TWA operates 5 MD83's built by Shanghai Aviation under license from MDC. They do indeed have Glass Cockpits. They also operate one MD83 built for Irish Aerospace (leasing) that is very similar in specification. The registration numbers for these six aircraft are N9401% through N9406%, where % is a random letter (different for 2 of the aircraft). TWA refers to them as 9401-9406 (no N or random last letter) in their day to day operations. They do not and have no plans to acquire any new MD88s (or MD90s, for that matter), but do operate some older MD82s and non-EFIS MD83s. There is generally one of these MD83Gs operated on the daily JFK-MCI-LAS-MCI-JFK run. These aircraft (delivered in 1993) were the first new aircraft deliveries for TWA since the 80's. TWA is in the process of getting more MD80s on the used market, as they need to ditch their (most recently ex-Ozark and ex-Eastern) DC-9s (series 15, 31, 32, 33CF, 34, 41, and 51). Also, (in the you-didn't-ask-but-I'm-telling-you-anyways category), last I knew, TWA had recently acquired two B767-300ERs, which were previously operated by Aer Lingus (old reg numbers EI-CAL and EI-CAM), under lease from ILFC (I think). The target route for these aircraft are LA-Paris. Regards, ed //////// Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 \\\\\\\\ The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Wed Mar 30 00:06:42 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: 707 airframes (Re: Date of Construction) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 94 00:06:42 PST In article , Robert Dorsett wrote: >In article you write: >>Again. I'm in the middle of a move, so I can't supple exact numbers, >>but there were a little over 1,000 707 airframes built, and about 550 >>DC-8s built. The last _Flight_ airliner census showed something like >>100 707s still in service, and over 200 DC-8s. Add in the E-3s and >>E-8s and the gap narrows, but does not close. > >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the FI census covers executive >aircraft (private and governmental), military transports (e.g., Israel, etc), >or the smaller cargo feleets. I think the "flying" number is around 350, >but I can't recall the number. Actually, by our count their are a bit over 400 707 airframes flying today in commercial service. 408 or 410, I forget now. I suppose I could look it up. :-) >The stretched DC-8 is clearly preferred by operators trying to show a >profit, though-- mainly the cargo operators. True. The DC-8 has shown much better economics over the long haul. Fewer ADs, fewer aging fleet maintenance requirements. But, all of that came at a price. >Anyone think Boeing might be able to supply a number? :-) Maybe. :-) Actually, I asked someone else to look it up for me. We have 402 actual 707 airframes in service. This includes the E-3s, E-8s, etc. No KC-135s. -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Wed Mar 30 00:06:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Those swinging engine pods! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 94 00:06:43 PST In article , Dickey Bradley F wrote: >I remember the Business Week article over the summer about this little >problem (It was mentioned on this group, so I daresay the archives >should list the date, etc - I know it was during June/July 93 sometime..) >The article mentioned that this was bad, particularly if the inboard >engines went missing, since they tend to take the outboard engines with >them. Only half true. If the #3 engine tears loose, the gyroscopic force (assuming the engine is still turning) can cause it to impact the #4 engine. This is not true of the #2 engine. >The question is, if an engine falls off a plane during flight, is that >an automatic downer for the aircraft, or are there certain admissible >scenarios? If an outboard engine falls off a 747 in flight, can the >aircraft recover? I, for one, can think of no plausible scenario wherein it would be permissible to have an engine depart the aircraft without immediately landing. The 747 can be safely flown with as many as two engines gone. The real question is what caused the engines to depart the airframe? An engine failure, such as a siezed engine, can be recovered without undue problems (I dare not say it is easy - the pilot community would skin me alive!). >Shortly after reading the Business Week article, I made personal note >of the 'swaying engine pods' phenomenon on a PIA flight to Lahore. It >really is rather disconcerting if you don't know what is going on. Does >anyone know what degree of freedom they have - is it just in a single >dimension perpendicular to the fuselage longtitudinal axis, or can they >move back and forth as well? Are there any clean functions that describe >the movement, or is it erratic? If memory serves, the engine/nacelle has a couple of hundred degrees of freedom, nearly all of which are highly damped and quite small to begin with. The primary engine/nacelle mode is a 'hump' mode, which looks like it is bouncing up and down on the strut. This is relatively lightly damped and is perfectly regular. I don't do the code to predict flutter, but I believe it to be rather clean; therefore, I would expect the movement to be easily described. If by 'back and forth' you mean can the engines move longitudinally, the answer would be no. That is the thrust line, and you could expect something in the vicinity of 8,000lb thrust per engine even at cruise. Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Wed Mar 30 00:06:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: VERY Early DC-8s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 94 00:06:44 PST Karl- I am slightly confused - I know Boeing scrapped one 727. If it wasn't the prototype, what was it? The only possibility that springs to mind is the UDF test aircraft. Also - I am not certain the United 727 is at Boeing field. It is not parked at the Museum of Flight. Rumor has it that is is up at Paine Field in Everett. The prototype 747 is not on loan to Boeing - it is on lease! It is nice to see the museum making money this way! I am suprised that the prototype L-1011 was scrapped - last I knew it was still being used for test purposes. I could swear that I heard of its existence since the 1986 scrapping date you allude to. Are there any Convair 880 or 990s left, other than the 990 in Switzerland? I've heard that the AJI ones at Mojave have been scrapped. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mar 30 00:06:46 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: VERY Early DC-8s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 94 00:06:46 PST >I am slightly confused - I know Boeing scrapped one 727. If it >wasn't the prototype, what was it? The only possibility that springs >to mind is the UDF test aircraft. I don't know, but the UDF testbed sounds like a reasonable candidate. >I am not certain the United 727 is at Boeing field. It is not parked >at the Museum of Flight. Rumor has it that is is up at Paine Field >in Everett. I didn't see it at Boeing Field last summer either. If it flew elsewhere, they must have found some new engines because United donated the airframe but wanted to get the engines back as soon as it was ferried to its final location. >The prototype 747 is not on loan to Boeing - it is on lease! Picky, picky! (Not that I wouldn't have done the same, mind you. ;-)) >I am suprised that the prototype L-1011 was scrapped - last I knew it >was still being used for test purposes. It did test-fly the extended wingtips and ACS. But you may have seen it since the scrap date -- apparently the front section of the fuselage is part of something at Disneyworld. A sad end for a very pretty airplane. :-( >Are there any Convair 880 or 990s left, other than the 990 in >Switzerland? Seems to me there's the hulk of one up at SFO, along with a 707. I have a vague recollection of several remaining in decent, though they may have been the ones you mentioned as being recently scrapped. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Mar 30 00:06:47 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: westin@dsg42.nad.ford.com (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Engine rotation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: westin@dsg42.nad.ford.com Organization: ECC at Ford Motor Company, Dearborn Michigan Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 94 00:06:47 PST In article ctillier@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Clemens Emmanuel Tillier) writes: > > I was wondering about engines-- more specifically which way they > rotate, and what effect this has. What I've observed seems to > indicate that all the engines of a particular aircraft rotate the same > way, usually CCW seen from the front. The best guess I can make is > that this cuts down on costs, since making them all the same is > cheaper. > > [stuff deleted] This reminds me of a great story I heard from some guys from a UK aerospace company. Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce entered into a joint development project where one would build the front section of the engine and the other the back. I don't remember where the split was, or who did which half. A great deal of effort went into transatlantic coordination to assure, for example, the bolt holes would line up on the U.S. piece (designed in English measurements) would line up with those on the U.K. piece (metric). When the P&W section was finally shipped over, assembly went smoothly; but as soon as they tried to fire the thing up, it blew sky high! What no one had realized is that turbines run clockwise on one side of the Atlantic, but counter-clockwise (anti-clockwise if you're British) on the other. Supposedly hushed up by embarassed functionaries of the two companies involved... -- -Stephen H. Westin westin@jake.nad.ford.com The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford's. From kls Wed Mar 30 00:06:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: MD-88 wing ice References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 94 00:06:48 PST >THe main result of this has >been the addition of heater pads to the inner wings of these >aircraft. DL MD-88s have an alternate fuel burn system installed. Normal fuel burn is from center tanks first then wing tanks. The automatic alternate fuel burn system shuts off the center tank boost pumps until wing fuel is burned down to a certain level. At this point the center boost pumps come on again. I can get exact numbers if anyone is interested. This system has worked very well. DL MD-88s also have a piezeo-electric ice detector mounted on each upper wing surface. BTW, the ice detectetion tufts are still installed per the AD and are red parachute cord. Flight crew is required to check the wing when OAT is less than 50 f. From kls Wed Mar 30 00:06:49 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Seeking typical leak flow rate References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 94 00:06:49 PST In article , mentor21@aol.com (Mentor21) writes: >You should have no leakage. Actually there are many allowed leaks from such things as galley and lavatory vents and equipment cooling exhaust air. From kls Wed Mar 30 00:06:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: old DC10 crash in Portland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 94 00:06:50 PST In article , ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) writes: >200-300 pounds of fuel is well within the realm of uncertainty in fuel >quantity measurement... I don't know what fuel burn on the old JT3s was, but a JT8D, ala 727, burns 1,000 pounds/hour at IDLE. At 200-300 pounds per tank at certainly well more than 1,000 pph plus the FQIS fudge factor, I think that for all practical purposes we can consider this airplane to have been running on empty. BTW, when we fueled our DC-8s we always used the dripsticks as the final authority as to fuel quantity. This may have been mentioned already. From kls Wed Mar 30 20:37:24 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fk1f@bfk455.fm.bs.dlr.de (Carl J. Ockier) Subject: Re: Airbus out of control (Moscow, 1991) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Mar 94 20:37:24 PST In "Dr. writes: > > According to the daily Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (Tuesday, 22 March), a > "unique" incident involving an Airbus A-310 near Moscow in 1991 has now been > analyzed by the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (German equivalent of FAA). The incident > seems to have gone basically unnoticed by the public at the time it happened. > > [Not all of this is making sense to me, but the article sounds "from the > horses mouth", so I'll leave it to more knowledgeable comment.] Last week I happened to see a visualization of what took place in this incident. The aircraft did indeed "go vertical" three or four times. It was quite a spectacular sight. As far as I recal, the explanation given about the incident was more or less as described in the original posting. Carl Ockier. DLR Institute of Flight Mechanics Braunschweig, Germany From kls Thu Mar 31 00:29:49 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ricktarrel@aol.com (RickTarrel) Subject: Re: Information on book title requested References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 94 00:29:49 PST In article , kannan91@iastate.edu writes: "I remember reading a very informative book on aircraft engine design and construction...The only thing I remember about the book is that it was published by Pratt & Whitney and is atleast 15 years old." The book you may be thinking of is "The Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine and Its Operation." This is Pratt & Whitney Operating Instruction 200, Part No: P&W 182408, and can be bought directly from Pratt by calling their parts department. The book is a training manual, designed to be used by technicians and mechanics. It gives a non-engineering treatise of how gas turbines operate. It has been revised several times, but originally dates back to 1951. The latest revision was 1988. It is an excellent book--I use it as a text for a class I teach in aircraft propulsion at Foothill College in Los Altos Hills, CA. It is extremely "readable." Since the book is not a regular publication, it has no ISBN number, and can only be obtained through Pratt & Whitney. They'll hit you up for about $25 - $30 for it. Hope this is the one you're looking for. Good luck. From kls Thu Mar 31 00:29:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bongo.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Antenna? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 94 00:29:51 PST In article laewell@iastate.edu (Lars A Ewell) writes: I recently flew on an Airbus 320 (Northwest). I noticed that underneath the wings there were what appeared to be support 'struts'. I think that there were three of them on each wing. On the end (tail side) of these 'struts' there was a black rod sticking out. It looked similar to a car antenna. There were similar rods (five I think) sticking out of the winglets. What are these rods? In addition, are the 'struts' called struts and are they used for support? thanx, Lars Ewell ---- The black rods are static discharger wicks. They dissapate static charge which may accumulate on the airframe to the airstream, but I don't know the exact mechanism. I think they are used to improve comm radio performance; anyone know for sure? By struts, I assume that you are talking about the flap actuator fairings. They surround the flap extension/retraction mechanism to eliminate excess drag (and provide some protection). One of the unique features of all Airbus aircraft are the large flap fairings under the wings. Hope this helps. ed //////// Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 \\\\\\\\ The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Thu Mar 31 00:29:53 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: ajm@walrus.sw.stratus.com (Andrew Madison) Subject: What Happened to Convair? Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Stratus Computer, Marlboro MA Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 94 00:29:53 PST After reading several articles mentioning the B-36, the B-58, the 880 & 990, it strikes me that I haven't the faintest clue as to what happened to Convair. Did the company just go bankrupt, get bought out... a combination of both? Not exactly a dominant aircraft manufacturer, but the company certainly made some interesting planes. -- A.J. Madison PHONE: (508) 490-6972 Stratus Computer Inc. 55 Fairbanks Boulevard INTERNET: ajm@sw.stratus.com Marlboro, MA 01752 OR: Andrew_Madison@Vos.Stratus.com From kls Thu Mar 31 00:29:54 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Eric Bartsch Subject: Air France 767-300? Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 94 00:29:54 PST I recently saw an advertisement for models of various airliners. Included in the list was an Air France 767-300. I have never seen 767s listed in any airliner book as being in the Air France fleet and I can't imagine Air France buying 767s over A300-600s or A310s. Does anyone know if they have in fact operated any 767s or is this a typo? -Eric Bartsch bartsch@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu From kls Thu Mar 31 00:29:56 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Air France 767-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 94 00:29:56 PST >I have never seen 767s listed in any airliner book as being in the >Air France fleet and I can't imagine Air France buying 767s over >A300-600s or A310s. Odd as it might seem, they do indeed operate 767s, though they are fairly new and thus might not appear in many references. In fact, one is due for delivery this coming May. Air France does not operate the A300-600, which would be very close to the 767-300(ER) in weight. I think the range is a bit lower so maybe that is why Air France went with the Boeing. (American, the A300-600R launch customer, also operates the 767-300(ER), using the latter for longer-range work than the A300-600R, which was mainly acquired for Caribbean routes.) Air France does operate earlier A300 models as well as A310s, but both of these are significantly smaller, lighter, and lower in range than the 767-300(ER). -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Mar 31 00:29:58 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tetrode@aol.com (Tetrode) Subject: Re: Date of Construction References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 94 00:29:58 PST In article , pmc@merit.edu (Philip M. Chuang) writes: Regarding the KC-135/707 connection, another interesting source of information on this relationship is "Vision: A Saga of the Sky", Harold Mansfield, Madison Press, 1984. Mansfield was (is?) a publicist for Boeing, and relates the very interesting fashion through which Boeing, unable to come up with development money for a commercial jet, dangled the aerial tanker in front of SAC until they bit, at which point Boeing was able to proceed with both the 707 and KC-135 projects. Although Boeing was forced to "slick up" the 707 in order to compete with Douglas, it is still debatable whether they'd have been able to go ahead with the 707 project in the absence of the KC-135. And in fact, many components (including the wing, if I read it right) are common between the two airframes. In any case, "Vision" is a great read for anyone interested in aviation history, told as it is from the flak's point of view! I just discovered this discussion, and I'm enjoying it tremendously! Thanks! Doug Bostrom Washington, DC From kls Thu Mar 31 00:30:00 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ckd@kei.com (Christopher Davis) Subject: The fate of the UDF test 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: House of the Jhereg Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 94 00:30:00 PST I believe that I saw the UDF testbed 727 in "Airliners" magazine as the one which was scrapped in the making of the movie "Hero" (for the airplane crash site). If so, it would join the ranks of the "famous film star" airframes, including the 707s and 747s used in the "Airport" movies, the TriStars from "Passenger 57" and "Die Harder", and presumably several others that I simply can't think of at the moment. (Of course, most of the "film star" airframes *weren't* scrapped...) -- * Christopher Davis * * (was ) * MIME * [CKD1] * "It's 106 ms to Chicago, we've got a full disk of GIFs, half a meg of hypertext, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Click it." From kls Thu Mar 31 00:30:01 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) Subject: Re: 707 airframes (Re: Date of Construction) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 94 00:30:01 PST drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: >The DC-8 has shown much better economics over the long haul. Fewer >ADs, fewer aging fleet maintenance requirements. But, all of that came at >a price. I'm not quite clear exactly why this is so. What exactly about the 707 makes it less economical than the DC8? 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 Thu Mar 31 00:30:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jstrickl@cs.sfu.ca (James Strickland) Subject: 727 (was Re: VERY Early DC-8s) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Simon Fraser University Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 94 00:30:02 PST In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: : >>I am not certain the United 727 is at Boeing field. It is not parked >>at the Museum of Flight. Rumor has it that is is up at Paine Field >>in Everett. > >I didn't see it at Boeing Field last summer either. If it flew >elsewhere, they must have found some new engines because United >donated the airframe but wanted to get the engines back as soon >as it was ferried to its final location. If you are referring to a United Airlines Boeing 727 with registration N7001U, upper fuselage painted white with a blue stripe along the windows and a blue/red "stripe" up the tail, well... it is indeed at Paine Field in Everett, at least as of mid-February. It was parked just outside a hangar which was labelled So-and-so aircraft restorers. (I forget the name). There was also a BOAC Comet (EVCC) parked nearby. -- James Strickland "No silicon heaven?!? jstrickl@cs.sfu.ca Where would all the calculators go?" From kls Thu Mar 31 00:30:04 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: VERY Early DC-8s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 94 00:30:04 PST In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >I am suprised that the prototype L-1011 was scrapped ...But you may have seen >it since the scrap date -- apparently the front section of the >fuselage is part of something at Disneyworld. A sad end for a very >pretty airplane. :-( This airplane was located in Ardmore, OK. The remains are now located at MGM Studios and are used as a movie set. I understand it was used in 'Passenger 57'. It consists of the cockpit and first class section. The cockpit (with real instruments and functional) can be separated from the cabin piece and the cabin piece is split lengthwise so cameras can film either half of the cabin. This was paid for by Delta, so the outside is painted in Delta livery. The entire job was done by DL maintenance personnel. From kls Thu Mar 31 00:30:06 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: Convair 990 + misc. Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 94 00:30:06 PST >Are there any Convair 880 or 990s left, other than the 990 in Switzerland? I've heard that the AJI ones at Mojave have been scrapped.< I was at Patuxent River NAS about five years ago and saw an ex-Navy testbed Convair (880 or 990, I'm not sure) sitting all-white in storage. If it is still there, the best time to see it would be during the bi-annual air show the Navy puts on there. I'd like to clear up this question: Is it true that before, Boeing designed engine mounts to give when an engine seized and let the engines fly while now (post-Amsterdam) they are trying to keep the engines attached to the plane if at all possible? Terry? From kls Thu Mar 31 00:30:07 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) Subject: Re: VERY Early DC-8s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: spagiola@leland.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 94 00:30:07 PST Karl Swartz writes > >Are there any Convair 880 or 990s left, other than the 990 in > >Switzerland? > > Seems to me there's the hulk of one up at SFO, along with a 707. That was a DC-8 (ex UAL). Both it and the ex-TWA 707 are gone. As for 880/990s, I can think of the following: US Navy 880, maybe still flying? It had a major overhaul at MIA in the late 1980s. MHV: a dozen or so 880s and 1 990. I've heard of one being scrapped; I hadn't heard that all had been. Can anyone confirm? A number of ex-Spantax 990s were lying around at Palma (I think). Most were scrapped, but I hear one was preserved. Ciao, Stefano --- Stefano Pagiola Food Research Institute, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305-6084 Tel 415-725-0939, Fax 415-725-7007 Email spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged) From kls Thu Mar 31 00:30:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: James.C.Anderson@williams.edu () Subject: Good articles in last two Air & Space issues Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: James.C.Anderson@williams.edu Organization: Williams College Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 94 00:30:08 PST Been meaning to send this for a while. Good article in the Feb/March issue of Air & Space. Entitled "Your Airbus is ready." Goes through the process a Delta team does in accepting a new 310. Good article. Good deatil. But left me wanting more. Karl - can you enlighten us on Aircraft Serial Number 676, Delta fleet number 038? Also, in the same issue is a lengthy article on BA747 pilot, Williams Stewart, who was found "guilty of criminal negligence for endangering his passengers." Basically a captain who was doing and approach to minimums as Heathrow, blew the first one, and came within 12ft of a hotel roof on the second one. Lastly, in the most recent issue is a long article on the "paperless" approach to the 777. Haven't read the whole thing yet, but looks good. Jim -- ******************************************************************************** Jim Anderson Williams College Systems Manager Center for Computing janderson@williams.edu (Internet) Jesup Hall janderson@williams.bitnet Williamstown, MA 01267 413-597-2082 ******************************************************************************** From kls Thu Mar 31 00:30:10 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Good articles in last two Air & Space issues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 94 00:30:10 PST >Karl - can you enlighten us on Aircraft Serial Number 676, Delta >fleet number 038? It's an A310-324(ET), registration N838AB. Delta has three types of A310, two variants of this model (ex-Pan Am and newly-purchased) plus ex-Pan Am A310-222s. All have 10/26/138 seating. The A310-324(ET)s all have PW4152 engines, while the A310-222s have JT9D-7R4E1 engines. The new A310-324(ET)s are slightly heavier than the ex-Pan Am ones at 157,000 kg (346,126 lbs) MGTOW vs. 153,000 kg, with the older -222s being significanly lighter at 138,600 kg. N838AB is not distinguished in any way from the other newly-purchased A310-324(ET) models except, I assume, for being the star of the Air and Space article. -- 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