From kls Fri Apr 1 13:11:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: Convair 990 + misc. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards CA Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 94 13:11:09 PST On 31 Mar 94 00:30:06 PST, Tobias Henry Lutterodt said: >Are there any Convair 880 or 990s left, other than the 990 in Tobias> Switzerland? I've heard that the AJI ones at Mojave have been scrapped.< Tobias> I was at Patuxent River NAS about five years ago and saw an Tobias> ex-Navy testbed Convair (880 or 990, I'm not sure) sitting Tobias> all-white in storage. If it is still there, the best time to Tobias> see it would be during the bi-annual air show the Navy puts on Tobias> there. I dunno about Pax, but we've got a 990 here at Dryden. It's called something like LSRA for Landing Systems Research Aircraft and has a shuttle main trunnion mounted in the fuselage (although we all just call it the 990). They use it to examine the shuttle gear and brake systems. This 990 was originally a parts queen for the Ames-Moffett (now just Ames) 990 that was an airborne observatory. I've forgotten what happened to that airplane; maybe it was the one that had a refused takeoff at March AFB and threw chunks of hot tire rubber through the wet wings and burned. Either that or they just retired it. -- 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 Fri Apr 1 13:11:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Convair 990 + misc. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 94 13:11:23 PST In article , Tobias Henry Lutterodt wrote: >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? I am not clear on exactly how the strut design criteria have changed in the last couple of months (I could ask my strut stress animal, I guess :-)). I can say a little bit about past criteria and how we got there. There are at least two very critical design cases. One is where the engine seizes, phi dot = 0, omega dot approaches infinity :-). Given the enormous amount of rotational energy stored in the rotating parts of a turbine engine that would have to be reacted out through the strut, wing, and fuselage, it is more economical (lighter by tons) to design the engine/strut to depart the airplane in a controlled manner. The other major case that comes to mind is a gear up landing. The engines hang down and collect up obscene amounts of concrete during such operations. If this were all that happened, it wouldn't be too bad. It is when the engines hit an obstruction (like an embankment) and are torn off of the wing that things become exciting. We want the engine to depart safely, which means without rupturing the fuel tanks in the wings. The single most critical condition of a safe evacuation is the lack of jet fuel mingling with hot engine parts at the crash site. This is all very clear, yet we are finding that the structural solutions to those problems are vulnerable to corrosion and poor maintenance practices. There may not be a graceful fix for this exposure (this is not my specialty) and I have heard noises suggesting we design to keep the engine on the airplane even if it seizes. I have not heard anyone address the crash separation issues - but as I say, this isn't my area and I only know what I read in AvWeek. :-) If this isn't confusing enough, let me know and I'll see if I can murk it up a bit. :-) 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 Apr 1 13:11:29 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: neilkrey@aol.com (NeilKrey) Subject: Re: What Happened to Convair? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 94 13:11:29 PST What little is left of Convair is still part of General Dynamics in San Diego. They were a leading producer of cruise missiles until that portion of the business was sold to Hughes and moved to Tucson, AZ about two years ago. The remaining portion, still in San Diego, builds fuselage sections for the MD-11. Northrop and others have expressed interestin buying this business over the last two years, but to my knowledge it hasn't happened yet. Neil Krey FlightSafety International Hurst, Texas USA From kls Fri Apr 1 13:11:32 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: mscott@acs4.bu.edu (Mark Scott) Subject: Re: What Happened to Convair? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Reply-To: mscott@acs4.bu.edu (Mark Scott) Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 94 13:11:32 PST in article 1086 A.J. Madison asks what has happened to Convair. In a roundabout kind of way I'll try to answer his question: Until recently I worked for DHL Worldwide Express in their European airline division called European Air Transport (EAT). As part of their fleet of aircraft EAT operates 11 Convair 580's and thus we dealt regularly with Convair who is still in operation and although they are quite small still stock original components (complete with 1950's inspection tags) for the Convair aircraft. I am not entirely sure if they have been bought by someone perhaps someone else would be able to answer that question. It is interesting to note that despite their age (one of the aircraft in operation is over 40 years old) and the correspondingly high number of cycles and hours on the airframe the Convairs give less trouble and cost much less to maintain than the other aircraft in the fleet (727-100's) even if you rate them for their carrying capacity. Mark Scott From kls Fri Apr 1 13:11:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: wb9omc@ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) Subject: Re: What Happened to Convair? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 94 13:11:35 PST ajm@walrus.sw.stratus.com (Andrew Madison) writes: >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. Convair became a division of General Dynamics. This aircraft concern was sold to Lockheed sometime back. As a historical note, I *think* that "Convair" was a sort of conglomerated name that stood for "Consolidated Vultee Aircraft" or something therabouts. Duane From kls Fri Apr 1 13:11:39 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: What Happened to Convair? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 94 13:11:39 PST >Convair became a division of General Dynamics. This aircraft >concern was sold to Lockheed sometime back. Convair did indeed become a division of General Dynamics, but its not the piece of GD that was sold to Lockheed. Convair still happily does work on commercial aircraft (notably MD-11 fuselage sections) in San Diego. Lockheed acquired GD's Fighter Aircraft Division in Fort Worth, Texas, known these days for the F-16 though also the producer of the F-111 and other military aircraft. >As a historical note, I *think* that "Convair" was a sort of >conglomerated name that stood for "Consolidated Vultee Aircraft" >or something therabouts. Yep, Consolidated Vultee. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Apr 1 13:11:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Engine rotation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 94 13:11:41 PST In article , Clemens Emmanuel Tillier wrote: >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. Typical Western engines turn clockwise as seen from behind. Russian engines turn counterclockwise. Making them all turn the same way has more than economic implications. It also eliminates the 'critical' engine - cf P-38 Lightning with its special gearbox to reverse propeller direction on the right(?) engine. The engine with the gear box is more likely to fail, but does reduce the amount of rudder required to hold the ship straight when the other engine fails. But, if you put enough rudder on the bird to begin with, this is not a problem. >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? I would not call it negligible, it is rather substantial, but you are correct if you mean it is not the limiting design case. If this case doesn't design the structure, then I guess you can neglect it, making it negligible. :-) >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? Geez, that's a pilot technique question. I'd have to ask around; I don't know. >(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.) Did the right wing tip raise up? 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 Apr 1 13:11:44 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: 01 Apr 94 13:11:44 PST In article , Michael Yip wrote: >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. For what it is worth, the fuse pins were still in place and undamaged from what I've heard so far. However, the retaining parts were no where to be found... Interesting sidenote, the officials at Narita were quite unhappy with Northwest back in December and January for leaving chunks of retread tires all over the runways on what seemed to be a regular basis (shutting the active runway down for up to two hours). Now Northwest is leaving engine parts on the runway. :-) You got to feel for these guys! 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 Apr 1 13:11:48 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: 01 Apr 94 13:11:48 PST In article , John DiMarco wrote: >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? The 707 is a lighter airplane than the trusty DC-8, structurally. That means that it requires a good deal more effort to keep it airworthy. The 707 is also subject to more corrosion than the DC-8. Given the higher costs of keeping the '07 in the air, and what may well be higher systems maintenance costs, it doesn't pay to reengine it in most instances, for instance. 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 Apr 1 13:11:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: 707 airframes (Re: Date of Construction) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 94 13:11:50 PST On the topic of the 707/KC-135 connection, the 707 and KC-135 share components, but in no case do they share the same wing. The 707-120 and KC-135 have the same wing layout, but the KC-135 and 707 are constructed of different Aluminum alloys. The 720's wing is modified with a glove and the 707-300's wing (and -400) has a different layout. As documented elsewhere, the 367-80, KC-135 and 707 fuselage cross-sections are all different. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Apr 1 13:11:52 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 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: 01 Apr 94 13:11:52 PST In article jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) writes: >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? Load-carrying capacity. The 707 wasn't able to be stretched as much as the DC-8, due to its shorter landing gear. -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Fri Apr 1 13:11:54 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Air France 767-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 94 13:11:54 PST In article , Eric Bartsch wrote: > > 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? The 23-29 March Flight International World Airline Directory shows Air France with 4 767-300s. They also seem to operate 11 A310s and 20 A300s. For what it is worth, they haven't made any money in something like a decade, so go figure. :-) In fact, one of the recommendations of the latest European study groups was to cut Air France off from further government subsidies. When the CEO tried to make them more lean and profitable, the company struck and demonstrated on the runway at CDG. Incredible! I love this business! :-) 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 Apr 1 13:11:56 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: andrewsa@comm.mot.com (Andrew Sapuntzakis) Subject: Re: Air France 767-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Motorola Land Mobile Products Sector Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 94 13:11:56 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? I have flown on this plane several times on the CDG-ORD (Paris Charles De Gaule Chicago O'hare) route (AF54, I believe). Air France has quit a few Boeing planes, including 737s (-200, -300, ... ?) and 747s. Some of these are used for cargo service (e.g. Aeropostale), but I'm pretty sure they are also used for passengers. I believe that a very diverse fleet is one of the reasons for AF's financial woes - they have to maintain so many dissimilar aircraft types! CU Andrew andrewsa@comm.mot.com From kls Fri Apr 1 13:11:57 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Good articles in last two Air & Space issues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 94 13:11:57 PST In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: Delta has three types of A310, two variants of this model (ex-Pan Am ... The latest info I have on the DL Airbus situation is that all of the PA -300s should be gone by the time you read this or shortly thereafter. The DL Airbus fleet will then consist of the nine new DL spec -300s and four -200s that will replace four European 727s. Three of these 727 are going to the leasor and one will return to US domestic service. DLs European fleet will then consist of four A310-200 (ex-PA) and three 727-200 (ex-EA) From kls Fri Apr 1 13:11:59 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: slbloom@netcom.com (Dr. Stuart L. Bloom) Subject: B-737 videotapes Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 94 13:11:59 PST I realize that this newsgroup deals more with technical questions and observations, but hopefully, someone can give me some suggestions since a posting to rec.aviation.piloting was singularly non-productive. A little while back, I obtained a type rating in the 737, but since I don't fly as a vocation, keeping the knowledge in my head is difficult. I've heard that there are some videos that cover the aircraft systems, as well as flight procedures. If anyone can clue me in on where to find these I'd be very grateful. Please reply by E-mail if possible. Thanks. -- Stuart L. Bloom slbloom@netcom.com From kls Fri Apr 1 13:12:01 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Antenna? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 94 13:12:01 PST In article , Ed Hahn wrote: >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? They disipate lightning strikes as well as the usual static charge buildup. There are a slug of little bitty carbon fibers exposed out the back end of the wick. The tips disipate the accumulated charge by tweaking the electric field locally (just like the lightning rod on a barn). 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 Sat Apr 2 00:20:06 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: A320 Software goes on "3rd Party" maintenance Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Apr 94 00:20:06 PST While I was in Copenhagen earlier today, a Danish friend, who knows of my interest in the A320, drew to my attention an item in today's issue of the news magazine "Goddaj" (if I recall the spelling correctly - it means "Good Morning"). A translation of the article follows (courtesy of my Danish friend):- --------Translation of Article in "Goddaj", 1st April 1994 -------- Danish Firm Scores Notable "First" ---------------------------------- Thor Avionics, one of Denmark's most advanced high-tech firms, has secured a contract which makes it the first software house in the world to provide "third party" maintenance on a major safety-critical software system. In order to reduce the maintenance costs on its fleet of Airbus A320 aircraft (the first type of civil airliner in the world to have a computer-controlled "fly-by-wire" system), Air France has placed Thor under contract to provide all future maintenance on the software of this highly-automated aircraft. Wolf Larssen, director of Thor, said "This is the first contract of its type, and it won't be the last. Users of commercial software long ago discovered that there are great savings to be made by getting a "third party" firm to maintain their software. I am only surprised that it has taken users of safety-critical systems so long to discover the advantages. I expect other A320 operators to be placing similar contracts before too long." A "third-party" in this context means a firm which is independent of both the user and the supplier. Such firms, being "lean and mean" are usually capable of providing a much better and more cost-effective service than the original supplier, since they have fewer overheads and are less stifled by bureaucracy. In the commercial world, such contracts have usually gone to small, dynamic, organisations, and it seems that the world of safety-critical software will follow suite. "We had to beat some stiff opposition from Sextant Avionique, Matra, Logica, and similar large firms." said Mr. Larssen. "The fact that the software on the A320 will need to be maintained indefinitely means guaranteed jobs for highly qualified Danish workers for a long time to come." M. Theophile Gautier, spokesman for Air France, said "We have the utmost confidence in Thor to deliver the goods, both in terms of reduced cost, improved system performance, and increased safety." The automated systems on the A320, particularly the flight control and flight management systems, have sometimes been called into question following the various accidents involving this type of aircraft, although the accidents have generally been ascribed to pilot error. Even so, there is an obvious question mark over the ability of a third-party firm to maintain the level of safety. When asked about this, Mr. Larssen said "Our software maintenance and validation process is second to none. Although Airbus Industrie have refused to release the source code, so that we will have to strip out the binary and work from that, we anticipate no problems. Most of the modifications we will be making are fairly slight, so that regression testing can easily be done on a software flight simulator running on an Apple MacKintosh." A spokesman for the JAA (Joint Aviation Authority, which is responsible for certifying that any new or modified design of aircraft is airworthy) said "The basic design has already been certified. All that Thor will be doing are minor post-certification modifications. Thor themselves have been certified as conforming to the ISO-9000 quality standard and to SEI level 2, so it should not be difficult for them to meet the requirements for our own certification, which is based upon an industry standard referred to as RTCA-DO/178B." In response to questions about what the maintenance would actually involve, Mr. Larssen said "Occasionally, Airworthiness Directives are issued by the JAA which require changes to be made to the design of an aircraft in order to correct a fault. Where this change involved modifying the software, Thor will be responsible for doing this. The beauty of software is that the modified version can be installed on all existing aircraft in seconds, simply by inserting a new eprom. In addition to this corrective maintenance, we will also be offering Air France enhancements to improve the performance of the A320. The practice of "chipping", or modifying the firmware in the engine management system of an automobile such as a BMW in order to make it go faster, is well established. I don't expect that we could make your A320 perform like an F-111, but we could certainly extend the "safe flight envelope" beyond the rather conservative limits originally set by the manufacturer." -------------------- Article Ends ------------------------ I leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions! -------------- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB Tel: +44 (71) 477-8422, Fax.: +44 (71) 477-8585, E-mail (JANET): p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sat Apr 2 00:20:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rcburns@atc.boeing.com (Robert Burns) Subject: Request for Information Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Apr 94 00:20:09 PST Organization: Boeing Computer Services Does anyone know of an existing device or current research on a device, that could be applied to the following application? If so, please reply directly to the contact at the end of this note instead of this newsgroup. Thanks in advance for your kind attention to this request for information. Wanted: Portable, wireless, 3-axis locator device Accuracy: Optimal: 1 centimeter or less; Acceptable: 10 centimeters User: Quality Assurance inspector on large airplane assembly line Application Description: A Quality Aassurance (QA) inspector visually determines that a repair must be made at a specific location on an airplane. The location must be recorded with sufficient fidelity that a repair mechanic can subsequently locate the problem easily and precisely. Ideally, the QA inspector would point a wand at the problem location, press a button on the wand or portable belt pack, and the x,y,z coordinates of the wand would be transmitted to a nearby microcomputer. The computer, in turn, would map the x,y,z coordinates to the location terminology recognized by the airplane industry (a very non-trivial task). After transmitting the location to the computer, the inspector would then transmit to the computer information that describes the nature of the problem and the required corrective action. Send any information to: Jim Crozier Email: rcburns@atc.boeing.com Fax: 206-393-7805 Voice: 206-393-7769 From kls Sat Apr 2 00:20:11 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Air France 767-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Apr 94 00:20:11 PST In article , Andrew Sapuntzakis wrote: > Air France has quit a few Boeing planes, including 737s (-200, -300, ... ?) >and 747s. Some of these are used for cargo service (e.g. Aeropostale), but I'm >pretty sure they are also used for passengers. > > I believe that a very diverse fleet is one of the reasons for AF's financial >woes - they have to maintain so many dissimilar aircraft types! Often for political reasons. The French govt forced Air Inter to accept A330s (which are far too large for the domestic routes) and wouldn't let them take F100s (which is what they really want). Air Inter is the AF-controlled domestic carrier. RNA From kls Sat Apr 2 00:20:12 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cblim@solomon.technet.sg (Lim Chee Beng) Subject: Internet -> SitaText translation Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Technet, Singapore Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Apr 94 00:20:12 PST Hi, everybody. I understand that the SitaText is being widely used in the airline industry and I wonder if there is a way to convey messages from Internet to Sita users and vice versa? Thanks in advance for you kind attention and response. Best Regards, Chee Beng PS - I am not sure if this is the right group to send to, so pardon me if it is not. Please also direct me to the right group. From kls Thu Apr 7 13:54:56 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Air France 767-300? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 94 13:54:56 PDT drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) wrote:- > The 23-29 March Flight International World Airline Directory shows Air > France with 4 767-300s. They also seem to operate 11 A310s and 20 A300s. > For what it is worth, they haven't made any money in something like a > decade, so go figure. :-) In fact, one of the recommendations of the latest > European study groups was to cut Air France off from further government > subsidies. My own "deep throat" (who ought to know! :-) told me that, subsidies or no subsidies, Air France is practically bankrupt. (He gave me the figures for their annual losses over the past few years, and compared these with their total assets. Unfortunately, I wasn't taking notes.) He expects them to plead the French equivalent of Chapter 11 soon, and be rescued (in a different form and much thinner, but with the same name). Pete Mellor ----------- Definition of a consultant: A guy who borrows your watch, tells you the time with it, charges you for the service, and keeps the watch! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From kls Thu Apr 7 13:54:59 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: A320 Software Maintenance (1st April) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 94 13:54:59 PDT Following a steady stream of enquiries from people who either want further information about the Air France software maintenance contract, or simply reassurance that the world of safety-critical software hasn't yet turned into a total nightmare, I suppose I'd better come clean before somebody sues me! The item "A320 Software goes on "3rd Party" maintenance", dated Fri Apr 1 23:52:46 1994, was AN APRIL 1ST JOKE! The magazine "Goddaj" doesn't exist. The word (or one very similar in spelling), pronounced rather like "g'day!" would be said with an Australian accent, does in fact mean "good morning" or "good afternoon" in Danish, though. Thor Avionics doesn't exist, either, although my Danish friend, who definitely does exist (Hi, Hellmuth! :-), once marketed a powerful multi-tasking PC called the Thor. (The Thor was designed and developed by another friend, David Oliver of Stevenage. The reason why the Thor did not take first Denmark, and then the world, by storm is a long and true one, which I shall not relate here.) Wolf Larssen was a name I saw above a shop in Copenhagen. The name probably stuck in my mind because (someone correct me if I'm wrong!) it was the name of the villain in "The Sea Wolf" by Jack London. Theophile Gautier (Gauthier?) was a French author. Sextant Avionique, Matra, and Logica do exist, are in the safety-critical software business, and were included to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. Readers should be assured that A320 software maintenance remains in the capable hands of Airbus Industrie and its subcontractors! ------------------------------------------------ Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB Tel: +44 (71) 477-8422, Fax.: +44 (71) 477-8585, E-mail (JANET): p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk Disclaimer: My jokes are my own. I just borrow some of my opinions! :-) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Thu Apr 7 13:55:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: peep@freenet.hut.fi (petrus lundqvist) Subject: Airliners takeoff and landing distances Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Freenet finland Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 94 13:55:02 PDT I would like to get some rough figures on how long runways certain airliners require for landng and takeoff. I know that it varies a lot but a plane moderately loaded with "average" loads of passenger and fuel and in "normal" weather and sea-level. The airliners I would like to get info of are the following: Boeing 727, Boeing 737, Boeing 747, Boeing 757, Boeing 767, Airbus 320, DC-9, MD-87 (the 80 series?), MD-11, DC-10. What I would like to know is basicly how long runways an airport must have so that one or more of those airliners could operate (with passengers) from it. -- ------------------------------------------ v Petrus Lundqvist - peep@freenet.hut.fi v ------------------------------------------ From kls Thu Apr 7 13:55:03 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: RA001 Flight Testing Resumes Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 94 13:55:03 PDT RA001 FLIGHT TESTING RESUMES The first 747 ever built, RA001, was back in the skies this week with the 777's Pratt engine attached for more flight testing. The PW4084 engine -- a later version of the same engine that was tested aboard RA001's left wing last year -- arrived from Pratt at Boeing Field last week for more ground and flight testing. The airplane took off Saturday for a check-out flight, and then traveled to Montana on Monday where five flight tests were conducted, including engine operating tests and installation tests. The airplane returned to Boeing Field Wednesday, at which time the engine was removed for return to Pratt. All tests were completed successfully. From kls Thu Apr 7 13:55:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: John Harvie Subject: USAir 737 nose gear collapse Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 94 13:55:08 PDT >From The Boston Globe, Thursday, April 7, 1994, used without permission: The nose landing gear of a USAir jet parked at a gate at Logan International Airport collapsed yesterday around 6:30 a.m., a half-hour before the plane was scheduled to depart for Cleveland. None of the seven crew members on board Flight 101 was injured when the nose of the Boeing 737 sank, smashing the landing gear doors against the pavement, iarline and Massachusetts Port Authority officials said. Twenty passengers waiting to board Flight 101 were rerouted to other flights, Massport spokesman Philip Orlandella said. Anthony Willett of the Federal Aviation Administration said an FAA inspector was investigating, but had not determined the cause of the collapse. USAir spokeswoman Andrea Butler said airline mechanics have determined that the collapse was not due to mechanical failure. She said airline investigators are trying to determine whether human error -- such as someone pushing the wrong button -- or some other factor was at fault. Butler said a routine maintenance check on the jet was performed Tuesday night, and there were no problems. If the landing gear had failed after the plane was in flight, landing in Cleveland would have been difficult, although not impossible. On Aug. 10, 1989, a Trump Shuttle Boeing 727 made a successful emergency landing after its nose landing gear failed in flight. The repair of damage to the jet bridge at Gate 4 in Terminal B kept that gate closed all day yesterday, Butler said, but did not delay or cancel any flights. The gate is expected to reopen today. - end of article - Questions for those who know: is it possible to retract the landing gear when the plane is resting on it? I would think there would be some kind of lockout to prevent such an occurrence. Also, related to the thread on engine mounts on wings, could a 737 make a landing without nose gear the way the 727 was able to? (It was quite a show on the local TV news.) -- John Harvie Electronic Messaging Division / Lotus Development Corporation John_Harvie@notesteam.lotus.com From kls Thu Apr 7 13:55:10 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: B-737 videotapes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 94 13:55:10 PDT In article slbloom@netcom.com (Dr. Stuart L. Bloom) writes: >A little while back, I obtained a type rating in the 737, but since I >don't fly as a vocation, keeping the knowledge in my head is >difficult. I've heard that there are some videos that cover the aircraft >systems, as well as flight procedures. If anyone can clue me in on where >to find these I'd be very grateful. 1. Aviation & Space Videos, 316 N. 12th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. (916-447-5081. They offer two to four hour ground school systems refreshers for a variety of airplanes. Nothing fancy: instructor with a pointer standing in front of some paper cut-outs. Costs are $60-$80. These tapes are heavily oriented around UAL airplanes and procedures. I thought their 727 was pretty good, but skimped on the powerplant. See my review, archived on rascal.ics.utexas.edu somewhere (either in the sa archives or saa archives; might also be in product-reviews). 2. On Location, Inc. 71117.120@compuserve.com. B 737-300/500 proficiency check review video. I haven't seen this one; he's been advertising in the ALPA rag's classifieds. This one is by an EAL captain. $57.50. Not a video, but very well-done: Tech Pubs, 713-368-7252 _FMC User's Guide_, by Bill Bulfer. A fantastic operational guide to the 737 Smith's Industries FMS. About $50. If it's review guides you're looking for, try the UAL pilot store: all the airlines have lots of pilots making a buck on the side publishing "need to know" sheets for the annual sim checks. These tend to be inexpensive. -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Thu Apr 7 13:55:13 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: edwardz450@aol.com (EdwardZ450) Subject: Boeing 757 Performance Specs? Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 94 13:55:13 PDT Could someone provide me with the basic performance specs for the 757...i.e., rate of climb, cruise, normal descent, etc...? Thanks very much. Ed in Maine edwardz450@aol.com From kls Thu Apr 7 13:55:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Antenna? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 94 13:55:14 PDT > 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. I didn't look closely last time I saw an A320, but the FCOM 1.01.10 PP2-3 does not show any such struts (at least, not clearly - the diagrams of the general shape of the aircraft are not particularly easy to read). > 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? No such rods are shown in the FCOM, either. (Again, I am going by a small-scale diagram.) The diagrams do, however, label all the antennae. They are all on the fuselage. None are on the wings. > ... out of the winglets. Eh? What winglets? Are you *sure* that was an A320? Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB Tel: +44 (71) 477-8422, Fax.: +44 (71) 477-8585, E-mail (JANET): p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Thu Apr 7 13:55:16 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Antenna? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 94 13:55:16 PDT Peter Mellor writes: >Eh? What winglets? Are you *sure* that was an A320? There was a discussion about this a while back. Airbus refers to these devices as wing fences, at least on the A300/A310/A320. The A320-100 series, of which several dozen were produced, does not have wing fences. The A320-200 does have them, as well as various other improvements. More details can be found in the archives -- look for a discussion about British Airways A320s if nothing about A320 "winglets" jumps out. Archives of sci.aeronautics.airliners (which are due to be updated within the next week or so) 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 Thu Apr 7 13:55:17 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kbarr@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: Engine rotation 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 Apr 94 13:55:17 PDT In article , Terrell D. Drinkard wrote: >Making them all turn the same way has more >than economic implications. It also eliminates the 'critical' engine I imagine further follow-ups should be directed to sci.aeronautics... Actually, a critical engine only exists when the engines turn the same way. Numerous light twins, such as the Beechcraft Duchess BE-76, have counter- rotating propellers to eliminate the critical engine. First some background. Before one can understand why there is a critical engine, one must first understand P-factor. Basically P-factor is a non- symmetrical distribution of thrust over the rotating disk formed by the propeller due to varying speeds and angles of attack of the prop blades at various positions. More simply, you can just take it as gospel that while in any sort of nose-high condition there is more thrust on the side of the propeller that is travelling down. I could try to ASCII-art it, but I think it would be too difficult. If you are interested in the fine points, find an aerodynamics text. When viewed from the top, a propeller attached to a plane in a nose-high configuration will have a lift distribution as shown below: Normal Engine...rotates clockwise as viewed from behind. ( | represents the thrust vectors ) ||||||||| |||||||| ^ ||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| / \ |||||||||||||||||| ==================/hub\================== Ascending Descending This can be more easily represented/simplified to: . /|\ | ^ | / \ | ==================/hub\================== With that said, let me give a quick introduction on flying a multi-engine aircraft with a dead engine (not counting the Cessna 337). When an engine dies there is a yawing moment created that tends to "move" the nose away from the good engine. This yawing must be counteracted, if the pilot is to retain control of the aircraft, with rudder, which yaws the nose back into the proper direction. In this configuration, the aircraft is pointing in the right direction, but it is slipping slightly in the direction of the dead engine, so normal procedures call for banking away from the dead engine slightly (in pilot circles we "raise the dead" so to speak). On with the explanation... So, if you have a twin with both engines rotating the same way, you can see that the right engine creates a larger moment than the left engine. This means in an engine out situation, you will have to counteract more moment with the rudder. The critical engine is the engine you do not want to lose, so the left engine is the critical engine. | ^ | | / \ | ----- | | ----- __________+++___| C |___+++__________ | | G | | |________________| |________________| | | | | | | | | ___| |___ |____.____| In a well designed aircraft with counter-rotating props, you have the followng situation, and neither engine is considered to be critical. | ^ | | / \ | ----- | | ----- __________+++___| C |___+++__________ | | G | | |________________| |________________| | | | | | | | | ___| |___ |____.____| Note: There have been some aircraft designed with the counter-rotating engines switched, so both engines are effectively critical engines. Enough rambling...hopefully this wasn't too confusing. _____________________________ _____ | Keith Barr \ \ \__ _____ | barr@ncar.ucar.edu \___________\ \/_______\___\_____________ | Commercial/AS&MEL/Inst/A&IGI / ( /_/ ..................... `-. |_____________________________/ `-----------,----,--------------' _/____/ From kls Thu Apr 7 14:04:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dsmith@hpl.hp.com (David R. Smith) Subject: Re: What Happened to Convair? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 94 14:04:44 PDT Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : >Convair became a division of General Dynamics. This aircraft : >concern was sold to Lockheed sometime back. : Convair did indeed become a division of General Dynamics, but its not : the piece of GD that was sold to Lockheed... : Lockheed acquired GD's Fighter Aircraft Division in Fort : Worth, Texas, known these days for the F-16 though also the producer : of the F-111 and other military aircraft. GD Fort Worth was once (actually twice) part of Convair. Indeed, it developed and built the B-58. I believe the F-102 and F-106 were also built by the Convair Fort Worth Division, but I don't have documentation of that. Quoting from The Complete Illustrated Encyclopedia of the World's Aircraft: Consolidated Aircraft Corporation Original factory was quickly outgrown by the company formed 29 May 1923 and moved to Buffalo, NY, leasing part of a wartime Curtiss factory, in 1924... Thomas Morse Aircraft acquired 1929... In Autumn 1935 company moved to San Diego, CA, gaining a harbor for testing its maritime designs... A 34% controlling interest in Consolidated acquired December 1941 by Vultee Aircraft Inc. and management links from then led to merger of the two companies on 17 March 1943 as Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation. Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation By the end of WW2 Consolidated Vultee was largest aircraft manufacturing organization in the USA, with factories at San Diego and Vultee Field, California; Fort Worth, Texas; Nashville, Tennessee; Wayne, Michigan; New Orleans, Louisiana; Miami, Florida; and Allentown, Pennsylvania; plus modification centers at Tucson, Arizona; Elizabeth City, North Carolina; and Louisville, Kentucky... In the early 1950's Consolidated Vultee began calling its products "Convair" types, and on 30 April 1954 it became the Convair Division of General Dynamics Corporation. Convair Convair Division of General Dynamics Corporation; title adopted from 30 April 1954 by Consolidated Vultee following acquisition in 1953 of major shareholdings by General Dynamics. Major products have been the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger and F-106 Delta Dart interceptors; B-58 Hustler supersonic bomber; and Convair 880 and 990 four-jet commercial transports. Developed subsequently F-111/FB-111 variable-geometry combat aircraft, now the responsibility of GD's Fort Worth Division. Convair was grouped with GD's Fort Worth and Pomona Divisions in September 1970 to form single Convair Aerospace Division, but Fort Worth was again made a separate division in June 1974. General Dynamics Corporation A major reorganization in 1961 resulted in General Dynamics' 12 operating divisions being divided into two major groups. On the aerospace side, the Western Group contained components of the Convair division... General Dynamics Corporation, Fort Worth Division Separate division of General Dynamics since June 1974, before which it was a part of Convair division. From kls Fri Apr 8 00:16:25 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ej324@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jack Summers) Subject: Re: USAir 737 nose gear collapse Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Apr 94 00:16:25 PDT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) -> Questions for those who know: is it possible to retract the landing gear -> when the plane is resting on it? Yes, very easy. 737 and 727 alike -> I would think there would be some kind of lockout to prevent such an -> occurrence. Yes. The landing gear handle (shaped like a wheel) will not move to either the OFF position (hydraulics off) or the UP position without the override trigger (shaped like a gun trigger) located on the gear handle is pulled. I myself have first hand knowledge that if hydraulics are "on" and the gear handle is raised with the plane on the ground to the "UP" position. The nose gear will retract, but because of the weight of the plane the main gear stay down. As far as safety is concerned, as soon as the override trigger is pulled the "Take-off" warning horn will sound. Other then that there is nothing to prevent these kind of things from happening. However some airlines install physical locks or "pins" when the plane is on the ground for long periods of time (8 hours or more) that will prevent the landing gear from coming up. If these same pins are not removed before flight the gear can not be raised for flight, which is why most airlines do not install them. -> Also, related to the thread on engine mounts on wings, could a 737 make -> a landing without nose gear the way the 727 was able -> to? (It was quite a show on the local TV news.) Yes it can but the engine nose cowls will contact the ground also. >From Jack Summers ej324@cleveland.freenet.edu From kls Wed Apr 13 02:46:17 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dunn_jj@gold.colorado.edu Subject: GPS on airliners? Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 94 02:46:17 PDT Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Do any of the newer airliners (A320, 777, 747-400) have a global positioning system? Is the GPS in any way connected to the autopilot? Does that mean the aircraft could take off and land automatically, without requiring pilot control? >Jon Dunn< From kls Wed Apr 13 02:46:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: estock@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Richard G. Estock) Subject: Flutter & Swept Wing Aircraft Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 94 02:46:23 PDT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. I would appreciate an e-mail reply to the following query: I enjoyed reading and recommend to all Clive Irving's "Widebody: The Triumph of the 747". The author mentions the problem of flutter with all of the swept wing aircraft that Boeing (and presumably all other manufacturers as well) developed. I am confused about what this problem actually is, and how it manifests itself. What, then, is flutter? What is the cause? What happens to an aircraft that is experiencing flutter? If an observer were in a chase plane, what motion would the observer see with an aircraft ahead that is undergoing flutter? What corrects flutter? As I understand it, on a 7X7 wing there is in succession an: inboard flap inboard spoiler tabs (2) aileron outboard flap outboard spoiler >From one source, flutter was described as an oscillation at some critical speed of the aileron. Why just the aileron? Or in this case are the flaps, spoilers, et al, collectively considered an aileron? Is the problem of flutter more pronounced with swept wings than straight wings? Or is it more a function of speeds approaching Mach 1 regardless of wing geometry? Please understand that I am not an aeronautical engineer or even a pilot, but I am an engineer with a technical background interested in the how and why things work. In addition to any answers to the above, I would be most appreciative of suitable references to wing design as well as on flying a 747. Not that I doubt anything, but I am curious as to why a 747 needs all these flaps, spoilers, etc., and how they are used in actual practice. Richard Estock (estock@gandalf.rutgers.edu) From kls Wed Apr 13 02:46:29 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Eric Bartsch Subject: 747-300 and Il-86 Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 94 02:46:29 PDT I was wondering if anyone knows if a US airline has ever operated a 747-300 aircraft. It seems that all the operators of this model are outside the US (Swissair, Quantas, JAL, Varig, etc...) Is there a reason for the lack of US operators or did the 747-400 just come along too soon after the -300? Also, does anyone know if the Il-86 has been operated by anyone other than Aeroflot, other than on wet leases from Aeroflot to other airlines? Any information on these subjects would be appreciated... -Eric Bartsch bartsch@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu From kls Wed Apr 13 02:46:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: f_blando%blando.dnet.dec.com@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com (Frank Blando) Subject: CATIA or CADDS 5 CAD/CAM technical papers? Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 94 02:46:35 PDT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation I am looking for pointers to technical papers about Virtual Reallity and the CAD/CAM tools used in the aircraft industry. Is anyone aware of technical articles about CATIA? CATIA is the CAD/CAM tool used by Boeing to develop the new 777. The code was developped jointlly by IBM and Dassault. Alternativelly does any one have contacts in those companies I could send mail to? Does anyone know of paper about CADDS 5 software by ComputerVision of Bedford Ma? According to AvW Rolls-Royce just signed a large contarct with them. Frank Blando -- ================================================================================ ======== Frank Blando ======== ======== ======== ======== Internet address: f_blando@csc32enet.dec.com ======== ======== ======== ===== I do not speek for Digital, nothing I say should be taken seriously. ===== ================================================================================ From kls Wed Apr 13 02:46:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Publishing news: AIRLINERS and AIRWAYS Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 94 02:46:40 PDT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Starting this year, AIRLINERS went to a bimonthly format. This is published by Air Transport Press, based in Miami. Then, starting this issue, John Wegg, the editor, disappeared, off to "pursue other ventures." Today, I see a new magazine: AIRWAYS, with a F-100 on the cover. Inaugural issue. Hmm, looks like AIRLINERS. Feels like AIRLINERS. Designed like AIRLINERS. Even the ads are the same. And it's bimonthly. Yep, John Wegg is the editor. Now working for Airways International, Inc. It appears we now have two general-interest contemporary-airliner magazines (not including the 50s-vintage magazines). -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Wed Apr 13 02:46:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com Subject: Delta Tristar Operations Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 94 02:46:44 PDT I have observed three incidents in the last 9 months at Gatwick Airport involving Delta Tristars which leave me a little puzzled. In the first case a Delta Tristar was taking off towards the east (Gatwick has only one east-west runway). The pilot aborted the takeoff causing a landing aircraft to go round again. The tower asked for an explaination of the takeoff abort and was told 'Bad flap indication'. The tower asked for further clarification but was again told 'Bad flap indication'. Anyway the Tristar pulled off the runway and sat in an unused holding area at the east end for about ten minutes before taxiing back to the west end and trying another takeoff. This time he lifted off but kept the under-carriage down. I was expecting him to perhaps circle and land but he headed off eastwards gaining altitude but with the under-carriage still down. In the second case another Delta Tristar was taxiing onto the runway for a west takeoff (west is the usual direction). Before he was properly lined up he stopped with the nose wheel still turned right. Shortly a fleet of ground maintenance vehicles arrived plus a tow truck. They clustered round the nose wheel and after a few minutes the tow-truck was hooked up and the aircraft was removed from the runway. Before the runway was reopenned a solitary ground vehicle spent 10 minutes looking at the runway surface, presumably for foreign objects. I can only guess that the Tristar suffered a brake failure or a failure of the nose wheel steering hydraulics. Any other suggestions? While the runway was blocked several other aircraft including a Virgin Atlantic 747 took off using the remaining runway length (full length minus ~ 400 yards) In the third case yet another Delta Tristar was taking off when a main wheel blew with a bang that was heard all over the airport. In fact we all thought at first it was terrorists. The runway was closed for a good half hour while the pieces were swept up. The Tristar continued to the States and landed safely if a bit gingerly. I was surprised the aircraft decided to continue with its trans-Atlantic flight given that I would have expected a real risk of the debris puncturing the the wing tanks. Apologies if the explainations to all these are trivial but I'm curious to know. BTW the way I'm not trying to slag off Delta in any way. :) From kls Wed Apr 13 02:46:46 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Airliners takeoff and landing distances References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 94 02:46:46 PDT In article , petrus lundqvist wrote: > >I would like to get some rough figures on how long runways certain >airliners require for landng and takeoff. I know that it varies a lot >but a plane moderately loaded with "average" loads of passenger and >fuel and in "normal" weather and sea-level. The airliners I would >like to get info of are the following: >Boeing 727, Boeing 737, Boeing 747, Boeing 757, Boeing 767, >Airbus 320, DC-9, MD-87 (the 80 series?), MD-11, DC-10. Well, as a rule of thumb, you can figure than a twin engined commercial jet transport is designed to get in and out of La Guardia. That airport is our limiting design case for a lot of stuff. :-) The 747 uses somewhere around 8,000 to 10,500 ft of runway depending on mission length. I can't speak to tri-jets, we don't do them anymore. :-) BTW, there is no economic benefit to using less runway than is available at La Guardia. There is a niche market for the really short runways, but the compromises you would be forced into drives down your cruise performance and therefore your operating costs go up. The traffic out of those small runways is pretty thin. Look at the sales of BAe 146s, and see what I mean. -- 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 Apr 13 02:46:47 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: USAir 737 nose gear collapse References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 94 02:46:47 PDT In article John Harvie writes: > >USAir spokeswoman Andrea Butler said airline mechanics have determined that the >collapse was not due to mechanical failure. Yeah, right! >She said airline investigators are >trying to determine whether human error -- such as someone pushing the wrong >button -- or some other factor was at fault. Butler said a routine maintenance >check on the jet was performed Tuesday night, and there were no problems. The 737 has an electrical solenoid lockout on the landing gear lever. It should not have been possible to lift the lever. There is an override trigger. However, the 737 nose gear is actuated by System A, which is provided by engine-driven pumps, and I doubt the gear would move under under no power (they did say it was on the ground, 30 minutes before flight, right?). If, however, the lockout override was used to move the lever to the OFF position, the actuator valves would have opened, and there would have been zero pressure, thus allowing external factors to move the airplane and thus "raise" the nose gear. >to prevent such an occurrence. Also, related to the thread on engine mounts on >wings, could a 737 make a landing without nose gear the way the 727 was able >to? (It was quite a show on the local TV news.) Probably; sometimes one doesn't have a choice, and the as-many-gear-down- as-possible rule of thumb applies to 737s as much as to 727s. Sounds to me like maintenance left the gear lever in off, and the crew hadn't done the safety check yet. I sure do hope the captain's son was nowhere near the cockpit. After the FedEx hijacking last night, if this keeps up, it'll be impossible to get anywhere NEAR a cockpit. -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Wed Apr 13 02:46:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: USAir 737 nose gear collapse References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 94 02:46:48 PDT In article , John Harvie writes: is it possible to retract the landing gear when the plane is resting on it? I would think there would be some kind of lockout ... All commercial airliners that I'm familiar with have an electric solenoid that locks the gear handle in the down position when the airplane is on the ground. When the airplane leaves the ground the solenoid energizes and unlocks the handle. There is, however, a manual override. So it is possible for the gear handle to be moved to the UP position on the ground. ...could a 737 make a landing without nose gear the way the 727 was able to? Sure it can, might get some damage to the nose cowls on the engines though. From kls Wed Apr 13 19:17:05 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@roland.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: GPS on airliners? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 94 19:17:05 PDT In article dunn_jj@gold.colorado.edu writes: Do any of the newer airliners (A320, 777, 747-400) have a global positioning system? Is the GPS in any way connected to the autopilot? Does that mean the aircraft could take off and land automatically, without requiring pilot control? >Jon Dunn< ----- There are no airliners using GPS for primary navigation out there right now, and the only GPS receivers being used on airliners, in the US at least, are being used for test purposes only. For example, American Airlines B757 ship number 5DD has a Litton GPS sensor and antenna mounted in the upper fuselage (near the L2 door (2nd door on the left looking from above the aircraft, counting from the nose)). This ties into the IRUs when SPECIAL IRUs are installed. The GPS functions of the IRUs are not active during revenue flight. The IRU actually creates a hybrid position signal based on a combination of the inertial position and the GPS position. Also part of the test system is the Honeywell PIP FMC, with revised flight management software, and a connection to the ACARS VHF datalink system, which is being used as a channel for Differential information during this experiment. American, ARINC (the providers of ACARS), Litton, Honeywell, and others (including the MITRE Corporation) are attempting to demostrate autoland capability with this B757 using DGPS. Now then. Airliners since the B767 have been "able" to fly from about 50 foot altitude on takeoff to the destination, and complete an autoland without direct human intervention on the flight controls. Note that the pilot does have to enable certain autoflight modes, however. As for autoland capability, the L1011 was able to demonstrate it as far back as the early 70s. Since the GPS provides an accurate position source, when implemented, it will be used by the Flight Management Systems as part of the overall navigation autopilot functions. As for any additional capabilities with GPS, the only "new" operational functions would allow CAT I instrument approaches without ground transmitters. Autoland will require a differential ground station and datalink transmitter. Other uses of GPS being explored are cancellation of "inertial drift" on long flights. 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 Wed Apr 13 19:17:06 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: GPS on airliners? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 94 19:17:06 PDT >Now then. Airliners since the B767 have been "able" to fly from about >50 foot altitude on takeoff to the destination, and complete an >autoland without direct human intervention on the flight controls. >Note that the pilot does have to enable certain autoflight modes, >however. As for autoland capability, the L1011 was able to >demonstrate it as far back as the early 70s. The L-1011 has had the takeoff-to-landing capability from day one. This was demonstrated by ship 2 on a flight from Burbank to Paris (for the Paris Airshow) even before the L-1011 entered service. With regard to autoland, the first airliner capable of doing this that I'm aware of the was the Trident, substantially before the L-1011. The L-1011 was probably the first to do this in North America. -- 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 Apr 13 19:17:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tassio Andrade Carvalho Subject: MD-11's with extra fuel tanks Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 94 19:17:08 PDT Is it true that Delta has special MD-11s with extra fuel tanks in the cargo bay? Does anyone have comparative stats on the range of these planes and an ordinary MD-11? How does it compare to the long range A340? From kls Wed Apr 13 19:17:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jeff344@voodoo.lerc.nasa.gov (Jeff Berton) Subject: Re: Airliners takeoff and landing distances References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 94 19:17:09 PDT -- In article , you write: > BTW, there is no economic benefit to using less runway than is available at > La Guardia. Indeed, there are noise reduction advantages to using as much runway as possible. With a delayed rotation, the noise at both the sideline and community measuring points can be reduced by 1 to 3 EPNdB, depending on the aircraft configuration. With a higher rotation velocity, - The rate of climb is better, which allows the plane to pass over the noise observers at a higher altitude, - The speed is greater, which allows the plane to get past the observers more quickly and reduce the duration of the effective perceived noise level, - And since the speed is greater, forward velocity jet attenuation becomes more effective. -- Jeff Berton, Aeropropulsion Analysis Office, NASA Lewis Research Center jeff344@voodoo.lerc.nasa.gov From kls Wed Apr 13 19:17:11 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wohlsen@sri.com Subject: Re: CATIA or CADDS 5 CAD/CAM technical papers? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: SRI International Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 94 19:17:11 PDT In article f_blando%blando.dnet.dec.com@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com (Frank Blando) writes: > > >I am looking for pointers to technical papers about Virtual Reallity and >the CAD/CAM tools used in the aircraft industry. > Frank, I've found a few articles on VR and the aircraft industry. Nothing very detailed I'm sorry to say: Chris Esposito "Virtual Reality Research at Boeing" Proceedings of 1992 WESCON Pete Tinker "Real Training in the Virtual World" Proceedings of 1992 WESCON John Holusha "Carving Out Real-Life Uses for Virtual Reality" New York Times, October 31, 1993. Dave Holbrook "Stereo Viewing: Looking 'Into' Manuacturing" Manufacturing Systems, January 1991. Bob Wohlsen bob_wohlsen@qm.sri.com From kls Wed Apr 13 19:17:12 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wolpjame@cwis.isu.edu (WOLPER_JAMES) Subject: Re: GPS on airliners? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Idaho State University, Pocatello Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 94 19:17:12 PDT According to the April 11, 1994 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology, GPS is standard on Boeing 777-200 aircraft. See p. 51. This almost surely means that the GPS output can be used by the autopilots. This has no bearing on the question of whether the aircraft can take off or land without pilot control, however. Autolanding is usually done in the presence of a Category III ILS, which requires extensive ground equipment as well. There has been no determination of whether GPS or Differential GPS is capable of Category III positioning. Jim Wolper CFII Department of Mathematics Idaho State University Pocatello, ID 83209-8085 USA From kls Wed Apr 13 19:17:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ap183@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Kyle D. Jackson) Subject: Re: Flutter & Swept Wing Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ap183@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Kyle D. Jackson) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 94 19:17:14 PDT In a previous article, estock@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Richard G. Estock) says: >In addition to any answers to the above, I would be most appreciative >of suitable references to wing design as well as on flying a 747. A great, easy-reading reference text for aircraft design in general is available as part of the AIAA Education Series. It is titled "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach", by Raymer. I do not have it right here (it's at work), but I can get the ISBN number, etc, if you wish. Purchase value was about $90 CDN before taxes . This text could give you a good fundamental grasp of various aspects in wing design. It may not be as good as a dedicated text in wing design/aerodynamics, but it is still worth checking out. L8R! RadiKyle kjackson@maaeng.carleton.ca ap183@freenet.carleton.ca -- From kls Wed Apr 13 19:17:15 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ap183@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Kyle D. Jackson) Subject: Re: CATIA or CADDS 5 CAD/CAM technical papers? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ap183@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Kyle D. Jackson) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 94 19:17:15 PDT In a previous article, f_blando%blando.dnet.dec.com@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com (Frank Blando) says: >I am looking for pointers to technical papers about Virtual Reallity and >the CAD/CAM tools used in the aircraft industry. > >Is anyone aware of technical articles about CATIA? CATIA is the CAD/CAM >tool used by Boeing to develop the new 777. The code was developped jointlly Hiya! This is likely no help whatsoever, but... I have never used CATIA personally, but I have been told by my peers that used it that they, uhm, strongly disliked it! Our company has since replaced CATIA with Pro/ENGINEER, which is felt by most of my colleagues to be a far superior package in mechanical design work. Apparently, the producers of Pro/ENG are enjoying many benefits right now from marketing what is being billed as the widest selling CAD/CAM package in North America... While I know not whether any aircraft companies use this package, it may be worth checking into... L8R! RadiKyle kjackson@maaeng.carleton.ca ap183@freenet.carleton.ca -- From kls Thu Apr 14 12:33:52 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jac@kidd.vet.purdue.edu (John Clear) Subject: Re: Delta Tristar Operations References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: Purdue Daemons Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Apr 94 12:33:52 PDT In article , wrote: > >In the first case a Delta Tristar was taking off towards the east (Gatwick >has only one east-west runway). The pilot aborted the takeoff causing a >landing aircraft to go round again. The tower asked for an explaination of the >takeoff abort and was told 'Bad flap indication'. The tower asked for further >clarification but was again told 'Bad flap indication'. Anyway the Tristar >pulled off the runway and sat in an unused holding area at the east end for >about ten minutes before taxiing back to the west end and trying another >takeoff. This time he lifted off but kept the under-carriage down. I was >expecting him to perhaps circle and land but he headed off eastwards gaining >altitude but with the under-carriage still down. He probably kept the gear down to cool the brakes off. The brakes get very hot, and can ignite the tires if retracted to early. The operating handbooks contain charts on how long you have to wait for the brakes to cool before raising the gear. Letting them drag in the wind is a good way to cool them quickly, although it does get some odd looks. John -- John `SpaceCadet` Clear - jac@mentor.cc.purdue.edu, jac@panix.com Officiator, Purdue Daemons; Purdue Pilots, Inc. PP-ASEL SM, CAP-NYW "Get a new sig. You've had the same one for two years!" -- ksb From kls Thu Apr 14 12:33:54 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Delta Tristar Operations References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Apr 94 12:33:54 PDT In article , julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com writes: In the first case a Delta Tristar was taking off towards the east (Gatwick has only one east-west runway). The pilot aborted the takeoff causing a landing aircraft to go round again. The tower asked for an explaination of the takeoff abort and was told 'Bad flap indication'. The tower asked for further clarification but was again told 'Bad flap indication'. Anyway the Tristar pulled off the runway and sat in an unused holding area at the east end for about ten minutes before taxiing back to the west end and trying another takeoff. This time he lifted off but kept the under-carriage down. I was expecting him to perhaps circle and land but he headed off eastwards gaining altitude but with the under-carriage still down. ----------- Just a WAG, but this may have been a case of the infamous "Flay Assy Det" light coming on. A very common malady that affects the L/1011. The light indicates a failure of the flap assymetry detection system. Resetting circuit breakers for the system and operating the flaps a few times usually fixes the problem. From kls Thu Apr 14 12:33:56 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jack@larc.nasa.gov (Jack Dunn) Subject: Re: Flutter & Swept Wing Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jack@larc.nasa.gov Organization: AAOB/SySD LaRC NASA Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Apr 94 12:33:56 PDT In article <1126@orchard.Chicago.COM>, estock@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Richard G. Estock) writes: >I would appreciate an e-mail reply to the following query: > >I enjoyed reading and recommend to all Clive Irving's "Widebody: The >Triumph of the 747". The author mentions the problem of flutter with >all of the swept wing aircraft that Boeing (and presumably all other >manufacturers as well) developed. > >I am confused about what this problem actually is, and how it >manifests itself. The term "flutter problem" covers a large set of dynamic load limits that elastic aircraft are designed. Classical flutter involves the exchange of energy between the pitch and plung motion of the surface and the air. The system can be modeled as two uncoupled second order systems coupled by the aerodynamics. The magitude of the aerodynamic energy is proportional to the dynamic pressure, qbar, of the flow, (high speed low level flight == high qbar). There exist a value of qbar that this system will become unstable, that is the motion of the wing cause forces to be applied to the system that cause the motion to increase. The load limit of the wing is quickly exceeded, (5 cycles). There are other forms of flutter such as stall flutter which involves the stalling of the aerodynamic surface. Transsonic flutter can be influenced by the nonlinear characters of the aerodynamics at transonic speeds. Panel flutter can cause problems with skin panels. Each of the different types of flutter have its own analysis method. Some of the methods are better than others. Transonic flutter is so bad that dynamicly scaled models are used in wind tunnels to verify that the analysis methods will work on the full scale aircraft. > >What, then, is flutter? What is the cause? What happens to an >aircraft that is experiencing flutter? If an observer were in a >chase plane, what motion would the observer see with an aircraft >ahead that is undergoing flutter? The observer whould only see the wing breaking apart. >What corrects flutter? The basic cure for flutter is to make the wing stiffer. Some solutions try to seperate the natural frequencies of the two modes that are involved with limited success. Some designs try to place the cg of the structure forward by placing the engins out on pylons. > >As I understand it, on a 7X7 wing there is in succession an: > inboard flap > inboard spoiler > tabs (2) > aileron > outboard flap > outboard spoiler > >>From one source, flutter was described as an oscillation >at some critical speed of the aileron. Why just the aileron? Or in >this case are the flaps, spoilers, et al, collectively considered an >aileron? All vibrating surfaces will flutter. The question is at what speed and altitude. > >Is the problem of flutter more pronounced with swept wings than >straight wings? Or is it more a function of speeds approaching Mach >1 regardless of wing geometry? Sweep by itself does affect flutter. However, swept wings are stiffer. But, aerodynamic effects lead the designer to use more sweep for higher speed aricraft. There is no simple answer. The major design parameters that have an effect on flutter, are 1) mass ratio (mass of wing to the mass of the air); 2) sweep angle; 3) taper ratio; 4) aspect ratio; 5) chordwise position of cg; 6) elastic axis position; 7) pitch radius of gyration; and 8) bending torsion frequency ratio. From kls Thu Apr 14 12:33:58 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Dorsett Subject: Re: USAir 737 nose gear collapse References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rdd@netcom.com Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Apr 94 12:33:58 PDT >What FedEx hijacking? A lunatic jump-seating flight engineer went wild with a couple of hammers and a speargun in a FedEx DC-10 last week. He apparently hit the captain and on-duty FE, who then engaged him in some hand-to-hand combat for a few minutes. In the meantime, the F/O was performing some loaded maneuvers, which apparently caused wing or surface damage. They finally pinned him down, but apparently the F/O was injured in the process. The captain landed the airplane, with the other crewmembers sitting on the hijacker, who was still trying to fight. According to AP, the cockpit looked like a slaughterhouse on touchdown. The captain was released from the hospital the next day, but the other three were kept; I believe the F/O and the errant F/E are still in bad shape, and the on-duty F/E the worst off. Needless to say, the FBI is not happy about any of this, and is ready to pounce on the errant F/E once he is released. It appears that he was scheduled for a hearing to determine whether he had falsified application materials. If found to have done so, he likely would have been dismissed. So, of course, he decided to kill an airplane, in a rather half-assed manner. What a loser. -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Thu Apr 14 12:34:00 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: USAir 737 nose gear collapse References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Apr 94 12:34:00 PDT In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: --- >However, the 737 nose gear is actuated by System A, which is >provided by engine-driven pumps... The 737-200 has a "Ground Interconnect" valve which allows you to operate the A hydraulic system using the B electric hydraulic pumps. The 737-300 and greater have an electric and engine-driven pump for the A and B systems. There is no need for the interconnect valve on these models of the 737. --- >USAir spokeswoman Andrea Butler said airline mechanics have determined that >the collapse was not due to mechanical failure. >Yeah, right! and >Sounds to me like maintenance left the gear lever in off, and the crew hadn't >done the safety check yet. Let's not jump to conclusions. The L/1011 has a history of the nose gear retracting all by itself. This was found to be a mechanical failure of a spring in the control valve. This happened last year in STR. Let's not try to figure out the cause by the statements of the media or a couple of mechanics that were standing around the nose gear. From kls Fri Apr 15 22:39:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Boeing 757 Performance Specs? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 94 22:39:50 In article , EdwardZ450 wrote: >Could someone provide me with the basic performance specs for the 757...i.e., >rate of climb, cruise, normal descent, etc...? Thanks very much. > > Ed in Maine > edwardz450@aol.com I don't have a performance document at hand, and wouldn't be allowed to quote from it anyway :-), but I think I can remember enough general performance stuff to help a bit. The 757 is one of a number of twin engine airplanes that cruise at Mach 0.80, which is about 530 knots at cruise altitude (I think), or 610 mph for the rest of you. This is not the airplane's maximum speed, but rather its long range cruise Mach. A decrease in the airplane's speed would take it out of its most efficient operating condition and could actually cause the engines to burn more fuel. An increase in the speed would cause the drag to rise rapidly, causing a rapid increase in fuel burned. BTW, get used to Mach .80 as a cruise speed. That is getting to be a very common, almost a standard, cruise speed target for twins. The heavier three and four engine airplanes can cruise faster, but they were all designed some time ago - with one notable exception (the A340) which cruises at about Mach .82 as compared to the 747's cruise Mach of .855. Climb and descent rates are operational constraints usually. Climb can be limited by load and ambient conditions (heavy, high, and hot are badness). Descent is limited by flight idle thrust on the engines at one end and maximum design speed on the other. I hesitate to give a typical descent Mach number; we use a standard one, but I don't remember what it is offhand. My experiences with maximum climb rates is limited to 737s. I did a fix on an airplane and got to do a test flight to check it out. The airplane was empty, the deck angle was about 40 degrees, and the vertical speed indicator was pegged at about 6,000 fpm. The pilot said he could climb faster if he wanted to. :-) The pastry was good. (All test flights with customer pilots on them are catered.) -- 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 Sat Apr 16 00:56:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Delta Tristar Operations References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Apr 94 00:56:40 In article , wrote: >I have observed three incidents in the last 9 months at Gatwick Airport >involving Delta Tristars which leave me a little puzzled. [First two cases deleted because I'm clueless] >In the third case yet another Delta Tristar was taking off when a main wheel >blew with a bang that was heard all over the airport. In fact we all thought >at first it was terrorists. The runway was closed for a good half hour while >the pieces were swept up. The Tristar continued to the States and landed safely >if a bit gingerly. I was surprised the aircraft decided to continue with its >trans-Atlantic flight given that I would have expected a real risk of the >debris puncturing the the wing tanks. IMHO, that was a good decision by the flight crew. A simple return to base would stress the remaining tires more than continuing normally because the airplane would be much lighter at its destination than it would be right after takeoff. The main gear (and the nose gear for that matter) are designed to be somewhat redundant. That is, if a tire blows, there should not be any cascading failures. A cascading failure would be another tire bursting because of the increased load generated by the loss of the first tire. Typically, a tire burst outside the gear well is considered pretty innocuous. Inside the gear well is another matter entirely. :-) The economic argument that the passengers paid to fly to Peoria (or wherever it was headed) and will be unhappy if they have to wait for another airplane would likely be a small influence in the decision to continue to the destination. I think the key issue was that it would be safer to continue than turn around and land. -- 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 Sat Apr 16 00:56:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jharuni@london.micrognosis.com (Jonathan Haruni) Subject: Re: Flutter & Swept Wing Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Micrognosis, a division of CSK(UK) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Apr 94 00:56:40 Richard G. Estock (estock@gandalf.rutgers.edu) wrote: > As I understand it, on a 7X7 wing there is in succession an: > inboard flap > inboard spoiler > tabs (2) > aileron > outboard flap > outboard spoiler Sorry, I don't know about flutter. But I do know the wing configuration of a 747. Near the body there is a set of flaps at the trailing edge, one at the leading edge, and a set of spoilers on top of the wing. Moving towards the tip, next there is the inboard engine with an aileron at the trailing edge of the wing, behind the engine. Moving outwards, you have an outboard set of flaps and spoilers as before, then the outboard engine, then finally another aileron at the trailing edge of the wing near the tip. > Not that I doubt anything, but I am curious as to why a 747 needs all > these flaps, spoilers, etc., and how they are used in actual practice. The inboard aileron is very small, and is for high speeds. During cruising I see it deployed just a few degrees for minor adjustments, and about 10 or 15 degrees for turns. The outboard aileron is relatively much bigger, and is used at low speeds - I've only ever seen it kick in on final approach, and then both ailerons are deflected 20 or 30 degrees just for small amounts of roll. At very low speeds, the outboard spoilers on one wing are used to assist the ailerons - the are raised about 20 degrees to drop the wing inside the turn (though they're not actually used in turns, only to level the plane on final approach.) After landing all the spoilers are raised to about 75 degrees. All these angles are from my observations from inside the plane, they're not accurate. That explains why there are multiple ailerons and why the outboard spoilers can be actuated seperately. As for the flaps being split, and for why the outboard spoilers are physically separated from the inboard ones, I think it is merely because the the inboard engine pod occupies all the space in the wing - there isn't enough room for spoiler actuators or for a whole set of flaps. The trailing flaps are enormous - three panels which, when retracted, nest into each other. Jonathan Haruni From kls Sun Apr 17 03:35:37 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: MD-11's with extra fuel tanks References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Apr 94 03:35:37 In article , Tassio Andrade Carvalho writes: >Is it true that Delta has special MD-11s with extra fuel tanks >in the cargo bay? That is true. Each tank adds 45 minutes of flight time and can be installed in about 12 hours. Sorry, I don't have more details than this. From kls Sun Apr 17 03:35:37 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: robertposh@aol.com (Robertposh) Subject: Aircraft Fire Protection/Mishap Investigation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Apr 94 03:35:37 A four day course on aircraft fire prevention/protection and mishap fire pattern investigation will be offered in Dayton Ohio 20-23 June 1994. Contact AFP Associates at 513 435-8778 or email robertposh@aol.com for additional information. From kls Thu Apr 21 00:25:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: triebelh@rastro.Colorado.EDU (TRIEBELHORN JEFFREY WERNER) Subject: A320 question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Apr 94 00:25:40 Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder I have noticed that the cargo doors on the a320 have an unusually large width. Is there an option for a containerized cargo system? United has a nesting system in both the front and rear in their fleet of 320s. The reason why I ask, is that one night in Denver, I saw a Mexicana 320 with a cargo loader pulled up at the rear of the plane. I could not see any special cans or pods near the plane. I have not seen that since then. Just wondering, Jeff -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Jeff Triebelhorn [$] [$] [$] triebelh@rastro.colorado.edu Cha-ching, Cha-ching, CHA-CHING! Vegas Bound From kls Thu Apr 21 00:25:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mlenick@aol.com (MLENICK) Subject: volcanic Ash Encounters Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Apr 94 00:25:41 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) I'm looking for information about jet aircraft encounters with volcanic ash clouds. I've viewed the Boeing video on the subject and it is very informative but I would like to hear from those on the flight deck. Please Email to MLENICK@DOT.GOV or From kls Thu Apr 21 00:25:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mentor21@aol.com (Mentor21) Subject: Re: Valsan 727 modifications References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Apr 94 00:25:41 Volpar got permission from the FAA to pursue a 2 engine 727 reengining, but it was too little too late, and Volpar was headed fast down the tubes by then, anyway. Also, it appears that the increased nacelle area would blanket the horizontal tail at high alpha, increasing the likelihood of pesky deep stall. Speaking of Valsan, what's Bob Wagenfeld up to these days? -Bill From kls Thu Apr 21 00:25:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: Stalls Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Apr 94 00:25:41 There have been a number of incidents lately (Singapore 747-400 and others) where a jetliner has stalled at high speed at or near cruising altitude. I don't understand how this happens...could someone explain? Thanks Toby From kls Thu Apr 21 00:25:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: flight@ENGR.ORST.EDU (KenFunk surveyaccount) Subject: Flightdeck Automation: request for input Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Apr 94 00:25:41 Oregon State University, America West Airlines, and Honeywell are conducting a study of flightdeck automation for the Federal Aviation Administration which requires input from the aviation community. The increasing use of automation on the flightdecks of commercial transport aircraft has raised concerns about the overall safety effects of this equipment. While several studies have attempted to address some of these automation issues, until now no one has tried to systematically identify all issues that exist about flightdeck automation. The objectives of this study are to collect and compile a comprehensive list of all flightdeck automation problems and concerns and to address them in order to identify or generate recommendations and guidelines for the FAA, manufacturers, and operators. To achieve these objectives we are soliciting information on problems and concerns from the aviation community. When we have compiled these problems and concerns we will prioritize them, study the highest priority items using analytic methods and simulator studies, and identify and develop recommendations based on our findings. If you have direct knowledge about commercial transport aircraft flightdecks and you know of problems with flightdeck automation or have concerns about the safety of such automation, you can help us by filling out a copy of our Flightdeck Automation Problems and Concerns Questionnaire. This is an opportunity for you to contribute to flight safety and, if you wish, we will put you on our distribution list to receive copies of reports on the results of our study. If you would like to fill out a questionnaire, send a message to flight@engr.orst.edu (don't post your request to this newsgroup!). Request a copy of the Flightdeck Automation Questionnaire, and I will send you a copy via e-mail. When you have completed it (which should take between 15 and 30 minutes), just e-mail the completed version back to me. The problems and concerns you identify will be added to our database and used in our study. Ken Funk Assistant Professor of Ind. and Mfg. Engineering Oregon State University e-mail: flight@engr.orst.edu, funkk@engr.orst.edu phone: (503) 737-2357 FAX: (503) 737-5241 From kls Thu Apr 21 23:18:37 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: A320 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Apr 94 23:18:37 In article , TRIEBELHORN JEFFREY WERNER wrote: >I have noticed that the cargo doors on the a320 have an unusually large >width. >Is there an option for a containerized cargo system? United has a nesting >system in both the front and rear in their fleet of 320s. The reason why >I ask, is that one night in Denver, I saw a Mexicana 320 with a cargo >loader pulled up at the rear of the plane. I could not see any special >cans or pods near the plane. I have not seen that since then. > Just wondering, Yes, Airbus has a containerized cargo system option for the A320, and presumably for the A319 and A321 as well since they share the same basic cross-section. The containerized cargo option is, I understand, fairly popular with European airlines because of union work rules, but is not very popular elsewhere because of the added weight penalty. I am not familiar with Mexicana's airplanes, and so cannot comment in detail on their configuration. -- 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 Apr 21 23:18:38 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Stalls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Apr 94 23:18:38 In article , Tobias Henry Lutterodt wrote: > >There have been a number of incidents lately (Singapore 747-400 and others) >where a jetliner has stalled at high speed at or near cruising altitude. > >I don't understand how this happens...could someone explain? In general, a high speed stall in a commercial jet transports occurs because the wing is put at too high an angle of attack (this is actually the general definition of a stall). The wing at cruise is working quite hard, with the midspan and outboard wings near their maximum coefficients of lift. A small change in angle of attack can cause flow separation and subsequent loss of lift. This change in angle of attack can be caused by pitching the airplane up with the elevators, or by deploying high-lift devices (a la the MD-11 that had to land at Shemya). The airplane can also stall because it is moving so fast that the shockwave along the upper surface of the wing becomes so strong that the flow separates behind it. This is a Mach buffet. Contributing factors are weight (which falls out as an angle of attack) and ambient air conditions. -- 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 Apr 21 23:18:38 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Stalls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Apr 94 23:18:38 In article Tobias Henry Lutterodt writes: > >There have been a number of incidents lately (Singapore 747-400 and others) >where a jetliner has stalled at high speed at or near cruising altitude. > >I don't understand how this happens...could someone explain? The higher you fly, the higher the stall speed goes. The higher you fly, the faster your true airspeed gets, and the closer you get to high-speed buffet. Buffet is simply defined as a separation of the airflow off the wing: low- speed buffet is a stall. High-speed buffet occurs as a result of shock wave formation. The higher you fly, the closer low-speed and high-speed buffet get: the point at which the two curves intersect is called "coffin corner," which claimed a number of lives in the 50s. The crtical altitude limitation is defined by the loading you wish to exert. If you load the airplane, the stall speed will go up; therefore, high-G maneuvers at high altitude are discouraged, as the stall speed can rapidly be made to converge on the high-speed buffet speed. The operational altitude limitation for an airliner is based on a margin to allow normal en route maneuvering; this is normally 1.3Gs, or a 30 degree bank, and is a function of atmospheric conditions and airplane weight. The reason we're seeing more high-altitude upsets is because these limits are being exceeded, either through operator error or autopilot malfunction. Often a combination of the two: an autopilot malfunction which the operator does not perceive and correct. The safety measures for jet transport aircraft come in the form of a stick shaker (a vibrating motor attached to one or both pilots' control columns, when approaching stall speed), a VMO pointer on the airspeed indicator, and deductive reasoning based on projected vs. actual airspeed characteristics. On glassy airplanes (747-400, A3[2-4]0), there are also indicators to show the stall boundary. The short version here is that the airplanes do not fly very near coffin corner; there is actually quite an airspeed margin. There are major screw-ups occurring elsewhere, of which the stall is just a side-effect, and often occurs only part of the time; the incidents I'm familiar with have alternated between punching VMO and stall, as the pilots attempt to recover. -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Fri Apr 22 11:29:46 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.folklore.urban Path: bounce-back From: pypbf@csv.warwick.ac.uk (D.M.Procida) Subject: How to become irradiated at 30 000 feet. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Apr 94 11:29:46 Organization: University of Warwick, Coventry, UK My friend- who, I might add, is afu-conscious- tells me that he heard (or read or saw) something quite worrying about air travel: on a trans-Atlantic flight, one receives substantial doses of radiation. This is because there is much less atmosphere above to absorb the nasties. I presume the radiation in question is gamma radiation, by the way. Anyway, he added that this dose is so strong that a single trans-Atlantic flight is as good as living next door to a nuclear power station for the rest of your life, and that you shouldn't have any x-rays for the next year. What I want to know is a) why, in that case, don't the children of airline pilots all have the wrong number of digits and b) can aircraft be made out of lead? I'm quite sceptical of the *quantities* in this little piece of knowledge (though the idea seems about right). Any offers? By the way, please note that this has been cross-posted to sci.aeronautics.airliners, and that follow-ups should go to alt.folklore.urban. Daniele "The unfriendly skies indeed" Procida From kls Fri Apr 22 11:29:46 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.folklore.urban,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: How to become irradiated at 30 000 feet. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Apr 94 11:29:46 [I almost rejected this for sci.aeronautics.airliners as being too far off the focus of a technical discussion, but upon some reflection it does post some potential concerns for airliner design. Please note that followups have been redirected to alt.folklore.urban, though I'll consider any reasonable followups that anyone might choose to submit to sci.aeronautics.airliners. Karl, moderator of s.a.a.] D.M.Procida writes: >My friend- who, I might add, is afu-conscious- tells me that he heard ... >on a trans-Atlantic flight, one receives substantial doses of radiation. >This is because there is much less atmosphere above to absorb the nasties. Concerns have been raised in the past, primarily by unions such as the AFU, about the radiation dangers of commercial jet flights. Note that there is less atmosphere above you at 39,000 feet regardless of where you happen to be -- New York to Los Angeles is probably just as bad as a trans-Atlantic flight. One might make a case, however, that the planet's magnetic field sufficiently concentrates radiation near the polar regions to add to the risk. This would slightly elevate the risk on trans-Atlantic flights, as well as some trans-Pacific flights. >I presume the radiation in question is gamma radiation, by the way. The radiation is cosmic rays, of which gamma radiation is merely one component. It is, however, the most likely component to penetrate to where it might do some damage, and also the most energetic. >Anyway, he added that this dose is so strong that a single trans-Atlantic >flight is as good as living next door to a nuclear power station for the >rest of your life ... "As good as" is perhaps more appropriate here than you intended. After the Three Mile Island accident, radiation measurements were taken one mile away from the power station and inside the chambers of the United States Senate. The latter location had dramatically higher radiation counts, at least an order of magnitude higher if I recall correctly. Granite is a great source of radiation, while plain old concrete is pretty active too. From a radiation stand- point, living next door to a nuclear power station might easily be better than simply going to work, never mind flying. (At least as long as nothing nasty happens to the power plant, of course!) >why, in that case, don't the children of airline pilots all have the >wrong number of digits Perhaps because the veracity of the radiation claims is severely strained? >can aircraft be made out of lead? Certainly. I assume you've heard of a lead balloon as well. Neither one flies. (Reminds me of a boat my father purportedly built when he was a lad. A budding structural engineer, he used enough nails to keep the thing solid for all eternity. When placed in water, it promptly sank.) >I'm quite sceptical of the *quantities* in this little piece of knowledge >(though the idea seems about right). Any offers? There are concerns, though as you suspect your friend's numbers are way off, probably by several orders of magnitude. I'd be interested in hearing what, if anything, the manufacturers are doing in this area, or if they even view it as a concern. While lead is impractical due to weight, there may be other steps which can be taken to reduce the risks, if warranted. Note that this should be a greater concern with the HSCT, since it will undoubtedly fly at much greater altitudes than current, sub-sonic commercial jets. (Is there anything special about Concorde or its operation to address any radiation concerns?) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Apr 22 11:49:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: jacob@plasma2.ssl.berkeley.edu (Fungi from Berkeley) Subject: 757 airfoil specs Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Apr 94 11:49:44 Organization: U. C. Berkeley Space Sciences Laboratory I need some info on Beoing 757 wing sections, mainly the type(s) of airfoil sections used in the wing. Also AR, span, and winglet specs (if any) would be helpful. Can someone supply me with this info or point me in the right direction? (If you're curious, this is for an FAA research project on vortex shedding. I'd like my airfoil to be as close to the 757's as possible.) Thanks, jacob@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu From kls Fri Apr 22 20:29:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.folklore.urban Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: How to become irradiated at 30 000 feet. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Apr 94 20:29:50 In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: (Is there anything special about Concorde or its operation to address any radiation concerns?) ------ Well, it's not my usual source for postings to s.a.a, but Cecil Adams of the Straight Dope column addressed this question in one of his books, and concluded pretty much the same as you did. He did mention that the Concorde had radiation detectors which advised the pilot to descend if a certain radiation level was reached (50 millirems per hour ?). Anyways, in the first several years of flight, the detectors had yet to measure one tenth the alarm value. Cecil Adams tends to shoot straight and research his answers about technology fairly well, so I don't feel too anxious about posting this... ed From kls Fri Apr 22 20:29:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ap183@freenet.carleton.ca (Kyle D. Jackson) Subject: Re: Stalls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ap183@freenet.carleton.ca (Kyle D. Jackson) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Apr 94 20:29:50 In a previous article, drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) says: >devices (a la the MD-11 that had to land at Shemya). The airplane can also >stall because it is moving so fast that the shockwave along the upper >surface of the wing becomes so strong that the flow separates behind it. >This is a Mach buffet. Contributing factors are weight (which falls out as >an angle of attack) and ambient air conditions. I had the understanding that the commercial transport aircraft were designed with supercritical airfoils to completely avoid the chance of a sonic shock forming on the upper wing surface... -- L8R! RadiKyle kjackson@maaeng.carleton.ca ap183@freenet.carleton.ca -- From kls Fri Apr 22 20:31:05 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: molsen@iti.org (Michael E. Olsen) Subject: Re: 757 airfoil specs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: molsen@kyzyl.arc.nasa.gov Organization: NASA Ames Research Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Apr 94 20:31:05 jacob@plasma2.ssl.berkeley.edu (Fungi from Berkeley) writes: : I need some info on Beoing 757 wing sections, mainly the type(s) : of airfoil sections used in the wing. Also AR, span, and winglet : specs (if any) would be helpful. : : jacob@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu : If you're handing these out, I'd be interested myself. I'm in an experimental fluids branch, and we're considering designing an code validation experiment which would be applicable to transport type aircraft. I would also be very interested in talking with any actual transport wing designers. Our object would be to produce a model which will give all the flow field phenomenon experienced by a "real live transport", but in a geometry easily and reliably(sp?) gridded. My initial look at the subject gives me the impression that there is an optimal AR and taper ratio with some variation in the sweep angles and chord vs. y distribution. My experimental inclination is to go with "no twist" wings (so that you have a built in 2nd experiment to check the tunnel/model asymmetries), but I am led to believe that this would be a non-starter for any "real wing designer". Any input would be appreciated. BTW, with the current funding situation, and our long term "well you did it with x people, and got the job done, so you should be able to do it with x-1" situation, I wouldn't hold your breath on getting the data back quickly (x is now in the range [0,2]). However, if you'd like to see some reliable code validation data, this would be a good chance to give your input on the "ground floor". If we'll still be doing experiments, I wouldn't be surprised if the experiment started in 3yrs, and the data was available 2yrs after that. In order to actually have a chance to get this done in that type of timeframe, we're going to have to begin to 'cut metal' in December, so now is the time. -- Mike Olsen molsen@kyzyl.arc.nasa.gov (415)604-6200 From kls Sun Apr 24 22:23:42 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: etate@mcl.bdm.com (C. Emory Tate) Subject: Re: Stalls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BDM Federal, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Apr 94 22:23:42 In article , ap183@freenet.carleton.ca (Kyle D. Jackson) says: >In a previous article, drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) says: > >>devices (a la the MD-11 that had to land at Shemya). The airplane can also >>stall because it is moving so fast that the shockwave along the upper >>surface of the wing becomes so strong that the flow separates behind it. >>This is a Mach buffet. Contributing factors are weight (which falls out as >>an angle of attack) and ambient air conditions. > >I had the understanding that the commercial transport aircraft were designed >with supercritical airfoils to completely avoid the chance of a sonic shock >forming on the upper wing surface... hehehe... you obviously never had a down-sun, over-wing window seat on a 747 or DC-10... transoceanic in midafternoon's usually a good time. You can see the Mach front quite clearly as a (Schlieren?) refraction line, extending straight up for a foot or two, and then aft... about mid-chord, but jumping back and forth slightly according to small variations in airflow (it looks like the edge of a bubble, or a wake wavelet in clear water). Maybe more modern aircraft have supercrit wings, but the old hosses are still flying. ___________________________________________________________ C. E. Tate etate@mcl.bdm.com snailmail: BDM Federal, Inc. 1501 BDM Way McLean, VA 22102 ___________________________________________________________ Stick forward and opposite rudder to stop the spin... ___________________________________________________________ From kls Sun Apr 24 22:23:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Stalls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Apr 94 22:23:43 In article ap183@freenet.carleton.ca (Kyle D. Jackson) writes: > >I had the understanding that the commercial transport aircraft were designed >with supercritical airfoils to completely avoid the chance of a sonic shock >forming on the upper wing surface... As I understand it, one purpose of supercritical wings is to delay shock- wave formation, pushing it further back along the wing, and to make sure it appears only at higher speeds. The advantage being primarily drag reduction. Supercritical wings (memory tells me) delay the onset to about M 1.0. But the shockwaves still exist. You can see them when the airplane is flying 90 degrees to the sun; the shockwaves change the refractive property of air in the vicinity, and can be seen as little span-wise reflections dancing along the middle to rear of the wing. -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Sun Apr 24 22:23:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: newgroup sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Apr 94 22:23:43 The following may be of interest to some sci.aeronautics.airliners readers ... === From: tale@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence) Subject: newgroup sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 14:30:32 GMT sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics is an unmoderated newsgroup which passed its vote for creation by 605:22 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on 14 Apr 1994. For your newsgroups file: sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics Computaional fluid dynamics. The charter, culled from the call for votes: sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics is a forum for the discussion of all issues relating to computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Discussion on all aspects of CFD are welcome, including, but not limited to: * grid generation - elliptic, algebraic, adaptive, structured, unstructured, 2D, 3D, * Specific flow problems: plasmas, real gases, MHD * Multigrid methods * Finite difference methods * Finite volume methods * Finite element methods * Panel methods * Solution issues: explicit vs. implicit, structured grids vs. unstructured, ADI vs. SLOR, etc. * Higher order numerical methods (TVD, ENO) * Turbulence Modeling * Commercial codes - problems, issues, limitations * Visualization * Code validation From kls Wed Apr 27 01:22:25 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@orchard.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Accident in Japan References: <2pk3joINNo2g@OAK.THEORY.CS.YALE.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: rec.travel.air Organization: Chicago Software Works Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 94 01:22:25 In article <2pk3joINNo2g@OAK.THEORY.CS.YALE.EDU> yan-dicky@cs.yale.edu (Dicky Yan) writes: >Is there an accident in Japan (Nogoya Airport?) concerning a plane >from Taiwan (or flown by a Taiwanese company)? China Air flight 140 crashed at Nagoya, killing 261 of the 271 people aboard. Apparently they attempted a go-around shortly before landing. At least one report I saw suggested the landing gear might not have been down. One might speculate that they simply noticed the landing gear (or lack thereof) too late and hit while trying to go around, but the landing gear reports may not even be accurate. According to an Airbus Industrie comment, the aircraft was delivered in 1991. This would appear to be registration B-1816 (construction number 580), an A300B4-622R, and the first A300-600 to go down. Before people go nuts, the A300-600 is *NOT* a fly-by-wire (FBW) aircraft, though it does have a glass cockpit and significant other refinements over earlier A300 models. While the A320 arguably has some rather serious design flaws, this crash no more provides useful evidence for or against Airbus and the A320 than did last month's Aeroflot A310 crash, wherein the captain was allegedly giving his kids flying lessons when his son caused the autopilot to switch off. Both the A300 and A310 are solid airplanes that had decent records up until a couple of years ago, when they seem to have started a run of rather bad luck that has thus-far not been the fault of the aircraft. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Apr 27 01:22:25 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: 757 Airfoil Specs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 94 01:22:25 The 757's airfoils are not in the public domain. However, you can approximate them with a supercritical airfoil with some aft loading - not as much as the NASA supercritical airfoils though. An airfoil closely related to the 767's outer wing airfoil appears in NASA CR 159093. However, the 767 wing very different from the 757 wing. The 757 was a Renton designed wing, while the 767 has an Everett designed wing. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Apr 27 01:22:25 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mdrews@dsd.es.com (Michael Drews) Subject: Re: Stalls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: mdrews@dsd.es.com (Michael Drews) Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 94 01:22:25 This talk about stalls reminded me of an interesting "view out the window" on a 757 flight from CVG to SLC a few years ago. I was on the north side of the plane directly over the wing, and noticed an odd shadow on the wing which would shift several inches back and forth in the light turbulence. Then I noticed a line of distortion in my view matching the position of the shadow. It appeared to be a vertical plane of distortion similar to the distortion seen from heated air rising from a hot road. The sunlight angle was perpendic- ular to the direction of flight, so I had ideal viewing conditions. My guess is that this was a shockwave associated with flow over the wing was at or near Mach speed. I had never heard of shockwaves with commercial transports until this stall thread came up. Opinions? Michael Drews (Usually just a lurker here.) -- From kls Wed Apr 27 01:22:26 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Stalls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 94 01:22:26 A supercritical airfoil just minimizes the shock strength present on a wing. If a wing is designed to be shock free, it is only at one operating condition and it has been found that this just allows the wing to be taken to a higher cruise speed, where a shock will then be present. Transonic wings exhibit best performance when slightly into drag divergence. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Apr 27 01:22:26 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Stalls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 94 01:22:26 Kyle D. Jackson wrote: > >I had the understanding that the commercial transport aircraft were designed >with supercritical airfoils to completely avoid the chance of a sonic shock >forming on the upper wing surface... Not so. The supercritical airfoil delays the formation of the shock, and allows placement of the shock to some extent, but does not eliminate it. All commercial jet transport wings form a weak shock on the upper surface during cruise, as far as I know. -- 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 Apr 27 01:25:54 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: 757 airfoil specs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 94 01:25:54 Fungi from Berkeley wrote: >I need some info on Beoing 757 wing sections, mainly the type(s) >of airfoil sections used in the wing. Also AR, span, and winglet >specs (if any) would be helpful. Can someone supply me with this >info or point me in the right direction? The 757, like all current commercial jet transports, uses a supercritical airfoil section. The exact definition of that airfoil is probably considered proprietary. However, there is no reason you can't ask to see if the company would give you something close. Try a letter on your official letterhead stationery with an enclosure describing the project. I'll find you a name and mailstop if you are interested. The public data are as follows: Aspect ratio 8.4 (trapezoid) Span 124 ft 6" Wing area 1951 sq ft (reference) The 757 has never had a winglet. -- 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 Apr 27 12:59:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Accident in Japan References: <2pk3joINNo2g@OAK.THEORY.CS.YALE.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 94 12:59:43 Karl Swartz writes (27 Apr 94 01:22:25):- > China Air flight 140 crashed at Nagoya, killing 261 of the 271 people > aboard. Apparently they attempted a go-around shortly before landing. > At least one report I saw suggested the landing gear might not have > been down. There seems to be limited interest in this in the UK media. (None of the passengers were British, and, as the woman at the BBC said when I rang up to get some information about the Warsaw crash, "No bodies, no story!" :-) The item had even disappeared from the BBC Radio 4 news this morning. It made the front page of yesterday's London Evening Standard, and the back page of this morning's Guardian, but the reports are very sketchy. The Grauniad filled most of its column inches with reports of previous crashes, which is a sure sign they know b***** all about this one! (They append a table of Airbus crashes, which omits Warsaw! :-) The few solid facts that have emerged are:- - Aircraft type is described simply as "A300-600R". Karl's information was much more precise: > According to an Airbus Industrie comment, the aircraft was delivered > in 1991. This would appear to be registration B-1816 (construction > number 580), an A300B4-622R, and the first A300-600 to go down. - Engines were Pratt & Whitney 4000. - Casualties: (Grauniad) 259 dead, 2 missing presumed killed, 11 survivors. - Flight was from Taipei (Taiwan) to Nagoya (Japan). Crash occurred on Tuesday 26th April at 2015 local time (1115 GMT) at south end of runway (near the threshold? - reports don't say). Nagoya has only one runway, which is shared by civilian and military aircraft. Weather was fine with little or no wind. - (Grauniad) Eyewitness interviewed on Japanese NHK TV network stated: "The plane was coming in on a glide path but suddenly pulled up in a steep ascent. Then I saw the engines catch fire. It crashed and there was an explosion." - (Grauniad) Last exchange with control tower was: A/C: "CAL 140 going around." Tower: "CAL 140 stand by for further instructions." As Karl says, the A300-600 is not fly-by-wire. Pete ---- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB Tel: +44 (71) 477-8422, Fax.: +44 (71) 477-8585, E-mail (JANET): p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Apr 27 12:59:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: hulburt@leland.stanford.edu (Greg Payne) Subject: Re: 757 airfoil specs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: hulburt@leland.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 94 12:59:43 In article jacob@plasma2.ssl.berkeley.edu (Fungi from Berkeley) writes: > I need some info on Beoing 757 wing sections, mainly the type(s) > of airfoil sections used in the wing. Also AR, span, and winglet > specs (if any) would be helpful. Can someone supply me with this > info or point me in the right direction? Hopefully this isn't too far off track... since Boeing's airfoil sections are probably proprietary, a good summary of what NASA has been doing on supercritical wings is "NASA Supercritical Airfoils", Nasa Technical Paper 2969. Greg -->looking for pointers to aero jobs in the Bay Area<--- From kls Fri May 6 18:02:13 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: pmc@merit.edu (Philip M. Chuang) Subject: B- country code (was Re: Accident in Japan) References: <2pk3joINNo2g@OAK.THEORY.CS.YALE.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: rec.travel.air Organization: University of Michigan Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 May 94 18:02:13 Karl, Fine information, as per usual. >According to an Airbus Industrie comment, the aircraft was delivered >in 1991. This would appear to be registration B-1816 (construction >number 580), an A300B4-622R, and the first A300-600 to go down. Incidentally, according to Taiwanese television reports as of Friday, China Airlines is still trying to determine how much to compensate the victims' families. During a news conference the airline's vice chairman said that he wanted the family to receive as much money as possible, but said that paying them too much money would "unfairly obligate other carriers in future fatal accidents." Also, one wonders if this might mean trouble for Pratt& Whitney, who has powered every CI Jet. CI was already upset with power-surge problems with the PW 4000's on their MD-11's. Now that CI has lost two PW 4000-powered hulls in a few months, CI might switch powerplant vendors, just as JAL switched to GE engines for their 747-400's. Lastly, just curious, since both China and Taiwan use the B- national prefix, short of keeping diligent lists, is there a way to tell which B- aircraft are registered in China and which in Taiwan? Is there any number that's registered to one aircraft in China and another in Taiwan? From kls Fri May 6 18:02:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hac@kinkoman.res.utc.com Subject: Nagoya crash info Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 May 94 18:02:14 Here is a summary of reports on Flight CI140 made by a Taiwanese newspaper published in the U.S. in the last few days: Initial analysis of the cockpit recordings indicated that the co-pilot was in command during the landing. The pilot was giving instructions (mostly in Chinese) to the co-pilot. The co-pilot had only a bit over 1,000 hrs of experience, while the pilot had some 8,000 hrs of experience on the A300. >From the recordings, it was almost confirmed that the plane crashed after the crew pulled up too quickly and stalled the plane. However, many Japanese "experts" (i.e., current Airbus pilots) believed that there were malfunctions in the controls (especially the computers, i.e., they believed that the CAL crew were not able to manually override the computers). When the crew realized that the altitude was too high for the first landing and decided to go around, the co-pilot said he couldn't "push it up" (translation), then the pilot took over and couldn't "push it up", either. Whether they couldn't "push up" the engine throttle and the yoke, it was not clear from the cockpit conversation. The last words from the cockpit were "It's over, it's over." All of the survivors (two Taiwanese, one Filipino, and six Japanese including three very young kids) sat near or in front of the wing. This is the fifth CAL crashes in ten years (two 737-200's, one 747-200F, one 747-400, and the A300). NOTE: The newspaper (and/or the Japanese experts) did make an ignorant comment about the similarity of the A300 and A320 "computers". -- +--------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------+ | H Andrew Chuang | | T&CFD | | hac@utrc.utc.com | | United Technologies Research Center | | Tel (203) 727-7128 | | 411 Silver Lane, MS 129-20 | | Fax (203) 727-7656 | | East Hartford, CT 06108 | +--------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------+ From kls Fri May 6 18:02:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tony Heatwole Subject: Exhaust fumes in aircraft cabin? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 May 94 18:02:14 Earlier this week while waiting to take off at DFW (with 20 planes in front of us) I noticed a strong smell of exhaust fumes in the cabin. I've noticed this from time to time before, but the long wait made me think about it: 1. Where do the fumes come from? The engines on my plane or the planes in front of us? If the cabin air is being re- circulated from bleed air from the engines, we shouldn't be getting any of our own exhaust. 2. While they were only slightly unpleasant, how bad are the fumes in a case like this. In particular, how much carbon monoxide is there likely to be in it? Any ideas? Tony Heatwole Gaithersburg, MD heatwole@clark.net From kls Fri May 6 18:02:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ngupta@nano.mit.edu (Nitin Gupta) Subject: Re: Stalls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 May 94 18:02:14 rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: > But the shockwaves still exist. You can see them when the airplane is > flying 90 degrees to the sun; the shockwaves change the refractive > property of air in the vicinity, and can be seen as little span-wise > reflections dancing along the middle to rear of the wing. I looked into this, and i'm not so sure that the faint "reflections" are due to changes in refractive index. To be sure, pressure and temperature do change n, the refractive index, of air. At 15degC and 1atm pressure at 500nm wavelength light (dominant visible for humans), n=1.00028. At worst case (to maximize deviation from "standard condition"), n=1.00059 at 2atm and 1.0030 at 10atm pressure and 0degC. Unless these shockwaves are of very large pressure, I do not see n changing enough to manifest enough contrast to actually be visible on a sunny day. I'm not into airfoil dynamics, so I have no idea what the nature of schockwaves are in terms of their temporal pressure. Reference: 74th ed. CRC blue skies --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nitin Gupta MIT NanoStructures Laboratory ngupta@nano.mit.edu NeXT Mail Encouraged 617 253 0722 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Fri May 6 18:02:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fern@nosc.mil (David G. Fern) Subject: Re: Stalls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 May 94 18:02:14 mdrews@dsd.es.com (Michael Drews) writes: >This talk about stalls reminded me of an interesting "view out the >window" on a 757 flight from CVG to SLC a few years ago. I was on >the north side of the plane directly over the wing, and noticed an >odd shadow on the wing which would shift several inches back and >forth in the light turbulence. Then I noticed a line of distortion >in my view matching the position of the shadow. It appeared to be >a vertical plane of distortion similar to the distortion seen from >heated air rising from a hot road. The sunlight angle was perpendic- >ular to the direction of flight, so I had ideal viewing conditions. > My guess is that this was a shockwave associated with flow over >the wing was at or near Mach speed. I had never heard of shockwaves >with commercial transports until this stall thread came up. Opinions? I have seen the same thing-- yes, it is a shock wave. It moves around as the plane jostles lightly in turbulence and moves back and forth along the wing as the plane changes spped. I have only seen this once in many years of flying-- and I too was curious as to the combination of conditions that combined to make the shock wave visible. My flight was over northern Canada in the winter (although at FL350 the season probably doesn't matter too much). David Fern fern@manta.nosc.mil From kls Fri May 6 18:02:15 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: leishman@hellcat.eng.umd.edu (leishman) Subject: Shocks on transport wings (was stalls) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Maryland, College Park Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 May 94 18:02:15 >>Michael Drews writes: >>My guess is that this was a shockwave associated with flow over >>the wing was at or near Mach speed. I had never heard of shockwaves >>with commercial transports until this stall thread came up. Opinions? Yes, indeed! What you were seeing was, in fact, a shadowgram (or shadowgraph) of the shockwave on the wing. I have seen this many many many times from the windows of various aircraft including B-757, DC-10, B-747 etc. You need to know what to look for, but if the sun is in the right location (preferably above, so about mid-day is a good time), the sunlight is refracted (bent) out of its original path as it passes through the high density gradients at the the shockwave, and a shadow (usually a fairly fine dark line) is cast onto the wing surface. There may be several finer dark/bright lines since the shock is three-dimensional, and there will be multiple light paths that undergo refraction. You may also see a region of "distortion" off the wing surface which again indicates refraction through the density gradients in the flow near the shock, although this latter phenomenon is harder to see under most lighting conditions. If you are really lucky, you will see the shockwave shadow all the way along the wing to near the tip and you will see how much more three-dimensional the flow becomes in the vicinity of the engines, such as on a DC-10. As the aircraft flies though turbulence you will also see the shadow move as the shock wave repositions itself under the (very mild!) unsteady flow conditions. In my experience, the B-757 seems to show a fairly pronounced shadow compared with say a 767 or a DC-10 but this may also be related to the lighting conditions, viewing angle etc. For most modern transport aircraft with supercritical airfoils the shock is quite far back from the leading edge and you can certainly see the shockwave shadow under a wide variety of conditions if your seat is over the wing and if you look very carefully. I also have a couple of textbooks and reports that document this observation. One even has a photo of a shadowgram of the shockwave on a B-707 wing. I will admit however, that although I have seen the phenomena many times, making a decent photograph has been difficult. Now, only if we could convince Boeing to cover one wing of a 757 with 3M Scotchlite retroreflective film, then we could have some real interesting stuff to talk about! Real science from your airplane window! Have fun! J. Gordon Leishman Associate Professor of Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland at College Park. leishman@eng.umd.edu From kls Fri May 6 18:02:15 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: How to become irradiated at 30 000 feet. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 May 94 18:02:15 In article pypbf@csv.warwick.ac.uk (D.M.Procida) writes: > >My friend- who, I might add, is afu-conscious- tells me that he heard (or >read or saw) something quite worrying about air travel: on a trans-Atlantic >flight, one receives substantial doses of radiation. This is because there >is much less atmosphere above to absorb the nasties. I presume the radiation >in question is gamma radiation, by the way. > >Anyway, he added that this dose is so strong that a single trans-Atlantic >flight is as good as living next door to a nuclear power station for the >rest of your life, and that you shouldn't have any x-rays for the next year. The June/July 1990 AIRLINE PILOT (the ALPA propaganda actually had a technical article on this subject. Some excerpts. "'...the estimated liftime cancer risks due to cosmic radiation exposure for cabin crew members flying 960 hours per year range from 90 to 1026 premature deaths per 100,000 individuals flying for 20 years on domestic flights, and from 220 to 512 premature deaths per 100,000 individuals flying for 10 years on international flights.' By comparison, about 22,000 out of 100,000, or one in five, persons will die from cancer from all causes. "The report also notes that the 'lifetime cancer risks for passengers flying 480 hours per year range from 45 to 513 premature deaths for flying 20 years and from 110 to 256 deaths for flying 10 years on international flights. In addition, there is a particular risk to the unborn--fetal exposure during weeks 2-15 of gestation greatly elevates the risk of retardation.' DOT cautions, however, that these risk data are not based on any study of actual cancer cases but on mathematical projections of the effects of low- level cosmic radiation based on what is known about higher radiation doses." More trivia: A flight from Houston to Austin, with a block time of 0.6 hours, yields a dose of 0.01 millirems. A flight from New York to Chicago, with a block time of 2.3 hours, yields 1.20 millirems. A flight from Tokyo to New York yields 12.6 hours and 9.10 millirems. A flight from New York to to Seattle yields 5.3 hours and 3.6 millirems. A flight from London to New York lasts 7.3 hours and 4.9 millirems. "The average person receives from 240 to 315 millirems of radiation per year from all sources. A chest X-ray produces about 10 millirems. The recommended limit for people in nonnuclear fields is 500 mrems per year. As recently as 30 years ago, 5000 millirems was the maximum allowable for annual occupational exposure." RE the Concorde: They are equipped with radiation monitors, but "are primarily solar-flare warning devices." "The monitors showed that the highest average dose-equivalent rate on a single flight was between 6 and 7 mrems/hour. The average level was 4 mrems/hour. The average encountered on the North Atlantic route between Paris and the United States was 1.52 mrems/hour." The article goes on to note earlier studies which guessed showed much lower levels of radiation (about 60%), and points out we really don't know that much about what's going on in the real world, because we don't monitor it. And not knowing what goes on, we can't justify monitoring it. A nice, typical, FAA catch-22. The article notes that the greatest risk is on long, high-latitude flights. And from my old physics textbook (O'Hanian, _Physics_), I get some random figures on typical exposures. Cosmic rays: 50 millirems/year Radioactivity of ground and buildings: 50 mrems/year Natural 40K in human body: 20 millirems/year Other natural radioactivity in human body: 4 millirems/year Radioactivity of air: 40 millirems/year For various medical X-rays: Mammography: 250-300 millirems (!) Upper GI: 150-400 millirems. Skull: 20-50 millirems. Chest: 5-35 millirems. Dental: 10-30 millirems. In other words, I'm really not going to lose any sleep over any of this. It merely confirms my distrust of hospitals and dentists. :-) -- Robert "Wearing dark shades" Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Fri May 6 18:02:16 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.folklore.urban,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: lhe@sics.se Subject: Re: How to become irradiated at 30 000 feet. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 May 94 18:02:16 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) sun". The regs specifically w(Is there anything special about Concorde or its operation to address any radiation concerns?) The Concorde has radiation meters. I have seen in (ICAO) ATC regulations a section titled something like "Emergency descent of supersonic aircraft due to increased radiation from the sun". The regs specifically warns that this will affect all supersonic aircraft in a given area simultaneously. Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: lhe@sics.se Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09 Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09 S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN Fax: +46 8 751 72 30 From kls Fri May 6 18:02:16 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Fred Christiansen" Subject: causes of go 'rounds? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 May 94 18:02:16 While driving past the PHX airport last Sunday, I observed an AmWest 737 descending to land and then pull up for a(n apparent) go 'round. My in-laws, who live fairly close to the airport, tell me that they see go 'rounds from time to time (well, with greater frequency than I would have tho't). What are the reasons for which a pilot might decide to go 'round? -- Fred Christiansen ("Canajun, eh?" from Ont) Email: fredch@phx.mcd.mot.com Disclaimer: I do not speak for Motorola Computer Group Fax: 602-438-3836 "For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof: but by a man of understanding and knowledge the state thereof shall be prolonged." Prov 28:2 From kls Sun May 8 23:50:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: TransAtlantic Twin Engine failure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 94 23:50:40 Larry Nebron posted an article in rec.travel.air that is very apropos of the issue of ETOPS, discussed in s.a.a some months back. I won't quote the whole article, since it's copyright and I'm not sure it should have been posted in its entirety anyway. Briefly a United 767 en route from London to LA landed in Churchill, Manitoba (on Hudson Bay) at an old SAC base after flying for 90 minutes with one bad engine. This was on Saturday, May 7. It would be interesting to hear more of the details of this, as people hear them. Most of the passengers apparently spent the night at a local diner, clearing them out of 4 days worth of food and spending a bundle in the process! And adventure in retrospect, but possibly not too enjoyable at the time the pilot announced the trouble... RNA From kls Sun May 8 23:50:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Exhaust fumes in aircraft cabin? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 94 23:50:40 In article Tony Heatwole writes: >Earlier this week while waiting to take off at DFW (with 20 planes >in front of us) I noticed a strong smell of exhaust fumes in the >cabin. I've noticed this from time to time before, but the long >wait made me think about it: > > 1. Where do the fumes come from? The engines on my plane or > the planes in front of us? If the cabin air is being re- > circulated from bleed air from the engines, we shouldn't > be getting any of our own exhaust. Right; they were coming from the planes in front of you. > 2. While they were only slightly unpleasant, how bad are the > fumes in a case like this. In particular, how much carbon > monoxide is there likely to be in it? I'd be less concerned about the carbon monoxide levels than the carcinogens being introduced into the cabin: kerosene's highly toxic. Probably not a problem for the average tourist, but how about the flight/cabin crew, frequent flyer, etc? And a random tidbit of data: WHEN an airplane's own exhaust can enter the cabin. On the 727, it's customary to shut down the #3 engine before starting the APU after landing. Reason: the APU exhaust is located in the right wing root, expels a great deal of smoke when started, and said smoke gets ingested by the #3 engine. This sudden introduction of smoke into the cabin is reported to alarm passengers, for some reason. :-) -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Mon May 9 15:34:16 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Jet Makes Emergency Landing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 May 94 15:34:16 [The following is reposted with permission from ClariNet. See end of message for details on ClariNet. Karl] ARKHANGELSK, Russia (AP) -- An Aeroflot jet carrying 62 people made an emergency landing in this Far North city on Saturday after the crew managed to replace missing hydraulic fluid with lemonade, a news report said. There were no injuries reported. But an airline duty officer said the Tupolev-134 suffered serious damage when it touched down without part of the landing gear in place. It was the latest embarrassment for Aeroflot, which has been struggling to salvage its reputation after two air disasters this year killed a total of 199 people and highlighted Russia's poor air-safety record. Flight 2315 from Moscow to Arkhangelsk on Saturday had 55 passengers and seven crew. As it prepared to land, two of the three sections of landing gear failed to come down because of a loss of hydraulic fluid, the ITAR-Tass news agency said. The report said that while the plane circled, the crew ``had to pour all the reserves of lemonade into the hydraulic system'' and managed to lower one more section of landing gear. Valentin Ignatiev, duty officer for Aeroflot in Moscow, said the plane ran off the runway and suffered wing damage. He could not confirm that lemonade was used in the hydraulic system. The airport in the White Sea city, about 620 miles north of Moscow, was closed for three hours. In January, 124 people died when an Aeroflot Tu-154 went down near Irkutsk. In March, 75 people were killed when an Airbus en route to Hong Kong crashed in Siberia. Government officials said cockpit recordings indicate a pilot's teen-age son had been at the controls. Last year, 11 Aeroflot planes crashed, killing 221 people. -- "Copyright 1994 by Reuters. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.biz.industry.aviation. For more info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS." From kls Thu May 12 13:19:34 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Air Canada's new Airbus A319 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 94 13:19:34 In article , Nikolai Nefedow wrote: >I've heard about Air Canada replacing its DC-9's with A319's (39 new >aircraft ???). I've flown on A310's and A320's but I've never heard >of the A319 ... Could some post a brief description ??? ... Karl ???? It's a shorter A320, about the size of a 737-300. Boeing and Airbus followed the same track with their babies. For the second generation, Boeing started with the 737-300, then stretched it to produce the -400, and finally shrunk it to produce the -500. Airbus went in exactly the same sequence -- A320, then A321, then A319. In fact, the third gen- eration 737 is starting off with the mid-sized model too, the 737-700. All this makes perfect sense, at least at the bottom end of the product line -- start with something reasonable, then stretch it as bigger engines become available and you learn just how much growth you have in the airframe. Finally, backfill with a tiny version for the small markets. While it may be a bit less efficient than a plane designed for that size from the start (consider an F-100 vs. a 737-500), those costs are easily dominated by economy of scale and fleet commonality for carriers with the bigger versions -- note that the two biggest 737 operators (United and Southwest) bought the 737-300, then later bought the 737-500, just as Air Canada bought the A320 and then the A319. -- 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 -- 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 May 12 13:19:34 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R Ebright) Subject: "Plane Was Doomed" - AP Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 94 13:19:34 AP has an article on the recent Airbus crash in Japan. Parts of it I just don't understand. The co-pilot had the plane in 'go around' mode while trying to land. According to AP "...the pilot warned the co-pilot, who was at the controls, three times in the next half-minute that the improper mode was in effect." That seems a little too polite. How should cockpit management have really worked? Further AP says ... "the co-pilot and the computer struggled to compensate for each other's actions, with the co-pilot trying to slow the plane and bring its nose lower and the computer attempting to accelerate and raise it. The computer prevailed by tilting flaps on the plane's tail called stabilizers to their maximum angle." The co-pilot then truns off 'go-around' mode but the computer program kept the stabilizers set at the sharp angle. The plane is now too high so the crew aborts the landing and turns 'go-around mode' back on. Then, evidently due to the computer program, "the engines surged and the jet began climbing at an extreme 53-degree angle, then stalled. Although the plane regained speed once, it stalled again, falling tail-first to the ground." The Airbus A300-600R operating manual warned the computer will retain partial operation of the controls and that "``may lead to a hazardous situation'' during landings and in go-around mode," (evidently a slight understatement). Further AP said "Airbus Industrie, the plane's maker, sent a recommendation last year to all airlines using the A300-600 series saying they should replace its computer software. It was unclear whether China Airlines had done so." With the computer software doing so much of the flight control on this airplane, what level of control is placed on updating it? Can you still fly with old s/w? Are there levels attached with updates some of which must be applied ASAP? If so, who decides what merits such a priority? -- A/~~\A 'moo2u from osu' Jim Ebright e-mail: ebright@bronze.coil.com ((0 0))_______ "A million dollars, ... I can get that. I can get that \ / the \ in cash. That's no problem." -secret White House tape. (--)\ OSU | "I am not a crook." -speech to American people by RM Nixon From kls Thu May 12 13:19:34 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rathinam@ins.infonet.net Subject: Re: Jet Makes Emergency Landing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rathinam@ins.infonet.net Organization: INS Info Services, Des Moines, IA USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 94 13:19:34 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >[The following is reposted with permission from ClariNet. See end of >message for details on ClariNet. Karl] > > ARKHANGELSK, Russia (AP) -- An Aeroflot jet carrying 62 people >made an emergency landing in this Far North city on Saturday after >the crew managed to replace missing hydraulic fluid with lemonade, >a news report said. [[...deleted]] > The report said that while the plane circled, the crew ``had to >pour all the reserves of lemonade into the hydraulic system'' and >managed to lower one more section of landing gear. [[...deleted]] >-- >"Copyright 1994 by Reuters. >Reposted with permission from the ClariNet Electronic Newspaper newsgroup >clari.biz.industry.aviation. [[...deleted]] Can you really replinish the hydraulic fluid when an airplane is in flight? How does one pour things into the hydraulic system - doesn't even the low pressure line have enough pressure to not accept 'pouring' anything into it (unless done at high pressure)? Is the hydraulic line accessible to the crew? As long as we are on the subject, what is the hydraulic fluid used in the commercial airplanes? (A better explanation than "BMS 3-11 Type IV fluid" - like the chemical composition, properties and viscousity comparisons would be nice). What are the primary criteria used to choose one such fluid over the other? ================================================================ Sethu R. Rathinam rathinam@ins.infonet.net From kls Thu May 12 13:19:34 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Arthur.Leung@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur Leung) Subject: flags at top of fuselage? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 94 13:19:34 Organization: Sun Microsystems Computer Corporation while i was watching japanese television, i noticed that the japanese 747 that is used as the official transport for the prime minister had a pair of small flags coming out of the top of the fuselage. they were gone when the aircraft departed. did someone go up and pull them or are they mechanically retracted? pardon the intrusion - i'm just a bit curious. -- arthur From kls Thu May 12 13:19:34 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mentor21@aol.com (Mentor21) Subject: Orbis DC-10-10ER Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 94 13:19:34 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) The Project Orbis DC-10-10ER (the second DC-10 built by Douglas) flew for the first time since undergoing a modification to become an airborne flying eye hospital. The flight took place 07 May 1994, at 17:15 from the Brookley Complex, Mobile, Alabama. The flight test included functional testing of the aircraft systems, and checks of deflection of the interior modules; the aircraft and mod did quite well. FAA flight test is scheduled for 30 May, with first operational flights to China shortly thereafter. Orbis provides an international service: eye surgery skills exchange and training, all to support the goal of preventing needless blindness worldwide. Orbis is a non profit humanitarian organization that relies on donations for economic survival. For more information, contact Orbis at the NYC office: 212 244 2525. From kls Thu May 12 13:19:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kwd@netcom.com (Kurt W. Dekker) Subject: Re: causes of go 'rounds? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 94 13:19:35 Fred Christiansen (fredch@quad4.phx.mcd.mot.com) wrote: : What are the reasons for which a pilot might decide to go 'round? Absolutely anything. Traffic ahead, traffic on the runway, mis-sequencing (by the tower or otherwise), miscommunication with the tower, a critical checklist failure (no down and locked lights, for example), the pilot got airsick, too high, too fast, it doesn't feel "just right," whatever. In a little Cessna, I'm forever going around to avoid wake turbulence (I fly out of John Wayne in Orange County, CA, and we have the big boys, but thank god no heavies). One day the nearby Tustin helicopter base was shooting their big Sikorski 53s down our ILS, and I went around three times in a row waiting for a suitable gap between those gigantic air-swishers! The way an airplane contacts the ground is something that you really want to get just right. It's not something to sort of try out for grinners just to see how it will come out. When it's a big transport-category airplane, it really has to be done right, because I don't think they can stand the types of clunky landings I can regularly get away with in a little Cessna. Kurt From kls Thu May 12 13:19:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: woodp@zilker.net (Philip E. Wood) Subject: Re: causes of go 'rounds? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Zilker Internet Park, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 94 13:19:35 Fred Christiansen" writes: > >While driving past the PHX airport last Sunday, I observed an AmWest 737 >descending to land and then pull up for a(n apparent) go 'round. My >in-laws, who live fairly close to the airport, tell me that they see >go 'rounds from time to time (well, with greater frequency than I would >have tho't). > >What are the reasons for which a pilot might decide to go 'round? >-- Generically speaking, there are two reasons to go-around. The first is pilot-initiated. For some reason, the pilot isn't happy. Improper descent, speed to high, unexpected gust or whatever. The pilot always has the right to abort a landing. The second reason would be an ATC-ordered go-around. Maybe the previous aircraft hasn't cleared the runway yet, or someone accidentally crossed or entered the active runway. In AUS, we have go-arounds when bunnies or birds are on the runway. Hope that answers your question.... -- | Phil Wood, Austin, TX, USA | "Life was so much | | woodp@zilker.net | simpler when father | | woodp@sigscv1.serigate.philips.nl | paid all the bills!" | | CIS: 73717,3453 | | From kls Thu May 12 13:19:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: causes of go 'rounds? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 94 13:19:35 In article you write: >While driving past the PHX airport last Sunday, I observed an AmWest 737 >descending to land and then pull up for a(n apparent) go 'round. My >in-laws, who live fairly close to the airport, tell me that they see >go 'rounds from time to time (well, with greater frequency than I would >have tho't). > >What are the reasons for which a pilot might decide to go 'round? >From our home office in Sioux City, Iowa... (okay, okay, TASTELESS pun...) 10. Cow/deer on the runway. 9. Airplane on the runway/in the way. 8. Too fast. 7. Too slow. 6. Wrong runway. 5. Wrong airport. 4. Medical problems. 3. Can't lower gear, hydraulic failure. 2. Squawk on autopilot in Cat II or III approach. 1. Can't see the runway. -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Thu May 12 13:19:37 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: brackeen@netcom.com (Patrick C Brackeen) Subject: Re: causes of go 'rounds? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 94 13:19:37 Fred Christiansen (fredch@quad4.phx.mcd.mot.com) wrote: : While driving past the PHX airport last Sunday, I observed an AmWest 737 : descending to land and then pull up for a(n apparent) go 'round. My : in-laws, who live fairly close to the airport, tell me that they see : go 'rounds from time to time (well, with greater frequency than I would : have tho't). : What are the reasons for which a pilot might decide to go 'round? : -- Fred, 99% of the time a Commercial Airliner "go around" is due to trafic conflict on the runway. With good visabilty, a busy airport is normally spacing landing aircraft three miles in trail of each other and perhaps tring to get departures off the same runway between landings. The tower controller makes certain assumtions about where the landing aircraft will exit the runway or how quickly a departure will get off the ground. If all does not work smoothly, the pilot landing may notice that he is going to share the same strip of concrete with another piece of alluminum.. this is a no-no so he "goes around". While this maneuver is fairly rare for the individual pilot {I have not made one in 2 years or so} it is not uncommon at DFW ORD or other very busy places. Other less common reasons to 'go around' might include wind shear, improper line-up, about to land to far down runway, equipment malfunctions {unsafe gear light?} etc. While perhaps upsetting to some passengers, the procedure is really very safe and a normal part of a pilots experiences. Pat -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pat Brackeen brackeen@netcom.com American Airlines 74555.1350@compuserve.com DC-10 Captain LAX pbrackeen@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Thu May 12 13:19:37 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Exhaust fumes in aircraft cabin? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 94 13:19:37 In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: >Right; they were coming from the planes in front of you. The fumes could also be from two other sources. 1. A failure of an engine bearing-seal allowing oil to enter the compressor section of the engine. 2. An overheat of one of the air conditioning packs. Not likely on an MD-80, but pretty common on a 727. This is generally accompanied by oily smoke. From kls Thu May 12 13:19:37 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: TransAtlantic Twin Engine failure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 94 13:19:37 In article rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: >I won't quote the whole article, since it's copyright and I'm not sure >it should have been posted in its entirety anyway. Briefly a United 767 >en route from London to LA landed in Churchill, Manitoba (on Hudson Bay) >at an old SAC base after flying for 90 minutes with one bad engine. >This was on Saturday, May 7. > >It would be interesting to hear more of the details of this, as people >hear them. Most of the passengers apparently spent the night at a local >diner, clearing them out of 4 days worth of food and spending a bundle >in the process! And adventure in retrospect, but possibly not too >enjoyable at the time the pilot announced the trouble... I'm not sure this is even noteworthy: 2 or three airplanes HAVE to divert each month, following engine or weather problems. EROPS flights are tightly controlled, and it doesn't take too many squawks to force a diversion. The number of suitable airfields, distance to the airfields, weather enroute and at destination, etc., are all factors. And there really AREN'T that many suitable airfields in the North Atlantic (two? three?). Sounds like the system worked! -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Thu May 12 13:19:37 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wangermn@tucson.princeton.edu (John Paul Wangermann) Subject: Visibility conditions (CAt I etc.) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Princeton University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 94 13:19:37 I'm interested in the use of categories of visibility conditions. What are the definitions of Cat I, II, IIIa-c? What must an aircraft be equipped with to operate in each of these bands? What equipment must an airport have to operate in these bands? Are the present generation of HUDs certified to Cat IIc, or can landings in this only be achieved by aircraft with full autoland capabilities? Thanks for any info. John Wangermann From kls Thu May 12 13:19:37 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: leishman@hellcat.eng.umd.edu (leishman) Subject: Re: Stalls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Maryland, College Park Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 94 13:19:37 In article ngupta@nano.mit.edu (Nitin Gupta) writes: > I looked into this, and i'm not so sure that the faint "reflections" are > due to changes in refractive index... > ...I do not see n changing enough to manifest > enough contrast to actually be visible on a sunny day. I'm not into > airfoil dynamics, so I have no idea what the nature of schockwaves are in > terms of their temporal pressure. Careful here!! The observation of flowfields containing shocks and other density variations are routinely examined by means of a class of density gradient flow visualization methods known, in general, as schlieren methods. A simple schlieren system is direct shadowgraphy - which is essentially what is being described by the various observers of shockwave images on transport aircraft wings. Note that the refractive index varies if the density in the flow changes. For practical purposes, the refractive index, n, is related to the density, rho, by the equation n-1 = k * rho where k is a constant for a particular gas and wavelength of light. This equation can be written as n-1 =(n_0-1)(rho/rho_0) where _0 indicates the quantities at a reference temperature and pressure. For air, n_0=1.000292 at 0 deg C and 760 mm Hg and for 5893A. Consider a beam of light (could be from the sun) passing through a flow with a density variation (a shockwave being a good example), and this beam of light eventually falls on a viewing screen (the wing of an airplane, say). If the density changes (at the shock, for example) then the time of arrival of a particular point on the screen on a light wave will change because the velocity of light, c, is related to the refractive index, n, by the equation c=(1/n) c* where c* is the velocity of light in a vacuum. If there is a gradient in refractive index normal to the light rays, then the rays will be deflected because the light travels more slowly where the refractive index is larger according to the above equation. The deflection of these light rays is a measure of the first derivative of the density with respect to distance, that is the density gradient, and can be observed using various schlieren techniques (which require lenses or mirrors and a knife edge or graduated filter for a cut-off). If the refractive index gradient normal to the light rays varies, then deflection of adjacent rays will differ, so they will converge or diverge giving regions of increased or decreased illumination on a viewing screen (dark or bright bands). This is the basis of the direct shadowgraph method. It requires no lenses or mirrors and is essentially a measure of the second derivative of the density field. These schlieren methods are routinely used in the laboratory when examining high speed flows containing shockwaves. Turbulence and vortices can also be observed, such as those behind propellers and helicopter rotors. In the field, obviously it is much more difficult to visualize such flows, but the example of the "natural" shadowgraph of the shockwave on a transport wing has been cited in the literature for many years. It is indeed interesting to me that so many of our friends on the internet have also observed such phenomena. J. Gordon Leishman Associate Professor of Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland at College Park From kls Thu May 12 13:29:22 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: amitava@cs.tamu.edu (Amitava Raha) Subject: Concorde Question? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 94 13:29:22 Organization: Texas A&M Computer Science Department, College Station, TX Hi! I recently saw a photograph of the Concorde with its under-carriage down, and I noticed that it has a tail wheel, which is quite high up as compared to the main wheels and the nose wheels and I was wondering what the purpose of that set of wheels were. Just curious amitava -- From kls Thu May 12 22:01:39 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) Subject: Re: Concorde Question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 94 22:01:39 amitava@cs.tamu.edu (Amitava Raha) shaped the electrons to say: >down, and I noticed that it has a tail wheel, which is quite high >up as compared to the main wheels and the >nose wheels and I was wondering what the purpose of that set Safety, they are there incase the pilot over-rotates on take-off. The Concorde has a steep angle when it lifts off, and the wheels are to prevent damage from tail-strikes. -- 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 May 12 22:01:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: coburn@informix.com (David Coburn) Subject: Re: causes of go 'rounds? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Informix Software, Inc. Menlo Park, CA 94025 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 94 22:01:40 rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: >10. Cow/deer on the runway. This whole discussion reminds me of a funny that happened a number of years ago. I was on a Delta 757 into Atlanta and we got rerouted to Montgomery (if memory serves) due to weather. We didn't exactly go around, but we did have to circle whilst they rounded up some cattle that had wandered into the airport perimiter. From kls Thu May 12 22:01:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Jet Makes Emergency Landing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 94 22:01:40 In article rathinam@ins.infonet.net writes: >>clari.biz.industry.aviation. [[...deleted]] > >Can you really replinish the hydraulic fluid when an airplane is >in flight? How does one pour things into the hydraulic system - >doesn't even the low pressure line have enough pressure to not >accept 'pouring' anything into it (unless done at high pressure)? >Is the hydraulic line accessible to the crew? It depends on the airplane. Hydraulic designs usually include an unpressur- ized reservoir (or pressurized to atmospheric pressure), the supply of which goes to a hydraulic pump, the output of which provides hydraulic motive pressure. In this scheme, it would appear that they had access to the reservoirs, and just topped one or more off. This would be difficult to do on most Western transports, probably involving an EVA of some kind. -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Fri May 13 02:01:17 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: flags at top of fuselage? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 May 94 02:01:17 In article you write: >while i was watching japanese television, i noticed that >the japanese 747 that is used as the official transport for >the prime minister had a pair of small flags coming out of >the top of the fuselage. they were gone when the aircraft >departed. did someone go up and pull them or are they >mechanically retracted? > >pardon the intrusion - i'm just a bit curious. Usually, they pop the flags out the cockpit windows of presidential aircraft (the US's Air Force 1 excluded). In the case of the 747, this is not feasible, since the cockpit windows are sealed. There is, however, an overhead exit hatch in the cockpit (with a reel-based egress system), which is probably what you saw being utilized. I seem to recall it opens inward, but am probably wrong--if this were the case, it'd be why you wouldn't see any other features on top. Were the flags on top of the hump? -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Fri May 13 02:01:17 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: flyboy320@aol.com (FLYBOY320) Subject: Re: A320 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 May 94 02:01:17 In article , triebelh@rastro.Colorado.EDU (TRIEBELHORN JEFFREY WERNER) writes: I fly the A-320 for Northwest and I don't think there is a container option for the aircraft. Just wide cargo doors ! From kls Fri May 13 02:01:17 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stephenl@de.deere.com (Lyle E. Stephens) Subject: Twin-engine 727? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deere & Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 May 94 02:01:17 A reliable observer reported what looked like a B-727 with only two engines at Detroit during the week of April 27. The top engine air inlet had been replaced with a fairing, the tail cone had been modified, The nacelles were larger than usual, and the landing gear looked somewhat different. The plane was in American Airlines colors. The observer is familiar with DC9/MD80's. Does anyone know more about such a plane? From kls Fri May 13 02:01:17 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: planeboy@aol.com (Planeboy) Subject: 737-200 Stage 3 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 May 94 02:01:17 Is it possible to mount JT8D-219 engines to the older 737-222 and -291 aircraft? From kls Fri May 13 02:01:17 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 737-200 Stage 3 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 May 94 02:01:17 >Is it possible to mount JT8D-219 engines to the older 737-222 and -291 >aircraft? Sounds like you work for (or are interested in) United -- don't forget the pair of -2A1 models as well (N974UA and N976UA). In any case, I doubt it would be feasible. Compare the 737-500 to the -200. Same fuselage length (give or take an inch or two) and the same wingspan. But on the -500 the wings are positioned further forward on the fuselage, in order to get the CG right. The problem is those new engines. For one thing, they're bigger, so they can't fit under the wing. Obviously the solution was to hang them in front of the wing, which moves their weight forward. Worse, they're heavier (around 4,300 lbs for the CFM-56 vs. 3,400ish for the JT8D used on the 737-200 series), which moves the CG even further forward. The solution was to move the wings (and hence the engines) forward on the fuselage, or really to move the fuselage back, putting more fuselage in back to counterbalance that forward engine weight. The JT8D-219 you asked about is even worse. It's about seven inches smaller in diameter than the CFM-56, but at fourteen inches bigger than the older JT8D models it would still need to hang in front of the wing. It's also over *sixty* (60) inches longer than the CFM-56, so presumably the weight is even further forward. Speaking of weight, at about 4,500 lbs, it's even worse than the CFM-56. The JT8D-219 sounds to me like it would be *really* poorly suited to the 737. (For completeness, I also looked up the V2500 version used on the A319. Compared to the CFM-56, it's only 4 1/2 inches greater in diameter, but 35 inches longer, and at 5,139 lbs is a whopping 800 lbs heavier. Except for the weight, this isn't a problem for the A320 and derivatives because they sit higher, and thus can accomodate the larger engine under the wing. I suspect the 3rd generation 737 will also have extended landing gear, since it's necessary for a stretch beyond the 737-400, so probably the engine dimensions are less con- straining, like the A320. The V2500 was a contender for the 737-X family, but isn't offered because of non-technical reasons.) I suppose one could include a fuselage plug aft of the wing, maybe creating an aircraft comparable to the 737-300 in size while getting the balance right. That's not unprecedented (the C-141 was stretched with fuselage plugs after being in service for some years) but seems to be getting rather expensive for a pretty old aircraft, especially when one considers that many of the -222s you're asking about are amongst the first 737s built. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.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 May 13 11:31:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Really Long Range Commercial Transport Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 May 94 11:31:43 We've been kicking this around a bit, and I thought I'd ask the group's opinion. Assume for a moment that a commercial airframer could build a transport that is capable of flying halfway around the world in scheduled service. Does this have any real value? Or are we happy at roughly 7000nm range? I'd ask a live customer's opinion if I knew one. :-) Terry From kls Fri May 13 11:31:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Twin-engine 727? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 May 94 11:31:43 In article stephenl@de.deere.com (Lyle E. Stephens) writes: A reliable observer reported what looked like a B-727 with only two engines at Detroit during the week of April 27. The top engine air inlet had been replaced with a fairing, the tail cone had been modified, The nacelles were larger than usual, and the landing gear looked somewhat different. The plane was in American Airlines colors. The observer is familiar with DC9/MD80's. Does anyone know more about such a plane? --------- When I was with AA, the company had looked at a two engine retrofit for the B727 to prolong aircraft life with Stage 3 noise regulations. The proposal involved attaching larger nacelle engines (RR Tay or IAE VR2500?) while putting a hemispherical fairing in the center inlet. American decided that this wasn't the way to go, and given the downsizing trend within the airline and the economics of the existing fleet, they probably haven't changed their minds. However, AA has also retired quite a few B727s over the last couple of years (mostly various -100s, but at least 10 -223/-2A7s by last January). When they left the airline (from the Tulsa maintenance facility), they had the tail logo and the "American" on the fuselage removed, and had the red fuselage stripe repainted blue (thus yielding Blue-White-Blue fuselage stripes). However, it was very apparent to anyone looking at them who they had belonged to. My guess is that one of the buyers of these retired aircraft has decided to try installing the engine retrofit, finally. I'll defer to someone else to answer the other half of this question... Later, 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 Fri May 13 11:31:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: woodp@zilker.net (Philip E. Wood) Subject: Re: Twin-engine 727? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Zilker Internet Park, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 May 94 11:31:43 In article stephenl@de.deere.com (Lyle E. Stephens) writes: > >A reliable observer reported what looked like a B-727 with only two >engines at Detroit during the week of April 27. The top engine air >inlet had been replaced with a fairing, the tail cone had been modified, >The nacelles were larger than usual, and the landing gear looked >somewhat different. The plane was in American Airlines colors. The >observer is familiar with DC9/MD80's. Does anyone know more about >such a plane? > He may be familiar with DC9/MD80, but what about the Fokker 100? Actually, there is a company called Valsan (I think that's right) that has proposed a twin-engine 727 to a number of airlines. Better fuel efficiancy, quieter, and two man crew were among the benefits. It was my understanding, though, that there had been zero takers. Maybe not? Valsan also has a winglet modification for the 727, and Delta presently is test flying two of them. I think they are registration N511DL and N512DL. -- | Phil Wood, Austin, TX, USA | "Life was so much | | woodp@zilker.net | simpler when father | | woodp@sigscv1.serigate.philips.nl | paid all the bills!" | | CIS: 73717,3453 | | From kls Fri May 13 11:31:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Twin-engine 727? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 May 94 11:31:43 >Valsan also has a winglet modification for the 727, and Delta presently >is test flying two of them. I think they are registration N511DL and N512DL. I just read that Valsan has gone under. Nothing beyond that, so I have no idea what's happening with current projects, such as the two Delta 727s you mention. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.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 May 13 11:31:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Nagoya CAL Crash Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 May 94 11:31:44 I have seen several posts now of info on this crash which have been based upon newspaper reports. As has been borne out in the past, reporters for newspapers are not very reliable subjects when it comes to technical matters. On the other hand, Aviation Week & Space Technology has proven to be rather trustworthy, and here is what they report in the May 9, 1994 issue. According to the preliminary CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) and DFDR (Digital Flight Data Recorder) readings, at the time on approach that the first officer engaged the auto-throttle, he also inadvertently activated the TOGA (Take-Off and Go-Around) switch. "As a result, the aircraft's auto-thrust and flight director reverted to automatic go-around mode and the aircraft began to fly above the glide slope. The crew was apparently startled and did not recognize that the TOGA had been activated. Chuang [FO] applied nose down elevator in an effort to recapture the glide slope." TOGA trims the stabilizer so as to pitch the aircraft's nose up and the FO was moving the elevators so as to pitch the aircraft's nose down. At this point the crew engaged the autopilot, which moved the stab to maximum aircraft nose-up deflection. "Still, the crew continued to apply nose-down inputs by overriding the autopilot as if trying to recapture the glidepath for a landing. Such a tactic does not work because as soon as the inputs are stopped the autopilot returns to flying its original go-around flight path." "A similar situtation to what CAL 140 experienced occured three years ago on an Interflug A310. The crew ended up totally out of trim, but they recovered." This is probably the incident outside Moscow that we have seen postings here about. "In such a configuration, since the stabilizer efficiency is greater than that of the elevator, the aircraft could reach an abnormal pitch-up angle leading to an airspeed decay." This is a quote from an Airbus service bulletin quoted in the article. "The stronger the force that the pilot puts on the flight control column to activate the elevators, the faster the stabilizer trim will respond to counteract the nose-down effort." "At about 570 ft., both autopilots were disengaged. Airspeed was 129 kt. and pitch was 5.5 deg. Eight seconds later, at about 400 ft., the Airbus analysis concludes that the Alpha floor function was triggered. Both engines accelerated normally to maximum thrust." "Alpha floor is a safety function and is triggered before stalling speed. "Now we have the moment that he has full stabilizer trim, the power comes and brings his nose up," the captain said [interviewed for the article]. "He cannot hold it with elevator. He has to trim. If he doesn't trim, he has no chance. He has to trim the nose forward, forward, forward [down]. It takes a few seconds. If he started to trim, even in this position, he could have had a chance."" "Coupled with the THS [stablizer] at maximum nose-up deflection, the pitch attitude achieved at least 36 deg. - one Airbus source said 52 deg. [!] - 22 sec. after alpha floor activation. Flaps/slats were retracted from 30/40 deg to 15/15 deg but the aircraft was in a stall form which it could not recover." Estimates are that the airspeed had decayed to 78 kts. in the end! ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Fri May 13 11:31:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bfrank@engin.umich.edu (Benjamin Andrew Frank) Subject: Re: Concorde Question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 May 94 11:31:44 In article megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes: >amitava@cs.tamu.edu (Amitava Raha) shaped the electrons to say: >>down, and I noticed that it has a tail wheel, which is quite high >>up as compared to the main wheels and the >>nose wheels and I was wondering what the purpose of that set > >Safety, they are there incase the pilot over-rotates on take-off. >The Concorde has a steep angle when it lifts off, and the wheels are >to prevent damage from tail-strikes. > They also put this wheel down when the concord is at the gate. I was in Paris in February and saw one at the gate with the wheel down, and wondered if the concord also has problems being tail-heavy when it is empty. Benjamin Frank bfrank@umich.edu From kls Fri May 13 11:31:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: Stalls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 May 94 11:31:44 On 12 May 94 13:19:37 , leishman@hellcat.eng.umd.edu (leishman) said: jgl> Careful here!! The observation of flowfields containing shocks and jgl> other density variations are routinely examined by means of a class jgl> of density gradient flow visualization methods known, in general, jgl> as schlieren methods. A simple schlieren system is direct jgl> shadowgraphy - which is essentially what is being described by the jgl> various observers of shockwave images on transport aircraft wings. [Excellent explanation sacrificed to appease the bandwidth gods] jgl> These schlieren methods are routinely used in the laboratory when jgl> examining high speed flows containing shockwaves. Turbulence and jgl> vortices can also be observed, such as those behind propellers and jgl> helicopter rotors. In the field, obviously it is much more jgl> difficult to visualize such flows, but the example of the "natural" jgl> shadowgraph of the shockwave on a transport wing has been cited in jgl> the literature for many years. It is indeed interesting to me that jgl> so many of our friends on the internet have also observed such jgl> phenomena. We've just taken some schlierens of entire aircraft in flight, with the camera on the ground and the airplane, an F-18, flying between it and the sun at Mach 1.4. Very impressive. We have a little trouble getting the actual aircraft in the frame, since we're trying to solve a 4-dimensional problem, but we have gotten one picture with the aircraft in the frame and a number of photos of the near flowfield (having just missed the airplane). We're considering whether to try this with the SR-71, too, as part of a research program examining sonic boom signatures. We have an array of microphones that we use to record the booms. -- 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 Fri May 13 11:31:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ez939042@xdm024.sme.cranfield.ac.uk (R.Ludorf) Subject: Re: causes of go 'rounds? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cranfield University, UK Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 May 94 11:31:44 |> >From our home office in Sioux City, Iowa... (okay, okay, TASTELESS pun...) |> |> 10. Cow/deer on the runway. Not necessarily a reason for a 'go-around'. Think I remember an accident in India, where an Airbus crashed into some sacred cattle/live-stock whatsoever on the runway while landing... rainer From kls Fri May 13 11:31:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: causes of go 'rounds? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 May 94 11:31:44 Fred Christiansen (fredch@quad4.phx.mcd.mot.com) wrote: : While driving past the PHX airport last Sunday, I observed an AmWest 737 : descending to land and then pull up for a(n apparent) go 'round. My : in-laws, who live fairly close to the airport, tell me that they see : go 'rounds from time to time (well, with greater frequency than I would : have tho't). : What are the reasons for which a pilot might decide to go 'round? : -- ------- One reason I haven't seen mentioned yet on this thread is the possibility that the aircraft in question may have been undergoing a flight test, and that a go-around was part of the test protocol. Admittedly, this is a very small chance, but PHX is AWE's maintenance base... When I was working for the airlines, we were on a certification test flight for a new GPWS for a DC10-30. As part of the test flight, we did a couple of go arounds at OKC, to test how the ground prox behaved during the go around. I should also mention as a side note that another part of the test protocol was to descend at several thousand feet per minute at the ground, wait until we got the most urgent warning, and pulled out of the descent. The minimum altitude we attained at the time was 700ft AGL. FYI, the PAI for the airline, DAR and DER for the manufacturer, and other FAA personnel were onboard, and the entire test plan was approved ahead of time. Later, 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 Fri May 13 11:31:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tetrode@aol.com (Tetrode) Subject: Re: causes of go 'rounds? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 May 94 11:31:44 Three weeks ago, arriving at Minneapolis-St Paul enroute to Seattle, the NW Airbus I was traveling on did a go-round because a dead animal was spotted on our runway (new variation on roadkill). The maneuver was pretty thrilling (I suppose all sudden and unexpected events on final approach seems pretty thrilling!), as the aircraft was quite low to the ground. Tremendous spool-up, followed by a really dramatic application of the elevators. Interestingly, the pilot, in an effort to placate us nervous passsengers, mentioned that the reason for the abrupt nature of the maneuver was due to the manner in which the Airbus is programmed to respond to such a situation. He implied that the maneuver was more or less a push-button affair. Any comments on this from informed sources? Doug Bostrom Atlanta, Ga tetrode@aol.com From kls Sat May 14 00:08:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Twin-engine 727? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 May 94 00:08:41 In article , woodp@zilker.net (Philip E. Wood) writes: >Valsan also has a winglet modification for the 727, and Delta presently >is test flying two of them. I think they are registration N511DL and >N512DL. Actually the two airplanes are 510 and 511. From kls Sat May 14 00:08:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Joseph_Hall@sat.mot.com (Joseph Hall) Subject: Re: Exhaust fumes in aircraft cabin? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Motorola Inc., Satellite Communications Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 May 94 00:08:41 Seems it was tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) who said: >In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert >Dorsett) writes: > >>Right; they were coming from the planes in front of you. > >The fumes could also be from two other sources. > >1. A failure of an engine bearing-seal allowing oil to enter the compressor >section of the engine. > >2. An overheat of one of the air conditioning packs. Not likely on an MD-80, >but pretty common on a 727. This is generally accompanied by oily smoke. Deicing mixture also has a "nice" odor, kind of like kerosine mixed with perfume. I forget what the circumstances with the original poster were, but sometimes sitting on the ground or the runway you can get a nice cabin full of fumes if the air intakes were left on during deicing. -- Joseph Nathan Hall | Joseph's Law of Interface Design: Never give your users Software Architect | a choice between the easy way and the right way. Gorca Systems Inc. | joseph@joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us (home) (on assignment) | (602) 732-2549 (work) Joseph_Hall-SC052C@email.mot.com From kls Sat May 14 00:08:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: riley@src.honeywell.com (Vic Riley) Subject: Re: Nagoya CAL Crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: SRC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 May 94 00:08:41 In article , David Lednicer wrote: > > According to the preliminary CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) and DFDR > (Digital Flight Data Recorder) readings, at the time on approach that the > first officer engaged the auto-throttle, he also inadvertently activated the > TOGA (Take-Off and Go-Around) switch. "As a result, the aircraft's > auto-thrust and flight director reverted to automatic go-around mode and > the aircraft began to fly above the glide slope. The crew was apparently > startled and did not recognize that the TOGA had been activated. Chuang > [FO] applied nose down elevator in an effort to recapture the glide slope." One thing I don't understand about this account is that the initial reports indicated that the crew had told the tower they were going to go around about a minute and a half before the crash. If they indicated that they intended to go around, why would the TOGA selection have been inadvertent, and why would the FO have tried to recapture the glide slope? Vic Riley riley_vic@htc.honeywell.com From kls Sat May 14 00:08:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: causes of go 'rounds? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 May 94 00:08:41 In article tetrode@aol.com (Tetrode) writes: >Interestingly, the pilot, in an effort to placate us nervous passsengers, >mentioned that the reason for the abrupt nature of the maneuver was due to the >manner in which the Airbus is programmed to respond to such a situation. He >implied that the maneuver was more or less a push-button affair. Any comments >on this from informed sources? >From the Northwest Airbus comment, it's reasonable to assume it's an A320. If the pilot had pulled back on his stick, he would have increased pitch up to CLMax (maximum lift), while simultaneously engaging alpha floor protections on the engines, which would spool them up to go-around thrust. The combination of the two, especially in a light airplane, could result in a very high deck angle. Most go-around situations don't require this extreme a maneuver, though; I'd be interested in hearing whether Northwest (or Airbus) actually encourages pilots to fly that aggressively for routine go-arounds, or whether they try to reserve them for windshear or evasion situations. Certainly, after the Bangalore crash, Airbus went at pains to emphasize that the airplane should be flown just like any other: by the numbers, well within the envelope. Perhaps some crews have yet to get the message. Or perhaps this is how AI recommends the airplane be flown. Any A320 pilots out there? -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Sat May 14 21:09:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com Subject: Re: Concorde Question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 May 94 21:09:50 >They also put this wheel down when the concord is at the gate. I was in Paris >in February and saw one at the gate with the wheel down, and wondered if >the concord also has problems being tail-heavy when it is empty. > >Benjamin Frank >bfrank@umich.edu When parked the wing tip flaps on Concorde (Flaperons) all droop because the hydraulics are off (at least thats what my Concorde book says). My guess is that the tail wheel comes down for the same reason. I doubt that the there is much of a problem with being tail heavy unless they park up with fuel left in the tail trim tank. That's unlikely since fuel is pumped to the forward trim tank during the descent. My Concorde book also says that the fuel has 3 uses (balance, cooling and propulsion). Most planes only have one use for the fuel although the SR71 also uses it for cooling. From kls Sat May 14 21:09:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Concorde Question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 May 94 21:09:51 In article , julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com wrote:>My Concorde book also says that the fuel has 3 uses (balance, cooling and >propulsion). Most planes only have one use for the fuel although the SR71 >also uses it for cooling. The longer-range Airbuses as well as the 747-400 (maybe the MD-11 too, though I'm not sure) also use it for balance. They can have fuel tanks in their horizontal stabilizers that help reduce drag at cruise (hence improve range) by moving the CG back, permitting reduced elevator trim. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.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 May 14 21:09:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 May 94 21:09:51 drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: > We've been kicking this around a bit, and I thought I'd ask the group's >opinion. > Assume for a moment that a commercial airframer could build a transport >that is capable of flying halfway around the world in scheduled service. >Does this have any real value? Or are we happy at roughly 7000nm range? > I'd ask a live customer's opinion if I knew one. :-) I'm a live customer who reads sci.areonautics.airliners because he thinks commercial airliners are really neat. Let's see: halfway around the world? That's something like NY to Singapore nonstop, right? 30-40 hours of flying? The far east is becoming more and more important, economically, and I think that east-coast and midwest North Americans will be doing more and more business there. As China ramps up, this'll really start to happen. It's important to get from here to there (and back) as quickly as possible, for less than say $10k. In my line of work, consider a computer customer in eg. Malaysia with a problem who needs a guy onsite asap. Put him on a nonstop; he can catch up on sleep after he gets there and fixes things.... :-) I read somewhere that Canadair has racked up quite a few billion dollars in advance orders for a long-range business jet; if the bigwigs need to go the distance, the flunkies and techies will too. 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 Sat May 14 21:09:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 May 94 21:09:51 In article , Terrell D. Drinkard wrote: > We've been kicking this around a bit, and I thought I'd ask the group's >opinion. > > Assume for a moment that a commercial airframer could build a transport >that is capable of flying halfway around the world in scheduled service. >Does this have any real value? Or are we happy at roughly 7000nm range? > > I'd ask a live customer's opinion if I knew one. :-) I've done one flight that went half the way around: British Airways, London-Auckland, New Zealand in 1984/85. This was three stops, which was at least one too many. It was scheduled at something between 24-30 hours, depending on direction. On the other hand, it was mighty nice to get off the airplane, stretch and so forth. At the very least, really long-range craft should include areas in which to stretch and so forth. Maybe a exercycle? ;-) That foolishness with recycling air might have to stop on such a long flight (perhaps the air could be "refreshed" every 8 hours or so?). And thought has to be given to inflight cleaning of planes---they get pretty nasty after the first twelve hours or so! You might ask in one of the soc.culture groups for the opinions of people who do have to do a half-the-way round trip regularly. E.g. soc.culture. indian, since that country is half-way around from the US. Singapore is another one. They might tell you if the non-stop would be worth it to them. As an aside, I wonder how much you would gain on such flights by always going in one direction (i.e. west to east) so as to take advantage of prevailing winds. I.e. London-Auckland nonstop heading east, and then Auckland-London also nonstop, also heading east. A 7X7 merry-go-round. RNA From kls Sat May 14 21:09:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R Ebright) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 May 94 21:09:51 In article , Terrell D. Drinkard wrote: > We've been kicking this around a bit, and I thought I'd ask the group's >opinion. > > Assume for a moment that a commercial airframer could build a transport >that is capable of flying halfway around the world in scheduled service. >Does this have any real value? Or are we happy at roughly 7000nm range? > > I'd ask a live customer's opinion if I knew one. :-) > I have a friend who does flights for Emory. Mostly DC-8s. He is in Armenia right now... has been to Somolia, etc :) They could use them...they have a lot of fuel stops on these kind of flights. But would anyone flying DC-8s buy an new plane? ;) Other than servicing low volume, out of the way countries, and the occasional JFK to HKG(?) flight, I suspect there isn't much of a market. Even the Pacific isn't that hard to cross. -- A/~~\A 'moo2u from osu' Jim Ebright e-mail: ebright@bronze.coil.com ((0 0))_______ "A million dollars, ... I can get that. I can get that \ / the \ in cash. That's no problem." -secret White House tape. (--)\ OSU | "I am not a crook." -speech to American people by RM Nixon From kls Sat May 14 21:09:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: davelett@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Sun) Subject: Re: Exhaust fumes in aircraft cabin? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 May 94 21:09:51 In article Joseph_Hall@sat.mot.com (Joseph Hall) writes: >Deicing mixture also has a "nice" odor, kind of like kerosine mixed >with perfume. I forget what the circumstances with the original poster >were, but sometimes sitting on the ground or the runway you can get >a nice cabin full of fumes if the air intakes were left on during >deicing. I thought airlines turned off engines during deicing as a general rule. In any case, why would glycol smell like kerosene at all? An interesting-smelling deicing fluid would be the 25 bottles of vodka reportedly used to deice a scheduled U.S. carrier's flight in Russia, when there was no deicing fluid at the airport (see AW&ST, 9 May 94). Sounds like Delta got a little creative, or does any other U.S. carrier fly scheduled into Russia? From kls Sat May 14 21:09:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Exhaust fumes in aircraft cabin? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 May 94 21:09:51 In article , Richard Sun wrote:>I thought airlines turned off engines during deicing as a general rule. A few airports have installed deicing devices right at the entrance to the runways, so they do the job when it's needed rather than doing it at the gate and hoping it lasts. In this case, at least, I'd expect the engines to still be on. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.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 May 14 21:09:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Concorde Question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 May 94 21:09:51 In article , bfrank@engin.umich.edu (Benjamin Andrew Frank) writes: >I was in Paris in February and saw one at the gate with the wheel down, >and wondered if the concord also has problems being tail-heavy when it >is empty. Definitely not tail heavy! Like the 727, 767-300 and L/1011 tail skids, the Concorde 'buggy' wheels come up and go down with the main and nose gear. There is no separate control for the tail wheels. From kls Mon May 16 01:53:28 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Concorde Question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 May 94 01:53:28 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >The longer-range Airbuses as well as the 747-400 (maybe the MD-11 >too, though I'm not sure) also use it for balance. MD-11 does have fuel in the tail. Also, A-310-300. From kls Mon May 16 01:53:28 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: davelett@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Sun) Subject: Re: Nagoya CAL Crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 May 94 01:53:28 In article riley@src.honeywell.com (Vic Riley) writes: >One thing I don't understand about this account is that the initial reports >indicated that the crew had told the tower they were going to go around >about a minute and a half before the crash. If they indicated that they >intended to go around, why would the TOGA selection have been inadvertent, >and why would the FO have tried to recapture the glide slope? Reports from AW&ST 2May94 say the go-around was announced 8:15.14 and the crash alarm was sounded at 8:15.47. Barely over 30 seconds, during which I suppose the crew was trying to figure out what the hell the Airbus was trying to do. From kls Mon May 16 01:53:28 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 May 94 01:53:28 In article , Terrell D. Drinkard wrote: > Assume for a moment that a commercial airframer could build a transport >that is capable of flying halfway around the world in scheduled service. >Does this have any real value? Or are we happy at roughly 7000nm range? Would this be a sub-sonic aircraft or super-sonic? The answer may make a significant difference in terms of passenger preference. A flight halfway around the world means about 25 hours of flying at sub-sonic speeds. The existence of interesting city pairs this far apart, or nearly so, is irrelevant if few people would want to fly for that long in one sitting. Personally, I wouldn't want to do it. Assuming your hypothetical transport is either super-sonic or there are enough people who are willing to be crammed into an aluminum sardine can for that long, you have to look at potential city pairs that might require that range. Several folks have already mentioned the demand for better access to the rapidly expanding Asian markets, e.g. China and Singapore, from the central and eastern U.S. as an example of why you might need an aircraft with such range. They're still a fair bit short of what you're asking about, however -- pole to pole is about 12,437 nm, while JFK-SIN is "only" about 9,540. For the really long routes, you need to keep in mind that most of the major cities are in the northern hemisphere, and not just by a little bit. So, you need to be thinking of southern hemisphere cities. The booming Asian markets don't really qualify, though Singapore is only barely above the equator. Australia and New Zealand are good candidates -- Sydney is about 10,500 nm from London or Paris, and Auckland is about 11,500 nm. In Africa, CapeTown is nearly opposite San Francisco, though at 10,200 nm it's still not as far as the Auckland routes. Finally, there's South America -- Santiago is nearly as far away as you can get from Hong Kong at 11,620 nm, and Buenos Aires isn't much better. Now consider whether or not any of these are interesting markets. (Read "enough traffic to make it profitable for an airline to fly.") They'd better be really hot to justify non-stop service. Besides the benefits of a stop to passengers like me, it permits the airlines to use less specialized (and presumably less expensive) aircraft, while giving them a chance to improve loads by combining markets on at least one leg of the long route, either through a mini hub or just by stopping at an interesting intermediate city. For example, Pan Am had JFK - Rio de Janeiro - Cape Town, with local rights only on the JFK-GIG segment. Chances are the segment to Cape Town was a lot less loaded than the other segment, so even if Pan Am had had equipment that could fly non-stop, it might not have been profitable to do so. I can easily see a need for something with around 9,600 nm range. This can reach all of the Asian markets from JFK as well as the mid- west. Singapore is beyond reach from the south-eastern U.S. cities (e.g. Miami), but most of the rest of Asia is within the range, including Hong Kong. That same range also puts much of the U.S. (with Denver as the west- ern limit) within reach of Johannesburg and Cape Town, and the recent changes in South Africa suggest that this may be a growing market. Unfortunately, the market probably won't support more than one or two U.S. gateways, and the closest one, which just happens to be New York, is already within the range of a 747-400, albeit only barely so. The best that a longer-range aircraft could offer here would be to avert payload shortfalls or fuel stops on westbound flights out of the "hot and high" Johannesburg during the southern summer. Adding another 350 nm to the range, bringing it to 9,950 nm, permits LAX to Cape Town (but not Johannesburg). A more interesting pair within the reach of this aircraft would be JFK-SYD. While Sydney is probably not going to be quite as interesting a market as Singapore, this is only a minor range increase, perhaps a reasonable target for performance increases on a plane introduced with a 9,600 nm range. It also puts at least Singapore and Delhi within reach of most major South American cities, such as Buenos Aires and Rio de Janeiro. The only notable exception is Santiago. Boosting the range to 10,600 nm mostly extends the convenience from emerging markets, e.g., Johannesburg from the U.S. West Coast, and puts Santiago within reach of Singapore and Tokyo. The one really notable new capability with this range is Sydney from most of Europe, including London. This is probably the one city pair at this range with sufficient demand to support non-stop service. Beyond this range, few new markets seem likely to generate sufficient traffic. 11,000 nm links Rio de Janeiro to Tokyo and Hong Kong, which might be of some interest. It also allows non-stop Chicago to Perth service, but I really have a hard time seeing a stampede for tickets on that one. Further yet and you can fly London to Auckland (11,420 nm), and add better connections for Santiago, Buenos Aires, and Perth, with the longest route I could come up with being New York to Perth at 11,630 nm. If it were my decision, I suspect I could justify going beyond the 7,000 nm range you mention to 9,600 nm. 9,950 nm would be harder to justify, unless it was a fairly inexpensive improvement from a basic 9,600 nm range aircraft. Beyond that range, I only see a handful of sales, primarily a 10,600 nm range aircraft for British Airways and QANTAS to use on the LHR-SYD route. I doubt the few additional sales could justify the added development expense. On the other hand, a look at the history books shows that the special, ultra-long range aircraft have not done very well at all -- both the DC-8-62 nor the 747SP were rather disappointing. Despite the appeal of routes like JFK-SIN, I have to wonder if a new "long ranger" would suffer a fate similar to those 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 Mon May 16 01:53:29 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rathinam@ins.infonet.net Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rathinam@ins.infonet.net Organization: INS Info Services, Des Moines, IA USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 May 94 01:53:29 In article , drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: > We've been kicking this around a bit, and I thought I'd ask the group's >opinion. > > Assume for a moment that a commercial airframer could build a transport >that is capable of flying halfway around the world in scheduled service. >Does this have any real value? Or are we happy at roughly 7000nm range? >From just a traveller's point of view, such a thing would be of great value to me. As a person of Indian origin naturalized in the USA, I travel to India fairly often. The typical flight time (Chicago-somepleceinEurope-Bombay) takes about 16 hours. Add that to two "local" flights I need to take (US leg and India leg) and it comes a little over 20 hours in flight time alone. Connecting time of several hours added together makes it 30+ hours and one long tiring trip. And it took even longer the last time when I went (Phoenix-)LAX-Singapore-Madras (especially being late by 20 hours in LAX and have the FAA inspect the airplane, but that's another story). It would be really nice to have at least one stop and a few hour connection_wait cut off from this list both for the business and personal_vacation traveller. The primary market, at least for the next several years, for such an airplane, would be from the US to China(PR)/India and Europe to Australia/NewZealand. With economic activity gaining momentum in both China and India, and with both regions (US and Asia) being well populated, travel is bound to increase in the near future. Trade that against how much modern communication can do to reduce expensive business travel. (Personal travel is not affected as much by improved communication - when you want to see your folks, you just want to go see them). Now, since the advantage of a one hop for ~12000 nautical miles is arriving not-so-tired there (at least to me), the airliner design should do something to make the traveller less tired than taking the two_flights+break it replaces. Otherwise, part of the value in the single hop is lost. To me, that would mean fresher cabin air (and lower cabin pressure altitude than 8000' would be nice, as long as I am asking the airframe_designer_fairie) and someplace better than the typical economy seat to stretch your feet for a while. ================================================================ Sethu R. Rathinam rathinam@ins.infonet.net From kls Mon May 16 01:53:29 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kittlitz@seagoon.sw.stratus.com (Ned Kittlitz) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stratus Computer, Marlboro MA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 May 94 01:53:29 In article rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: >I've done one flight that went half the way around: British Airways, >London-Auckland, New Zealand in 1984/85. This was three stops, which >was at least one too many. It was scheduled at something between >24-30 hours, depending on direction. Imagine how the crew would feel about flying that long. I believe there are multiple flightdeck crews on very long flights. Is this true? what are the average/maximum-permitted shifts? How does the on-duty clock run for these people. (Isn't the limit usually 80 hrs per month?) I'm not sure I'd want to fly with a pilot who had been sitting around in an aluminum tube for 16 hours before going to work. ----- E. N. Kittlitz (kittlitz@sw.stratus.com, kittlitz@world.std.com) consulting at Stratus, not representing their positions. From kls Mon May 16 01:53:29 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 May 94 01:53:29 In article , Ned Kittlitz wrote:>I believe there are multiple flightdeck crews on very long flights. >Is this true? I've heard from a United pilot that on the long flights they have one and even two (on flights like LAX-SYD) reserve first officers, in addition to the captain, first officer, and, on older 747s, the flight engineer. The primary first officer is on duty during takeoff and landing, so the two reserves only get the really exciting chore of watching the autopilot guide the aircraft over vast expanses of water. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Mon May 16 01:53:30 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Subject: TCAS 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: 16 May 94 01:53:30 I believe the verdict is in......TCAS is a resounding success. Nearly all the other controllers I work with agree that it's a valuble addition to the job of seperating aircraft. Even the controller's union NATCA has quit trying to shoot down the system, (editorial comment follows) in the mistaken belief that it undermines the authority of controllers. What we truly need is MORE HIGH TECHNOLOGY! AND SOON! John Dill ATCS Cleveland ARTCC From kls Mon May 16 01:53:30 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Exhaust fumes in aircraft cabin? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 May 94 01:53:30 In article davelett@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Sun) writes: >In article Joseph_Hall@sat.mot.com (Joseph Hall) writes: > >>Deicing mixture also has a "nice" odor, kind of like kerosine mixed >>with perfume. I forget what the circumstances with the original poster >>were, but sometimes sitting on the ground or the runway you can get >>a nice cabin full of fumes if the air intakes were left on during >>deicing. > >I thought airlines turned off engines during deicing as a general rule. When it actually FROZE in Austin earlier this year, I happened to be at the airport seeing a Continental 727 flight engineer off. Most of the airplanes were grounded, with 2-3 inches of ice on the wings. As we were waiting, an American Airlines 727 parked next to the gate began to start up, then shut down. The captain came out, climbed on top of the catering truck, was elevated to approximately the top of the airplane, climbed on top of the airplane, and stuck his upper body in the #2 engine. 60 seconds later, the de-icing cranes poured glycol into there for about a minute. Three minutes after that, they started the #2 engine. The spray out the exhaust was *very* impressive. :-) I would imagine the cabin would have been aromatic after that. :-) -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Mon May 16 01:53:31 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dalden@legal.com Subject: Re: Exhaust fumes in aircraft cabin? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 May 94 01:53:31 IR>I'd be less concerned about the carbon monoxide levels than the carcinogens IR>being introduced into the cabin: kerosene's highly toxic. Probably not a IR>problem for the average tourist, but how about the flight/cabin crew, IR>frequent flyer, etc? I'm glad to see this comment. As it's become so politically correct to all but run in fear from the slightest hint of cigarette smoke, is anyone aware of any comparisons, in terms of parts per million, between second hand cigarette smoke circulated in a cabin and other contaminents that are also found in these cabins? -- Dave Alden From kls Mon May 16 01:53:31 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stedder@tulsix.utulsa.edu (Stephen Tedder) Subject: Re: twin-engine B727? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 May 94 01:53:31 I work at AA's Maintenance and Engineering Center (mostly in jet engine test). I'm pretty sure that we don't have any twin-engine 727's. Probably the aircraft sighted was one of our Fokker 100's, which would make sense for Detroit. It has Tay 650 engines, which would account for the large nacelles. The F100 does have some resemblance to a "shorty" B727-100. Like all our aircraft, the type is visible on the nose. If I remember correctly, the tail numbers are in the sequence N2AA, N2AB,... Other notes...AA markings are removed from all aircraft we dispose of. And...the Valsan mod involves leaving the center engine in place and functional. These ships must be wild rides!! -- Steve Tedder stedder@tulsix.utulsa.edu 918 292-3301 From kls Mon May 16 01:53:31 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rteasdal@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu (Russell Graham Teasdale) Subject: Re: causes of go 'rounds? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Computer Science Department, Cal Poly SLO Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 May 94 01:53:31 In article , R.Ludorf wrote: > [with regard to animals on the runway] >Not necessarily a reason for a 'go-around'. Think I remember an accident in >India, where an Airbus crashed into some sacred cattle/live-stock whatsoever >on the runway while landing... > >rainer > There was a memorable incident in Pakistan a few years back, in which a just-delivered F-16 was taking off when a wild pig, spooked by the jet noise, ran onto the runway. The A/C collided with the pig just a second or so before the pilot would have rotated... Result: one dead pig. One crashed, burned-out F-16. The pilot, however, survived, thanks to the wonders of his zero-zero ejection seat. I do not know whether his ground crew painted a pig silhouette onto his next fighter's canopy rail, however... And while on _that_ topic, I spoke once with a Marine pilot who said that when flying commercial, he tried to avoid being scheduled onto Scarebusses if he could possibly help it. He was apparently not fond of the FBW system employed by Airbus. Sensing a contradiction between this, and the fact that he was attached to a squadron flying F/A-18 Hornets, I pressed him for an answer as to why one FBW plane was necessarily worse than another. His answer? ("When I'm driving my Hornet, I'm sitting in a nice ejection seat. If the plane decides to do something really weird, I can always part company with it on amicable terms.") Hmmmm. I had to confess that I'd never thought of it in quite those terms. -- |||||||| Russ Teasdale -- rteasdal@galaxy.CalPoly.EDU -- (Rusty) ||||||||| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Gentlemen, if we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure." - D. Quayle From kls Mon May 16 01:53:32 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pmc@news.ans.net (Philip M. Chuang) Subject: Re: sci.aeronautics.airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Advanced Network & Services, Inc. - Elmsford, NY Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 May 94 01:53:32 Terry Drinkard writes: > We've been kicking this around a bit, and I thought I'd ask the group's >opinion. > > Assume for a moment that a commercial airframer could build a transport >that is capable of flying halfway around the world in scheduled service. >Does this have any real value? Or are we happy at roughly 7000nm range? > > I'd ask a live customer's opinion if I knew one. :-) > >Terry My guess is that China AL, EVA, Cathay, and China Eastern/Southern would probably like a little more range to allow their planes to fly non-stop from their respective home bases to ORD/NYC/IAD/ATL/DFW. I can also see that BA might like to have the slightly additional range to allow them to fly LHR -> Perth non-stop, so they can claim to have nonstop UK-Australia service. Maybe Singapore, Malaysia, and Thai also would like to be able to serve the US West Coast nonestop, in both directions, year-round. Speaking of Malaysia, early next year they will start flying A330's nonstop from Kula Lumpur to Johannesburg, but because of a combination of winds and the hot-and-high Jan Smuts Airport at Johannesburg, the return trip will stop at Mauritius. Although I doubt traffic on this route will ever require a 747, Malaysia might want to operate a twin equipped with more powerful engines that will allow them to fly JNB->KUL non-stop someday. BTW, Terry, I have noticed that while Northwest's trans Pacific cargo flight still stop via Anchorage, their passenger flights have not done so for many years. What could be the possible reasons? From kls Fri May 20 01:58:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: sci.aeronautics.airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:40 In article , Philip M. Chuang wrote: >BTW, Terry, I have noticed that while Northwest's trans Pacific > cargo flight still stop via Anchorage, their passenger > flights have not done so for many years. What could be > the possible reasons? I'm not Terry (nor do I play him on TV) but I think I can answer that: Anchorage is a pretty popular Cargo transshipment spot. It makes sense: most cargo 747s don't nearly have the range to do US-Asia or Europe-Asia nonstop. So a lot of planes have to stop somewhere anyway, and at Anchorage they can do some mixing and matching of cargos, which gives shippers more flexibility. And most cargo, of course, is indifferent to connecting vs non-stop flights (other than super-delicate/super time-sensitive stuff). I think Fairbanks tries to play the same role. Anchorage should be pretty pleased that they kept one function at least, since few Asia passenger flights stop there anymore, now that the Russkies have become more reasonable and airplanes have grown longer legs. RNA From kls Fri May 20 01:58:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: sci.aeronautics.airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:40 In article , Philip M. Chuang wrote: > >BTW, Terry, I have noticed that while Northwest's trans Pacific > cargo flight still stop via Anchorage, their passenger > flights have not done so for many years. What could be > the possible reasons? Freighters are loaded much heavier than passenger airplanes, and therefore have less range at typical operating weights. -- 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 May 20 01:58:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: A320 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:40 In article , FLYBOY320 wrote: > >I fly the A-320 for Northwest and I don't think there is a container option >for the aircraft. Just wide cargo doors ! Actually, there is. But it is used primarily in Europe because of their union work rules. Boeing and Douglas sell "moving carpet" type loaders such as the Swedish Magic Carpet or the American ACE system. United, for instance, puts ACE systems in all their 757s. No Boeing or Douglas single-aisle airplane has a containerized cargo option (except main-deck freighters, of course). -- 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 May 20 01:58:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Concorde Question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:40 In article , TriStar500 wrote: >kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > >>The longer-range Airbuses as well as the 747-400 (maybe the MD-11 >>too, though I'm not sure) also use it for balance. > >MD-11 does have fuel in the tail. Also, A-310-300. The Tu-204 carries fuel in the vertical tail (yes, I know everyone else uses the horizontal). -- 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 May 20 01:58:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: sci.aeronautics.airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:40 Terry Drinkard writes: >The Tu-204 carries fuel in the vertical tail (yes, I know everyone else >uses the horizontal). AMN from last November has a note saying that Boeing might put the stronger wing and landing gear of the 747-400F on the passenger -400 with a weight increase to 920,000 lbs. In addition to a payload increase of 22,000 lbs, they mention bigger wing tanks plus tanks in the horizontal and *vertical* tail, for a 300 nm range increase. (The tank in the horizontal tail is already an option but the one in the vertical tail would be new.) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.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 May 20 01:58:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Concorde Question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:40 In article , tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) writes:- > MD-11 does have fuel in the tail. Also, A-310-300. The following is a translation of part of an article in "Der Spiegel" (1st or 2nd week in April) about the crash in Siberia of an A310:- The fateful flight condition was favoured by a design feature of modern long-haul aircraft, which was introduced on the Airbus A310 ER as the first type; the aircraft has an additional tank in the high tail-fins, whose fuel content (4.92 tonnes) after reaching level flight (?) is balanced with the remaining tanks by computer-controlled circulation pumps (see diagram). [According to the diagram, the outer wing tanks contain 2960 kg and the inner wing tanks 11,160 kg, on each side, the main tank 15,710 kg, and the "trim tank" in the tail-fins 4,920 kg.] Disadvantage: With heavy rear-loading at high altitude, the aircraft is, as one Lufthansa pilot explained "manually controllable only with great difficulty; one should never take out the precisely-controlling autopilot." [OK - I've sacrificed style to accuracy! :-) ] Manoeuvring in that case would be about as difficult as steering a car "on smooth ice" or with "five sacks of potatoes in the boot". The potential safety problem was offset against an economic requirement: Through technically-sophisticated balancing between the tanks complementing traditional trim, the aircraft uses around one percent less fuel - a not insignificant saving on long-haul flights. [End of translation.] Two things are worth noting here:- a) The balancing act with the fuel is computer-controlled. b) The aircraft is only marginally stable with this system in operation. (The article implied that it could have been a contributory factor in the crash.) Concorde uses fuel-pumping to the rear tanks to alter its CG, too, but (I *believe*) this is done to counter the change in CL as it goes supersonic, and is controlled by the flight engineer rather than being automatic. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB Tel: +44 (71) 477-8422, Fax.: +44 (71) 477-8585, E-mail (JANET): p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Fri May 20 01:58:40 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Alex Lee Subject: Re: Concorde Question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:40 --------------- >The longer-range Airbuses as well as the 747-400 (maybe the MD-11 too, >though I'm not sure) also use it for balance. They can have fuel tanks >in their horizontal stabilizers that help reduce drag at cruise (hence >improve range) by moving the CG back, permitting reduced elevator trim. I talked to a 747-400 captain a while back, and asked him if they transfer fuel in flight to the tank in the stabilizer to reduce trim drag. The answer, to my surprise, was NO. He said unlike the MD-11's and the airbuses, the 747-400s only use the stabilizer tank to store fuel, not to move the CG to reduce trim drag. Anyone out there who can verify that? On a side note, the captain also told me that when flying the 747-400 Combi versions, they can't burn all the fuel they have in the center tank. Because the Combi is tail-heavy due to the cargo load, fuel has to be used to balance the plane. Therefore, the range is reduced. That is very interesting. -Alex From kls Fri May 20 01:58:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Concorde Question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:41 >I talked to a 747-400 captain a while back, and asked him if they >transfer fuel in flight to the tank in the stabilizer to reduce trim >drag. The answer, to my surprise, was NO. He said unlike the MD-11's >and the airbuses, the 747-400s only use the stabilizer tank to store >fuel, not to move the CG to reduce trim drag. Anyone out there who can >verify that? Recently, I said the current 747-400 does not have an active fuel transfer system, but that this was going to be added as part of a set of upgrades announced last summer that, in two years time, were to increase the 747-400's MGTOW to 890,000 lbs. Robert Dorsett called me on this claim and asked me to cite references. I thought it was in either AW&ST or AMN or this newsgroup, but so far have come up empty. So, it may be a planned improvement, but I haven't been able to document that assertion. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.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 May 20 01:58:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pete@Rational.COM (Pete Coe) Subject: Re: Exhaust fumes in aircraft cabin? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: pete@Rational.COM Organization: Rational, 2800 San Tomas Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95051-0951, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:41 Speaking of exhaust fumes, I actually got to fly somewhere this weekend. I was in the back of a 737-400, and I was most surprised that when the crew started the engines, the number two did only what I can describe as a backfire. I may have imagined a bang, but I certainly saw a very large puff of smoke come out the back. In many years of sitting behind the wing, I cannot recall seeing this before. As we made a safe flight after this I think I can assume that it was perfectly safe. Was this a malfunction, or do CFM-56's have a habit of doing this kind of thing? And no, I didn't smell anything. -- -- Pete Coe -- Rational Software Corporation -- Object-Oriented Products From kls Fri May 20 01:58:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pete@Rational.COM (Pete Coe) Subject: Strange 767 at Boeing Field Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: pete@Rational.COM Organization: Rational, 2800 San Tomas Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95051-0951, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:41 I drove through Seattle on interstate 5 this weekend, and while passing Boeing field I noticed a very odd looking 767 (I think). Now I could have been confused by the dull drizzling weather, but it looked rather like it had another fuselage molded to the roof for about two thirds of its length. If I had had moretime, I would have stopped of at the museum of flight and hopefully got a closer look. My only thoughts were that it was a 767 AWAC's aircraft, but it also looked very like the Lockheed (or was it Soviet) design studies for hydrogen powered aircraft. Or maybe sleep deprivation made me dream the whole thing. -- -- Pete Coe -- Rational Software Corporation -- Object-Oriented Products From kls Fri May 20 01:58:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Strange 767 at Boeing Field References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:41 >while passing Boeing field I noticed a very odd looking 767 (I >think) ... it looked rather like it had another fuselage molded >to the roof for about two thirds of its length. That's the prototype 767. Haven't you ever seen a pregnant plane before? Where do you think all the new planes come from?! :-) >My only thoughts were that it was a 767 AWAC's aircraft, but it also >looked very like the Lockheed (or was it Soviet) design studies for >hydrogen powered aircraft. I saw an Airbus proposal, based on an A300 or A310, for a hydrogen powered aircraft which looked very much like the aircraft you saw. But your first guess was closest, if not quite right -- the upper lobe houses an experimental infra-red sensor array. Seems to me it was around the mid-80s when they did this, and as far as I know the project (and the plane, which really is 767 #1) has been dormant for the past half-dozen years or so. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.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 May 20 01:58:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:41 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >In article , Ned Kittlitz wrote:>I believe there are multiple flightdeck crews on very long flights. >>Is this true? > >I've heard from a United pilot that on the long flights they have one >and even two (on flights like LAX-SYD) reserve first officers, in >addition to the captain, first officer, and, on older 747s, the flight >engineer. The primary first officer is on duty during takeoff and >landing, so the two reserves only get the really exciting chore of >watching the autopilot guide the aircraft over vast expanses of water. Yes, I visited the Air New Zealand 747-400 flight deck on LAX-Auckland on Dec 25, the two pilots on duty were the first and second officer (second officer in the pilot's seat) as the captain was having a snooze. The pilots have a rest area on the upper deck and the rest of the crew has a rest area at the very rear of the aircraft, in the tailcone. It's above the level of the main deck and reached via some stairs. You sometimes see them popping in and out of it during the flight. Actually, on our flight they did have a little excitement---some really thumping turbulence (the worst I have ever experienced---woke the whole plane up) just east of Fiji. We had to take some evasive manuevers and veer off our flight path (according to the flight display on the monitors). RNA From kls Fri May 20 01:58:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:41 In article , John DiMarco wrote: > >Let's see: halfway around the world? That's something like NY to Singapore >nonstop, right? 30-40 hours of flying? No, actually that's only a little over 22 hours in flight. -- 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 May 20 01:58:41 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:41 In article , Robert Ashcroft wrote: >[Some stuff deleted] That >foolishness with recycling air might have to stop on such a long flight >(perhaps the air could be "refreshed" every 8 hours or so?). [...] Let me clear up a misconception here. The air in a commercial airliner is half fresh, half (or less) recirculated air. It is not currently possible to maintain the same air on board for 8 hours, or even one. As a rule of thumb, you can figure that the air completely changes every three minutes. -- 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 May 20 01:58:42 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Alex Lee Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:42 --------- In article Karl Swartz wrote: >I've heard from a United pilot that on the long flights they have one >and even two (on flights like LAX-SYD) reserve first officers, in >addition to the captain, first officer, and, on older 747s, the flight >engineer. I flew United to and from Taiwan on flights UA844 and UA845 last January, and in the cockpit they had 4 pilots. I saw three of them with four stripes, and one of them with three stripes. The flight from SFO to TPE was about 14 hours long, while the flight from TPE to SFO was about 11 hours long. Then I flew EVA to Taiwan in March. I had a choice between EVA and China Airliners. I chose EVA because of their bigger seats, and also because CAL's flight back was TPE-JFK non-stop. I believe 15 hours in the air is just too much for me. On the EVA flight, they had 2 Captains and one Taiwanese first officer. The trans-pacific leg was from Seattle to Taipei, and it was shorter than SFO to Taipei. I think different airliners have different number of pilots for their long range flights. As a passenger, I would rather have a stop in the middle than flying non-stop for 14 or 15 hours. But for airlines, they would probably want to fly direct to save money. So I guess there will be demand for really long range commercial transports, but as a passenger, I would rather not fly on them. -Alex From kls Fri May 20 01:58:42 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: plisner@mti.mti.sgi.com (Peter Lisner) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:42 In article , Ned Kittlitz wrote: > >I believe there are multiple flightdeck crews on very long flights. Is this >true? what are the average/maximum-permitted shifts? How does the on-duty >clock run for these people. (Isn't the limit usually 80 hrs per month?) > >I'm not sure I'd want to fly with a pilot who had been sitting around >in an aluminum tube for 16 hours before going to work. > >----- >E. N. Kittlitz (kittlitz@sw.stratus.com, kittlitz@world.std.com) >consulting at Stratus, not representing their positions. > On British Airways 747-400 flights over 12 hours, they carry two complete crews (Captain and First Officer). The first crew is called the "operating crew",and they do the take-off and up to the first 6 hours of flight. They then rest for the next 5 or 6 hours, andthe "heavy crew" takes over. There are bunks for the crew just behind the flight deck. The operating crew then takes over for the last hour or so of the flight. I got this from a very interesting book called "London-Sydney" by Philip J. Birtles, which is no. 8 in the "From the Flightdeck" series, published in 1993 by Ian Allan. The book and others from the series are listed in the "Airliners" catalog. All opinions are mine, not SGI's. -- Peter Lisner e-mail: plisner@mti.sgi.com phone : (415)390-4419 Silicon Graphics Inc. From kls Fri May 20 01:58:42 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dalden@legal.com Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:42 ID> Assume for a moment that a commercial airframer could build a transport ID>that is capable of flying halfway around the world in scheduled service. ID>Does this have any real value? Or are we happy at roughly 7000nm range? ID> I'd ask a live customer's opinion if I knew one. :-) I'm a live customer ... I flew in Business Class on United (747-400) from LAX to Sydney, Australia. At 14 hours, I understand that this is the longest scheduled commercial flight in the world. Six hours into the flight I woke up and looked around the darkened cabin. After looking at my watch and calculating that we had another eight hours to go, a strange thought overcame me: What if I didn't want to be in this airplane anymore? Realizing that such thoughts weren't healthy, I quickly put it out of my mind and went back to sleep. Next time I go to Queensland, I'm going to connect at HNL to Cairns. That's my opinion. From kls Fri May 20 01:58:42 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ttyson@tyrell.net (Tim Tyson) Subject: twin-engine B727 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Tyrell Corporation - (816) 459-7584 - (800) TYRELL-1 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:42 Somewhere I heard about Boeing getting an STC for using 2 JT8D-217's in the 1 and 3 positions and a -15 in number 2. Something like that. MAybe it was the Rolls-Royce. I know UPS has their 27's setup with 2 RR Tay's and a -15. The Rolls engines are more fuel efficent, and meet the stage III noise requirements. Personally, I think a pair of -217's on a 727 would rip and snort. From kls Fri May 20 01:58:42 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tobias Henry Lutterodt Subject: Questions Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:42 Just a few quick questions for anyone who knows: First, what happened to the first A300-600? Is it with Airbus or still with Garuda or what? Were A300-600 cockpits built to match those of the A310 from the start or did this come later? Second, does anyone know what type of engines Philippine Airlines and Garuda have on their new 747-400s? It seems like a number of new airlines including these two and El Al have taken delivery of their first 747-400s lately. When does Kuwait Air get their's? Third, what exactly was modified on the A320 wing to get the A321 wing apart from the usual structural strengthening? Are the flaps different? Thanks... Toby From kls Fri May 20 01:58:42 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:42 >First, what happened to the first A300-600? Is it with Airbus or still >with Garuda or what? Were A300-600 cockpits built to match those of the >A310 from the start or did this come later? Your reference to Garuda and cockpits suggests you may be a bit confused. Garuda received the first A300 with a two-man crew, but it was an A300B4-220 and not a -600. It had the old round gauges instead of the CRT displays we're used to seeing; Airbus referred to it as FFCC (Forward-Facing Crew Cockpit). First flight was on October 6, 1981, with delivery to Garuda on March 4, 1982. As far as I can tell, it's still in service with Garuda wearing registra- tion PK-GAA. Less than a month after that delivery, the first A310 took to the air, on April 3, 1992 to be precise. It had a substantially more sophisticated flight deck from the outset, with CRT displays in place of the old gauges. The A300-600 (officially the A300B4-600 series) has the aft fuse- lage and horizontal tail of the A310 (plus a slight stretch) plus various other refinements. The cockpit is far more advanced than the Garuda A300B4 (FFCC), though apparently it's a wee bit short of the A310's sophistication. They're close enough to have a common type rating for pilots. The first A300-600 flew on July 8, 1983, and was delivered to Saudia on March 26, 1984. (Before someone brings up American, they were the launch customer for the A300-600R, the long range version, which first flew in late 1987.) >Second, does anyone know what type of engines Philippine Airlines and >Garuda have on their new 747-400s? Both have GE CF6-80C2B1F engines, which isn't surprising since both are 747-4U3 models -- the Garuda customer code. I assume that the pair which Philippines is getting are part of a Garuda order or are leased from Garuda. >When does Kuwait Air get their's? The first (of three) on order, also with the same GE engines, is due to be delivered this coming August according to the info I have. >Third, what exactly was modified on the A320 wing to get the A321 wing >apart from the usual structural strengthening? Are the flaps different? As far as I know they're essentially identical, as are the various current 737 models. That's just my impression, though; I could be all wet. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.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 May 20 01:58:42 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) Subject: Re: Twin-engine 727? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:42 Can anyone explain the advantages and disadvantages of re-engining Boeing 727s with just two engines. I'm also curious about the cost involved with the re-engining Boeing 727s vs buying new Boeing 757s or equivalents (if any). Thanks in advance... --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Williams swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil --------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Fri May 20 01:58:42 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: aki@is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (WATANABE Aki) Subject: Looking for information on Boeing aircraft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: aki@acrux.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Organization: Dept. of Information Science, the Univ. of Tokyo, Japan. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:42 I would like to get information on computer system of Boeing aircrafts. Does anyone have the article titled "Advanced Autopilot Flight Director System Computer Architecture for Boeing 737-300 Aircraft" in Proc. 5th Dig. Avionics Sys. Conf. ? Thanks in advance, Aki Watanabe e-mail: aki@is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Department of Information Science, TEL: (03)-3812-2111 ext. 4096 Faculty of Science, Univeristy of Tokyo FAX: (03)-3812-5941 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan -- $@:dB<8&Gn;N(J2$@G/(J $@EOJU(J $@0!5*(J aki@acrux.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp From kls Fri May 20 01:58:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ericbrodsky@psl.wisc.edu (ethan brodsky) Subject: V-Speeds for Boeing 737-200 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ericbrodsky@psl.wisc.edu Organization: University of Wisconsin - Physical Science Lab Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:43 Could someone please send me the V-Speeds for the Boeing 737 model 200? Thanks in advance, Ethan Brodsky -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Real programmers program with: COPY CON PROGNAME.EXE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If anyone wants fade or Sound Blaster Pascal code, E-MAIL me From kls Fri May 20 01:58:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ranger9596@aol.com (Ranger9596) Subject: Go Arounds Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:43 Following the messages here, I have a question. Back in October, I was on the perimeter road around PHL (Island Avenue) and I saw a USAir 727 nearing the runway. The 27 powered up, gears up, and went around. Running perpendicular to the main runway being used that afternoon was another runway for commuters (near the old "warehouse" overseas terminal) and from what I could hear on my scanner, there was a conflict with either a landing Shorts or Beechcraft also with USAir (I didn't see this aircraft). Now, I'm not an expert on this subject, but the controller on duty was really awful. She was short-tempered, barked out clearances that at times didn't seem to make sense, and when some of the pilots questioned her judgment, she replied downright rudely; it really seemed like an insult to some of those pilots. From what I could deduce, she was squeezing everyone and his brother into the approach pattern. In any event, right after this 727 went around, someone (not the controller) replied to the commuter that next time he should be more accurate when calling in his position, etc. How much responsibility does ATC take in spacing aircraft - is this flying VFR? (Obviously, I'm not a pilot.) Maybe this situation will make sense to someone out there reading this. thanks - Steve From kls Fri May 20 01:58:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mbas@argo.unm.edu (i am me) Subject: md80 vs boeing 727 (noise) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UNM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 01:58:43 Hi! This might sound like a dumb question, but what is the difference that causes the 2 powerplants on the md 80 to seem to be noiser than the 3 powerplants on the boeing 727??? I recently rode on both planes on a short trip and it sounded louder on the md 80 than on the 727. Thanks morris -- It's Broken, Mommy. I've Been Misled. Inefficient But Marketable. IBM--Yesterday's Technology at Tomorrow's Prices Ross Perot's son told him that he wanted a Mickey Mouse outfit for his birthday, so ol' Ross bought him IBM. From kls Fri May 20 02:04:54 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Continental want-ad: LOW PAY! References: <2r3hs3$8gp@samba.oit.unc.edu> <2r3lt8$d9g@masala.cc.uh.edu> <2r49hl$i8@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 94 02:04:54 In article <2r49hl$i8@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: >In article <2r3lt8$d9g@masala.cc.uh.edu>, wrote: >>I realize that baggage handling is unskilled labor, but $4.94 an hour? >>On the tarmac throwing heavy bags in Houston, in AUGUST!!! Five bucks >>an hour! No benefits. Is this what deregulation has led to? Jobs >>in the industry which are the equivalent to flipping burgers? No wonder >>there are problems of employeees stealing passenger stuff: they want to eat!! >> >>Do other airlines have similar pay scales? > >What do you expect? This is a no skill job, one that any person in >good physical shape can do (not that they'd necessarily want to). >And our educational system is so awful that there are plenty of people >with no skills---the only thing they have going for them is physical >strength. > >Do you think that just because an employer is an airline, all their jobs >should pay more? If I have people operating heavy machinery near my $50 million airplane, I want people who are smart, in addition to the other criteria. A recent Boeing publication summarizes the expenses of a variety of ramp incidents. These include: 757 engine/nacelle damage: $500,000 (down two days). Baggage cart damage to 727 airstair: $23,800 (27 hours) Beltloader w/fuselage: $24,000 (144 hours) Cargo loader/747 door seal: $3,500 (3 hours) Catering truck hit 737-300 door: $130,000 (18 days) Chemical spillage in cargo compartment: $10,000. Chocking error on 737-200: $23,331. Container damage on 747: $505,000. Fuel door left unsecured, tore off in-flight and caused flap damage: $50,000. Jetblast blowing baggage cart into 737-400 engine: $90,000. Jetway positioning: $5300. Lavatory servicing truck collision w/737-300: $1200. There are others, but these are the ones that could be the result of ground personnel, including, yes, handlers, etc. People paid $4.65 don't generally have a very positive attitude about their work. The counter-argument is that the union boys operate the machinery: but it is the grunts who will spot left-over tools, unsecured vehicles, open hatches, attached hoses and cables, etc. I don't know about you, but I'd like these people to have a bit more sparkle in their eye than a clerk at Burger King. They don't have to be college graduates, but it's preferable that they haven't already been stomped by life. >Continental is paying market wage. That's what market wage is for people >with no skills but basic coordination and physical strength. Given that this is at least $3 less than "market wage," I suspect the idea here is to simply employ warm bodies, the result of a mere first-order cost/benefit analysis. Regards, -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Thu May 26 12:14:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Concorde Question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 May 94 12:14:43 In article , Alex Lee wrote: > >I talked to a 747-400 captain a while back, and asked him if they >transfer fuel in flight to the tank in the stabilizer to reduce trim >drag. The answer, to my surprise, was NO. He said unlike the MD-11's >and the airbuses, the 747-400s only use the stabilizer tank to store >fuel, not to move the CG to reduce trim drag. Anyone out there who can >verify that? That is technically true. The fuel from the tail tank is simply metered into the center section tank at a specified rate. There is no attempt to determine the airplane's CG in flight and move it by pumping fuel. I believe that is considered to be too complex for its expected benefit. However, the 747-400 does derive a trim drag benefit from the tail fuel. The tail fuel does pull the airplane's CG aft, reducing the amount of trim drag generated by the horizontal tail. But, all of those calculations are done on the ground. -- 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 May 26 12:14:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hoyme@src.honeywell.com (Ken Hoyme) Subject: Re: Strange 767 at Boeing Field References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell Technology Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 May 94 12:14:44 In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > But your first guess was closest, if not quite right -- the upper > lobe houses an experimental infra-red sensor array. Seems to me it > was around the mid-80s when they did this, and as far as I know the > project (and the plane, which really is 767 #1) has been dormant for > the past half-dozen years or so. The project was called the Airborne Optical Adjunct (AOA) and was (I believe) a testbed for sensors to detect incoming missiles as part of the SDI program. Ken Hoyme Honeywell Technology Center (612)951-7354 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 Internet: hoyme@src.honeywell.com From kls Thu May 26 12:14:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Strange 767 at Boeing Field References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 May 94 12:14:44 In article , Pete Coe wrote: >I drove through Seattle on interstate 5 this weekend, and while passing >Boeing field I noticed a very odd looking 767 (I think). Now I could have >been confused by the dull drizzling weather, but it looked rather like it had >another fuselage molded to the roof for about two thirds of its length. If I >had had moretime, I would have stopped of at the museum of flight and >hopefully got a closer look. My only thoughts were that it was a 767 AWAC's >aircraft, but it also looked very like the Lockheed (or was it Soviet) design >studies for hydrogen powered aircraft. > >Or maybe sleep deprivation made me dream the whole thing. No, it was a real airplane. :-) It is owned by the US Army and is used to test all manner of ballistic missle sensing stuff. It used to be called the AOA (and still is by those of us who used to work Boeing Field) but now has a new acronym associated with whatever tests it is performing now. That is all I know, and that is from open sources. :-) -- 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 May 26 12:14:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 May 94 12:14:44 In article rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >In article , Ned Kittlitz wrote:>I believe there are multiple flightdeck crews on very long flights. >>Is this true? > ------ I recently had an opportunity to look around a Lufthansa A340 in the hangar at Frankfurt last November. For the additional crew (both flight deck and cabin), they have two crew rest areas. The first is a submarine-like berth with a double bunk right behind the cockpit (on the right side of the aircraft). The second is a compartment in the CARGO level of the aircraft, with 6+ bunks, with access from themain cabin through a stairwell. The second compartment was located over the wing. (It was mentioned that this might actually be a modified cargo container, and could be off-loaded). Another of our group (an evaluation crew from a US carrier looking at another aircraft type) mentioned that this arrangement wouldn't work for us - too much potential for fooling around :-). As a side note, the A340 we looked at had a "Purser's station" located about a third of the way back along the cabin. It was a little booth with just enough room for one person to sit at a desk. All of the cabin video equipment (including the personalized video for FC) was controlled from here. All in all it looked to be about the same size as a lavatory, on the left side of the aircraft. (NOTE: I have since left the airline that sent the evaluation group.) My 0.02USD, 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 May 26 12:14:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: alaw@us.oracle.com (Alvin W. Law) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: alaw@us.oracle.com Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 May 94 12:14:44 In article , Terrell D. Drinkard wrote: > We've been kicking this around a bit, and I thought I'd ask the group's >opinion. > > Assume for a moment that a commercial airframer could build a transport >that is capable of flying halfway around the world in scheduled service. >Does this have any real value? Or are we happy at roughly 7000nm range? As a frequent flyer to/from Hong Kong, I can think of two routes with existing markets off the tip of my head, HKG-YYZ (by either Canadian or Cathay Pacific) and HKG-ORD (by United). Cathay Pacific is going to have a direct HKG-YYZ flight soon with a stopover in Anchorage. So the market for a non-stop HKG-YYZ flight is already there. And a nonstop HKG-ORD flight by United would ease up the load of its UA805/806 flights servicing HKG-SFO (which are packed 7 days a week) and at the same time provide more flexibilities in connecting options to the east coast. Other candidates include LON-SYD and JFK-SYD but I have no idea about the market for the two routes. > I'd ask a live customer's opinion if I knew one. :-) I have flown HKG-LAX twice and I can tell you the 15+ hour flight time is definitely not a pleasant experience. So I guess unless the new transport is going to have supersonic cruise speed, the 20+ hour flight time (especially in coach class) is probably less preferable than a stopover mid-flight with a 747-400. -- Alvin W. Law .............................................. Oracle Corporation Project Leader, Cost Management System ........... 300 Oracle Parkway, Floor 6 Manufacturing Applications .......................... Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Email: alaw@oracle.com ........... Voice: 1.415.506.3390 . Fax: 1.415.506.7299 ORA-03113: end-of-file on communication channel From kls Thu May 26 12:14:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: akrodriguez@fandago.Read.TASC.COM (A. Kevin Rodriguez) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TASC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 May 94 12:14:44 I have a cousin who flies B737s for United. He jumped at the chance to go from B747-400 1st Officer to Captain on the B737. Other than the obvious reasons on taking the captain spot, what is the likelyhood that a competent professional pilot will prefer sitting in either seat oversighting the autopilot for 6 to 8 hours? Granted there will be period of activity, but not enough to keep the good ones interested. What happens if you add another 4 to 8 hours flying time onto an airframe? You'll get pilots who are collecting their seniority hours to bid other positions. Am I dead wrong on this? ____________________________________________ A. Kevin Rodriguez The Analytic Sciences Corporation (TASC) Reading, Massachusetts AKRodriguez@TASC.com ____________________________________________ Just use common sense! From kls Thu May 26 12:14:44 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: matthew@phoenix.princeton.edu (Matthew Meisel Sigelman) Subject: Re: Continental want-ad: LOW PAY! References: <2r3lt8$d9g@masala.cc.uh.edu> <2r49hl$i8@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Princeton University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 May 94 12:14:44 In article rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: > >If I have people operating heavy machinery near my $50 million airplane, I >want people who are smart, in addition to the other criteria. A recent > While all of the accidents you list are obviously quite expensive, the potentiality for such accidents is actually quite low. It really doesn't take too much to avoid any of those accidents-- or others for that matter. Most of them are merely the product of carelessness -- and I know plenty of well paid people who are careless. Come on: you don't need "people who are smart" to be sure that your fuel door is getting closed or that the brakes are being hooked up or that you don't have trucks banging into the aircraft on the apron. >The counter-argument is that the union boys operate the machinery: but it >is the grunts who will spot left-over tools, unsecured vehicles, open hatches, >attached hoses and cables, etc. > Actually, at many carriers and especially at ground handling firms, the baggage handlers are the ones responsible for operating the equipment, such as hooking up towbars and auxiliary power units, driving ramp service vehicles including pushback tractors, and connecting brake lines. Best, Matt Sigelman MATTHEW@PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU PO Box 1369 Tel/Fax: (718) 816-1817 Princeton, NJ 08542-1369 From kls Wed Jun 1 14:35:01 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hedleyj@wl.aecl.ca (No, that's me over here!) Subject: RE: Russian 'UFO' shaped plane? Anyone? References: <2s4pfp$mh2@infa.central.susx.ac.uk> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 94 14:35:01 I saw a video clip on NBC World News (hello Tom Brokaw!) Wed May 25 about this. It seems to be a very large lifting body type design with multiple engines, stub (and I mean very stub) wings and stabilizers. A proof-of-concept vehicle of about 1-1.5 m total length was shown being flown at some location (Q: would the CIA dub this RAM-?) and sure enough up it went into the air via remote piloting. The 2000 pax version is still a paper effort (I assume they don't CAD to any degree in Russia yet) so we shall wait and see. They did indeed build the An-225 Mriya, but then again they only built one. Cheers Bruce Hedley AECL Research Whiteshell Labs Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada =============================================================================== Bruce Hedley | AECL Research | I think, Whiteshell Laboratories | therefore I am, Pinawa, Manitoba, CANADA | I think InterNet: | =============================================================================== From kls Wed Jun 1 14:35:01 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: clive@sco.com (Clive D.W. Feather) Subject: Re: Russian 'UFO' shaped plane? Anyone? References: <2s4pfp$mh2@infa.central.susx.ac.uk> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Santa Cruz Operation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 94 14:35:01 In article <2s4pfp$mh2@infa.central.susx.ac.uk> joek@cogs.susx.ac.uk (Joe Karthauser) writes: >A friend of mine told me about a Russian(?) plane that he say on the news a >few days ago. Aparently it can hold about 2000 people and looks like a >flying saucer. Does anyone here know _anything_ about it, as if it's real >it sounds quite interesting. I saw this news item. As far as I can tell, it's a lifting body (that is, a craft generating lift from the shape of its body rather than wings), and they claim to have made some breakthrough that makes this practical. There was film of a model flying, rather erratically, and of a prototype under construction. The inventors also said that the plane could fly anywhere, and would not need a tarmac runway. I would presume that this would be uneconomic, because the costs of additional or stronger landing gear would outweigh the benefits. On the other hand, the prototype looked to be too wide to fit standard runways (it *might* fit Heathrow's extra wide ones) because of the width of the wheelbase. Then they started talking about water landings. -- 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: +44 923 210 352 | WD1 8YN, United Kingdom | From kls Wed Jun 1 14:35:01 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Gordon Watson Subject: Statistics for air travel Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: G.C.Watson@ed.ac.uk Organization: Department of Meteorology, University of Edinburgh Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 94 14:35:01 Does anyone have off the top of their head figures for ( or a reference to ) the increase in air travel over the last 30 yrs, say 1960 - 1990 ?? Miles flown would be ideal, but passenger or aircraft numbers would be useful. The reason why I ask is we're running climate models for the last 30 years. We have figures for aircraft emissions for 1990, but nothing earlier, so we'd like a 'ball park' figure to scale them by. Any info would be appreciated, Thanks, Gordon. ===================================================================== Gordon C. Watson, _------_ { { } Meteorology Department, Edinburgh University, (__________) Scotland. / / / / JANET - G.C.Watson@uk.ac.ed INTERNET - gcw@met.ed.ac.uk ===================================================================== From kls Wed Jun 1 14:35:01 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Boyd Subject: airliner maintenance Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 94 14:35:01 Howdy. Someone here at work asked me a question that I hadn't the foggiest idea of the answer to: For every hour that an average jet airliner spends flying, how many hours of maintenance work is required? Feel free to include 100/500/1000 hr checks. Any answer appreciated! -- Andrew C Boyd aboyd@qnx.com From kls Wed Jun 1 14:35:01 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: airliner maintenance References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 94 14:35:01 >For every hour that an average jet airliner spends flying, how >many hours of maintenance work is required? A friend sent me a copy of the NTSB report on the United 747 operating flight 811 that blew a cargo door an hour out of Honolulu. (Thanks again, Tony!) Appendix C of the report details the recent maintenance history of the aircraft. This is specific to both United and a 747-100, but is probably a decent approximation of most large commercial trans- ports. (One of our readers works for Delta in this area, and hopefully will be able to offer another perspective.) Type of Maximum Inspection Interval ---------- -------- Service No. 1 To be accomplished on through flights or at trip termination whenever time is less than 12 hours per Maintenance Manual Procedures BX 12-0-1-1. Service No. 2 65 hours (Aircraft with layover of 12 hours or more will receive a Service No. 2 not to exceed 65 hours between checks.) A Check 350 hours B Check 131 days C Check 393 days MPV Check 5 years D Check 9 years The Service No. 2, I believe, is mostly steam cleaning of the interior and generally spiffing things up. Service No. 1 is probably the litter pickup and such. I'm not sure if either of these include any real work to the engines or airframe. I'd expect that one of them might include at least some basics like checking the engine oil, though this may just be done as needed between A Checks. PS: Since it seems to be a common question, this aircraft is indeed still flying for United, though they reregistered it from N4713U to N4724U after the accident. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.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 Jun 1 14:35:01 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: syssfk@tesla.njit.edu Subject: Re: sci.aeronautics.airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 94 14:35:01 In article , rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: > ... > Anchorage should be pretty pleased that they kept one function at least, > since few Asia passenger flights stop there anymore, now that the Russkies > have become more reasonable and airplanes have grown longer legs. > > RNA -- Just as a point of reference when I went to Vietnam this February I flew a 747-400B (it was full) on Asiana Airlines (Korea) out of JFK in New York. On the way there we stopped in Anchorage and Seoul then switched to a Vietnam Airlines 767 leased from Air Brunei and flown by a British or Australian pilot for the leg to Saigon (nobody there called it Ho Chi Minh City except in official publications). On the way back we stopped in Seoul and switched to another 747-400B for a non-stop flight back to JFK. I think the difference was that westbound we had a headwind and eastbound we had a tailwind. The planes had an interesting flight status readout displayed on the movie screen that showed the headwind to be 60-85 mph and the tailwind 95-120 mph. I would have much preferred another stop in Anchorage. The 12 1/2 hour non-stop flight was just brutal. - Steve - ----------------------------------------------- Stephen F. Keeton syssfk@tesla.njit.edu Senior System Programmer Computing Services Department New Jersey Institute of Technology Newark, NJ 07102 (201) 596-2907 From kls Wed Jun 1 14:35:01 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 94 14:35:01 In article you write: >I have a cousin who flies B737s for United. He jumped >at the chance to go from B747-400 1st Officer to Captain >on the B737. Other than the obvious reasons on taking the >captain spot, what is the likelyhood that a competent >professional pilot will prefer sitting in either seat >oversighting the autopilot for 6 to 8 hours? Granted there will >be period of activity, but not enough to keep the good ones >interested. What happens if you add another 4 to 8 hours >flying time onto an airframe? You'll get pilots who are >collecting their seniority hours to bid other positions. >Am I dead wrong on this? Pretty much. The more senior the pilot is, the more likely he'll get what he bids for. You don't get into a 747 if you're not senior: the benefit is primarily an increase in pay. Since the 1950s, payscales have been based largely on the size of the aircraft. While flying long-distance can be mind-numbingly dull, an extra $25-$50K/year vs. an entry-level airplane keeps a lot of people motivated. Pilots, like everyone else, live at 110% of their means. So one even sees captains of smaller airplanes bidding for F/O positions of heavier airplanes. Not common, but it happens. Some of the reasons one might go back: - An opportunity to be a captain of a smaller airplane, as you note. In this case, the pay reductions might not be significant. - A desire for a more stimulating type of flying. A 747-400 crew can make as little as four takeoffs and landings a month. A Southwest 737 crew can do double that in a day. - The desire to fly a shiny new airplane, rather than a 20-year-old airplane. But odds are, sooner or later, they'll migrate back up to the 747 or the heaviest airplane in the fleet before they're finished with their career. -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Wed Jun 1 14:35:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Peter.Zadrozny@corp.sun.com (Peter Zadrozny - SunService Inc.) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Peter.Zadrozny@corp.sun.com Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 94 14:35:02 In article 1276@ohare.Chicago.COM, akrodriguez@fandago.Read.TASC.COM (A. Kevin Rodriguez) writes: > I have a cousin who flies B737s for United. He jumped > at the chance to go from B747-400 1st Officer to Captain > on the B737. Other than the obvious reasons on taking the > captain spot, what is the likelyhood that a competent > professional pilot will prefer sitting in either seat > oversighting the autopilot for 6 to 8 hours? Granted there will > be period of activity, but not enough to keep the good ones > interested. What happens if you add another 4 to 8 hours > flying time onto an airframe? You'll get pilots who are > collecting their seniority hours to bid other positions. > Am I dead wrong on this? Things are different all over the world. In Latin America, the bigger the airplane (weight and passenger capacity) the better. A first officer of a DC-10-30 will get better payed than a captain of a Fokker F-100. This is the case of Mexicana. When they purchased their F-100 they had a very hard time getting people to fly them. It ended up being that first officers of DC-10-30s that where number 50 or higher on the list for captain of DC-10 made the move. The first 50 on the list passed the opportunity. Flight engineers number 40 or higher on the list for first officer went as first officers to the F-100s. Another example is the fact that a 727 captain of Mexicana has a higher salary than a captain of an F-100. Personally, I would prefer to fly the F-100s than a DC-10 as old as the ones Mexicana has, or even worse a 727. > Just use common sense! The least common of the senses? Peter From kls Wed Jun 1 14:35:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Continental want-ad: LOW PAY! References: <2r49hl$i8@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 94 14:35:02 In article matthew@phoenix.princeton.edu (Matthew Meisel Sigelman) writes: >In article rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: >> >>If I have people operating heavy machinery near my $50 million airplane, I >>want people who are smart, in addition to the other criteria. A recent >> >While all of the accidents you list are obviously quite expensive, the >potentiality for such accidents is actually quite low. I suspect that's what we're debating here. If "free market" types dictate personnel requirements, I posit that the rate of such accidents will increase. A point of the Boeing article is to increase training and take other workplace measures to stop such incidents. I would have my doubts as to how much training the airlines will exert on a person making $4.65 an hour, not to mention how effective that training would be on a person who would accept such a job. >It really >doesn't take too much to avoid any of those accidents-- or others for >that matter. Most of them are merely the product of carelessness -- and >I know plenty of well paid people who are careless. I don't believe that "carelessness" is an acceptable answer here. You're using it as a euphemism for human error, but human error is demonstrably a function of personnel selection and the operating environment. >Come on: you don't >need "people who are smart" to be sure that your fuel door is getting >closed or that the brakes are being hooked up or that you don't have >trucks banging into the aircraft on the apron. You do need people who care. -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Wed Jun 1 14:35:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) Subject: Re: Continental want-ad: LOW PAY! References: <2r49hl$i8@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com Organization: T&M/Telecoms IBU, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 94 14:35:02 In article matthew@phoenix.princeton.edu (Matthew Meisel Sigelman) writes: >In article rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: >> >>If I have people operating heavy machinery near my $50 million airplane, I >>want people who are smart, in addition to the other criteria. A recent >> >While all of the accidents you list are obviously quite expensive, the >potentiality for such accidents is actually quite low. Obviously, the potential is not zero. For the items that are safety-related, "quite low" is not a quantity that is necessarily acceptable. Such thinking immortalized Murphy (who, incidentally is a real person). It really >doesn't take too much to avoid any of those accidents-- or others for >that matter. Most of them are merely the product of carelessness -- and >I know plenty of well paid people who are careless. Come on: you don't >need "people who are smart" to be sure that your fuel door is getting >closed or that the brakes are being hooked up or that you don't have >trucks banging into the aircraft on the apron. > You do need people who are motivated. I attribute motivation more to job satisfaction, which is only partly influenced by pay. This introduces my next subject: May 25 Wall Street Journal wrote up the fatal Jetstream accident at Hibbing, MN last December. Among other things, employee attitude, employee relations and job satisfaction issues have been called into question as possible contributing factors. A particular item caught my eye: The First Officer was in hock to his parents for $8500 to pay for some training at Flight Safety International. Although the article didn't say so, I am presuming that this training was required by his employer. If so, this seems like poor management, to put it charitably. I hate to think of how much of my own money I spent to become trained as a CFI. But this was in pursuit of a career goal, just as college students are obligated to come up with the money for their education. Once a pilot is hired by a commercial carrier, the cost of training employees to comply with operating requirements would seem to be a business expense, just as is the cost of keeping the equipment airworthy. Is this normal? Do other carriers require their flight crews to pay for even part of their training? From kls Wed Jun 1 14:35:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) Subject: Q: Airliners crew headsets Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: LGI-IMAG, Grenoble, France Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 94 14:35:02 I would like to know if crew are usually using headsets, and what sort of headsets they use (passive noise-cancelling or walkman type) ? And last question : what sort of plugs you need to use headsets in Airbus cockpits ? -- 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 Wed Jun 1 14:35:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tmackay@uoguelph.ca (Anthony MacKay) Subject: VC10 and IL62 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Guelph Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 94 14:35:02 Some time ago, there was correspondence on the net about the first generation jet transports and the 707 and DC8 got thoroughly reviewed in the following days. Then someone mentioned the Convair 880 and I waited in anticipation for the VC10 to get a bit of an airing. Alas, the correspondence moved on to other topics and the VC10 was forgotten. If any reader has information or interesting anecdotes about the short life of the '10, I (and others) would like to relive this piece of aviation history. Remember the sales slogan? Try a little VC tenderness. I will save the tale of the Comet for another occasion. On a similar subject, I have often wondered about the support strut which extends underneath the rear of the IL62 when it is parked. Is the centre of gravity such that the engine weights make this necessary? And, does this aircraft have deep stall tendencies? I remember that, after the loss of one of the prototype BAC 111 aircraft (destined for Freddy Laker I think, when he was at British United Airways), the Brits put a pusher as well as a shaker on the column for the BAC11 and DH Tridents. From kls Wed Jun 1 14:35:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: davelett@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Sun) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 94 14:35:02 In article dalden@legal.com writes: >I'm a live customer ... I flew in Business Class on United (747-400) >from LAX to Sydney, Australia. At 14 hours, I understand that this is >the longest scheduled commercial flight in the world. Delta's Flight 89, LAX-HKG, is the longest duration nonstop flight in the world. It leaves LAX at 11:55A and arrives HKG 5:45P, and if my math is correct, this is 15:50 in duration. The other way is 8:05P to 6:15P, or 13:10. Part of the length of duration can likely be attributed to the fact that the winds are unfavorable going towards Asia. The other factor is that the MD11 which DL uses is slower than B747-400. I think a BA flight shares the title for longest duration flight, also, for some flight out of London to somewhere in Australia or Asia. At 7249 miles, DL89 is not the longest flight in terms of mileage, but it's close to the top. From kls Wed Jun 1 14:35:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Apropos of Crew Rest Areas in 747-400 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 94 14:35:02 The wire services are reporting a British Airways 747-400 captain died enroute from London to Tokyo while occupying the crew rest area. This apparently happened earlier enough on the flight for the news services to be aware of it when the plane landed at Narita because the landing was filmed by one of the Japanese news networks. I find that interesting because I can't imagine the flight continuing had their not been a place to keep the corpse (i.e. the pilot rest area). Then again, its unlikely there would be multiple copilots without such an area. RNA From kls Thu Jun 2 00:09:38 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Boeing exploring small airplane market References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Jun 94 00:09:38 [The following is reposted with permission from ClariNet. See end of message for details on ClariNet. Karl] SEATTLE (Reuter) - Boeing Co. Tuesday appointed a vice president to explore the development of a possible new commercial jetliner smaller than the company's current smallest model, the twin-engine 737. Boeing named Richard James to head up a study begun by the world's largest commercial aircraft manufacturer last year in conjunction with the Japanese aviation industry, which has been trying for five years to get a new small plane off the ground. Prior to this James was vice president of marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplmne Group. ``(James's) initial assignment will be to explore the market feasibility and structure of a new small airplane programme,'' said Ron Woodard, president of Boeing Commercial Airplane Group. In addition to representatives from Japan Aircraft Industry, Woodard said a team of Chinese observers has begun taking part in the study. He said the officials were examining the market potential for a new aircraft, which could include much of the technology being developed for the next-generation 737 family, which will seat from 108 to 185 passengers. ``This appointment underscores the importance Boeing places on the commercial jetliner market smaller than the 737, and our industrial relationship with Japan and China,'' Woodard said. A Boeing spokeswoman said the feasibility study currently is focusing on a potential new model that would seat from 80 to 100 passengers, slightly larger than the original plans for a small Japanese plane which called for a plane that would seat 70-80. The Japanese plane, dubbed the YSX, has been the subject of government-funded studies since 1989 and also has drawn interest from some European manufacturers. At the same time as Boeing is studying a possible new small plane, it is continuing a separate feasibility study with its European rival, Airbus Industrie, on the potential market for a new super-jumbo plane that could seat up to 800 passengers. -- "Copyright 1994 by Reuters. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.biz.industry.aviation. For more info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS." From kls Thu Jun 2 00:09:38 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hoyme@src.honeywell.com (Ken Hoyme) Subject: Re: Q: Airliners crew headsets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Honeywell Technology Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Jun 94 00:09:38 In article Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) writes: > I would like to know if crew are usually using headsets, and what sort of > headsets they use (passive noise-cancelling or walkman type) ? When I have rode jumpseat on Northwest Airlines, they have typically used headsets during takeoff and landing, but relied on cabin speakers to pick up ATC communications en route. The headsets I have used seem pretty basic. The flight deck is not so noisy that active cancelation is required. It is different on a General Aviation plane where you are basically sitting behind the engine and subject to lots of noise. > And last question : what sort of plugs you need to use headsets in Airbus > cockpits ? Sorry. On the A320's I have jumped, I used the headset provided for the jumpseat without trying to unplug it to see what kind of plug it was. You can only poke and prod so much when you are in there before they might growl at you. :) Ken Ken Hoyme Honeywell Technology Center (612)951-7354 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 Internet: hoyme@src.honeywell.com From kls Thu Jun 2 00:09:38 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Q: Airliners crew headsets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Jun 94 00:09:38 In article Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) writes: >I would like to know if crew are usually using headsets, and what sort of >headsets they use (passive noise-cancelling or walkman type) ? Crews (or at least pilot-talking) usually use headsets, even though most airliners provide speakers for use in the cockpit. On a 747, for instance, you have three comm VHF, two comm HF, the cabin PA, two VORs, and two ADFs to choose from. :-) People can be checking different things at different times. I've never seen airline pilots use noise-attenuating or walkman-type headsets; these tend to be favored by private pilots and corporate pilots. The major issues are: 1. Comfort. Noise-attenuating headsets tend to get hot, and they tend to squeeze. Not fun if in the air for ten hours. In a noisy environment, though, this can easily alleviate the stress cause by noise, so they're popular with prop pilots. 2. Weight. Ditto: no fun for that long. 3. Size. Not gonna use it if it takes a separate briefcase to lug it around in. I'd have to say the all-time most popular headset has to be the cheapest one in the Telex line, a little molded plastic deal, with two swivel speakers that insert directly into the ear canal. There is no boom (handheld mikes are fine), and it's trivial to swap the "active" ear or position the speakers to a comfortable position. Lately, headsets which vaguely resemble hearing aids have been gaining popularity: these fit into the ear, with a wrap-around support around the ear. These have the disadvantage of being one-year-only. Walkman-type headsets get very itchy if worn very long. The foam also doesn't react well to sweat over the long-term. >And last question : what sort of plugs you need to use headsets in Airbus >cockpits ? If you have to ask the question, I'd suggest not trying it: I'm sure you wouldn't want to risk plugging a non-certified device into an airliner's communications system. Especially on an Airbus: maybe they didn't code for that contingency! :-) :-) -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Thu Jun 2 00:09:38 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cherkas@crl.com (Brian Cherkas) Subject: Re: Continental want-ad: LOW PAY! References: <2r49hl$i8@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Jun 94 00:09:38 In article , drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) wrote: > Do other carriers require their flight crews to pay for even part of their > training? The only major airline I know that "sort of" makes their pilots pay for training is Southwest. In order to be hired from Southwest, a pilot needs to be rated on the aircraft that Southwest flies. Many, if not a majority of Southwest's pilots pay nearly $10,000 to get rated in a 737. This doesn't guarantee an interview nor a job - but it is a requirement to be hired. What does a new-hire pilot then do at Southwest? - go back to school for training in the same aircraft all over again. -- --+ -- 0=/ || 0=/ | Brian Cherkas --------------------/TWA| ----------------------- (@ ooo ooooo oooooo ooo > cherkas@crl.com -------- ----- / compuserve/73644,1444 0=\ || \__| \--+ From kls Thu Jun 2 00:36:16 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Exhaust fumes in aircraft cabin? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Jun 94 00:36:16 In article , pete@Rational.COM (Pete Coe) writes: >Was this a malfunction, or do CFM-56's have a >habit of doing this kind of thing? It's not that uncommon in any high-bypass engine. It's not really smoke but unburned fuel. Sometimes you even get these really cool three-foot long flames! Very impressive at night. This fog is really apparent in cold weather. The older RB-211s are especially good at 'killing mosquitos' as it tries to start on a cold day. As an aside, the RB-211 is a very slow starting engine. From kls Thu Jun 2 00:36:16 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: md80 vs boeing 727 (noise) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Jun 94 00:36:16 In article mbas@argo.unm.edu (i am me) writes: Hi! This might sound like a dumb question, but what is the difference that causes the 2 powerplants on the md 80 to seem to be noiser than the 3 powerplants on the boeing 727??? I recently rode on both planes on a short trip and it sounded louder on the md 80 than on the 727. Thanks morris ------ I think the answer depends on where you sat and what interior configuration the aircraft had. First off, the center engine of the B727 is located behind the aft entry door, and thus sound insulation in the door and pressure vessel makes the sound contribution of this engine small compared to the side engines. Second, the nacelle location of the B727 is located slightly more aft than that of the MD80 with respect to the rear of the cabin. (The outline drawing I have shows the leading edge of the pylon at about the middle of the aft lavatories on the B727, while the leading edge of the MD80 pylon is about even with the last row of seats. The rear of the cabin on the B727 is about a quarter way back on the nacelle. The rear of the cabin on the MD80 is about halfway back.) Third, while the MD80 engines (JT8D-217 or -219) are quieter than the B727 engines (JT8D-7, -9, etc), it seems to me that most of the engine exhaust noise would not be a big factor in cabin noise, compared with the structural vibration noise, as the nozzle is located well aft of the cabin in both cases. This is not true for aircraft with wing mounted engines, whose structural noise coupling should yield a much quieter aircraft if exhaust noise was ignored. My personal observations: Sitting near the front of these aircraft, you CANNOT hear the engine noise in a MD80; all you can really hear is the wind noise. This is not true of the B727. Near the rear of the aircraft, I haven't noticed that one aircraft is significantly noisier than the other - they are both somewhat unpleasant. Note that the noise falloff as you move forward is more pronounced on an MD80 than a B727. (This makes sense since the MD80 engines are quieter on the whole. The narrower cabin (3-3 vs 2-3 seating) on the MD 80 might also contribute). For certain interior configurations, you may get an even slightly more skewed effect. Delta, for instance, has a "mini-cabin" in the back of their MD80s, located aft of galleys located on both sides of the aisle. American's MD80s instead have all of their galleys on the left side of the aircraft in the rear, and only have seats on the right side. Seems to me that acoustically, the "mini-cabin" of the Delta configuration would have greater potential for noise, but would make the rest of the cabin quieter. (As a side note, Delta employees seem to get stuck in the "mini-cabin"). Picture: DELTA MD-80: /----------------------------/ /Lav|IO IO |Galley| IO IO IO |---|IO IO |------| IO IO IO | Direction of Flight -> |---|IO IO |------| IO IO IO |Lav|IO IO |Galley| IO IO IO \ |IO IO | | IO IO IO \----------------------------/ AMERICAN MD-80: /----------------------------/ /Lav| Galley | IO IO IO |---|--------------| IO IO IO | Direction of Flight -> |---| IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO |Lav| IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO \ | IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO \----------------------------/ Not to scale, of course. Hmm. This is a lot longer than I thought it would be. Enjoy! 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 Jun 2 00:36:16 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: md80 vs boeing 727 (noise) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Jun 94 00:36:16 In article , mbas@argo.unm.edu (i am me) writes: >what is the difference that causes the 2 powerplants on the md 80 to > > >seem to be noiser than the 3 powerplants on the boeing 727??? That would be our old friend resonance. There's something about the way MD hangs the engines on this airplane that does it. The DC-9 is no better, by the way. The MD-80 has an engine sync system that is supposed to calm this down by synching N1 or N2 of both engines. I understand it's not used much because it actually makes things worse! From kls Thu Jun 2 00:36:16 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: md80 vs boeing 727 (seating, was noise) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Jun 94 00:36:16 >Picture: >DELTA MD-80: This has nothing to do with cabin noise, but your picture reminded me of a surprise I had a few years ago. I've flown on a handful of DC-9s (Hughes Airwest, Republic, Eastern) and all had 2-3 seating as in your diagram, i.e., two seats to the left of the aisle and three to the right. But the one time I flew on a Delta MD-88, it had 3-2 seating, that is, the pair of seats was on the right instead of the left. A glance at the seating charts in a recent OAG shows 2-3 seating on Delta DC-9s and 3-2 seating on their MD-88s. American, Continental, Northwest, TWA, and USAir all have the 2-3 seating on all DC-9 and MD-80 variants as well as the Fokker F28s and F100s. The only other example of the 3-2 config I could find was AeroMexico, which uses it in the MD-88, but has the usual 2-3 in the DC-9 and MD-82/83. Does anybody know of any reason why the MD-88 would be backwards from everything else, even in the same fleets? -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.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 Jun 2 11:56:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rathinam@ins.infonet.net Subject: Re: Russian 'UFO' shaped plane? Anyone? References: <2s4pfp$mh2@infa.central.susx.ac.uk>, Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rathinam@ins.infonet.net Organization: INS Info Services, Des Moines, IA USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Jun 94 11:56:43 In article , clive@sco.com (Clive D.W. Feather) writes: [...] >The inventors also said that the plane could fly anywhere, and would not >need a tarmac runway. I would presume that this would be uneconomic, >because the costs of additional or stronger landing gear would outweigh >the benefits. On the other hand, the prototype looked to be too wide to >fit standard runways (it *might* fit Heathrow's extra wide ones) because >of the width of the wheelbase. Then they started talking about water >landings. I thought that was the important part - that the airplane will depend on ground effect. I remember reading an (unconfirmed) report that the ex-USSR had a large military airplane that flew low - primarily over water - using "ground" effect and there were plans for using it for transporting troops. ========================================================================= Sethu R Rathinam rathinam@ins.infonet.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Thu Jun 2 11:56:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: blomberg@plasma.kth.se (Lars Blomberg) Subject: Re: md80 vs boeing 727 (seating, was noise) References: , Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: blomberg@plasma.kth.se Organization: Plasma Physics, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Jun 94 11:56:43 There are more examples of "backward seating." Iberia uses it on their MD-87s, and, I believe, Swissair uses it on the MD-81 as well as on the Fokker 100, so it is not specific to the MD-88. From kls Thu Jun 2 11:56:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: John Harvie Subject: Re: Continental want-ad: LOW PAY! References: <2r3hs3$8gp@samba.oit.unc.edu> <2r3lt8$d9g@masala.cc.uh.edu> <2r49hl$i8@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Jun 94 11:56:43 According to one of their regional managers, Northwest Airlink also requires new pilots to pre-pay the cost of training and sign a length-of-service contract on hiring. I didn't find out how much it costs, but the pay on completion of the training (F.O. on commuter starting at $17k) won't pay it back very quickly! On the other hand, at least they're hiring new pilots rather than laying off experienced ones (at least they were when I talked to them about it). From kls Thu Jun 2 11:56:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: airliner maintenance References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Jun 94 11:56:43 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >(One of our readers works for Delta in this area, and hopefully >will be able to offer another perspective.) I've only worked line maintenance so I have to assume that our heavy checks are very similiar to Uniteds. As for line checks we do: Trip Checks - quick walk-around for damage, tire and brake wear, oil, hydraulic and oxygen levels and so on. Performed on every airplane that stops at a DL MTC station. Layover Check - more in depth check of the airplane. Fluid and brake wear limits are higher eg. Trip Check oxygen limit is 1100 psi, but on a Layover the limit is 1300 psi. Performed on any airplane that stays at a DL MTC station for more than 3 hours. Service Check - involves filter changes, gear and flap lubes and more involved check outs of systems. These checks are numbered 1 to about 14 depending on the airplane. When the entire series of Service Checks are completed the airplane goes to a letter check in one the hangars. I don't know the time interval for these checks, they're scheduled in ATL and appear on the aircraft's 'Open Maintenance Items (OMI)' file and are then done on the next layover of about 8 hours duration. Hope this answers some questions. From kls Fri Jun 3 14:13:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Dorsett Subject: Landing System Is Cancelled Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Jun 94 14:13:36 [The following is reposted with permission from ClariNet. See end of message for details on ClariNet.] WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government is so happy with new satellite technology it has decided to abandon development of a microwave-based system to guide aircraft landings. The Transportation Department made the announcement Thursday. Cancellation of development contracts with Raytheon Corp. and Wilcox Corp. is expected to save $59 million. The microwave system was intended to give pilots precise landing guidance in all weather conditions, replacing the old radio-based instrument landing system. Early versions of the microwave system are in use at about a half-dozen airports. But the satellite-based Global Positioning System is showing the potential to do an even better job. ``Continuing the (microwave) development is not an economically sound strategy,'' since it will unlikely be needed, said Federal Aviation Administrator David R. Hinson. The FAA said the decision to abandon the microwave system in favor of GPS was supported by the Air Transport Association, which represents major airlines; the Helicopter Association International and other industry groups. Hinson said his agency will work with international aviation groups to iron out any problems the decision causes with foreign airline plans. The Global Positioning System is based on two dozen satellites circling the earth. It was originally a military project which now has expanded to a wide variety of civilian uses. By measuring how long it takes the radio signal to travel to a satellite and back the system can tell a pilot how far he is from that satellite. By comparing signal time from four satellites the system can calculate latitude, longitude, altitude and time -- locating the craft within yards anywhere in the world, Hinson explained. And special devices located on the ground can narrow the location down to inches, permitting landings in low visibility and bad weather and even helping guide taxiing airplanes. Using the system, Continental has made 158 landings at Aspen, Colo., that would have had to be diverted elsewhere because of weather or darkness. As a result 10,183 passengers arrived at their destination who would have had to be diverted elsewhere, the FAA reported. -- This, and all articles in the clari.* news hierarchy, are Copyright 1994 by the wire service or information provider, and licensed to ClariNet Communications Corp. for distribution. Except for articles in the biz.clarinet.sample newsgroup, only paid subscribers may access these articles. Any unauthorized access, reproduction or transmission is strictly prohibited. We offer a reward to the person who first provides us with information that helps stop those who distribute or receive our news feeds without authorization. Please send reports to reward@clarinet.com. -- "Copyright 1994 by AP. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.biz.industry.aviation. For more info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS." From kls Fri Jun 3 14:13:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com (Julian Fitzherbert) Subject: Re: VC10 and IL62 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com Organization: Schlumberger Geco-Prakla Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Jun 94 14:13:36 In article 1289@ohare.Chicago.COM, tmackay@uoguelph.ca (Anthony MacKay) writes: > Some time ago, there was correspondence on the net about the first > generation jet transports and the 707 and DC8 got thoroughly reviewed in > the following days. Then someone mentioned the Convair 880 and I waited > in anticipation for the VC10 to get a bit of an airing. Alas, the > correspondence moved on to other topics and the VC10 was forgotten. If > any reader has information or interesting anecdotes about the short life > of the '10, I (and others) would like to relive this piece of aviation > history. Remember the sales slogan? Try a little VC tenderness. I will > save the tale of the Comet for another occasion. I'm sure the last airline VC10 belonged to Air Malawi. This one used to belong to British United. I flew on it several times from UK to Malawi and on VC10s belonging to BOAC, BUA , Ghana Airways and Nigerian Airways. It was always a lovely aircraft and it saddens me to see the one on display at Duxford though of course a lot are still flying as RAF tankers. My first flight on one was 1963/4 from Accra (Ghana) by BOAC (I was ~6) and my last was 1979 from Blantyre (Malawi). My Flying Instructor, who was FO on the Air Malawi VC10 said it flew like a fighter. He once let me feed a course correction into the auto-pilot on the VC10 and the response was crisp to say the least! (I sat in the jump seat on the the leg from Nairobi to Amsterdam on several occassions). In all my flights on the VC10 I was only delayed twice by technical problems and was never alarmed by it - more than I can say for some planes. My Dad missed the Nigerian VC10 flight that crashed in Lagos by a week! If this generates any interest I'll make sure I bring my VC10 book to work so I can respond to VC10 questions without relying on memory. Perhaps I should put together some info about it? From kls Fri Jun 3 14:13:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com (Julian Fitzherbert) Subject: Re: md80 vs boeing 727 (noise) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com Organization: Schlumberger Geco-Prakla Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Jun 94 14:13:36 In article 1298@ohare.Chicago.COM, tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) writes: > In article , mbas@argo.unm.edu > (i am me) writes: > > >what is the difference that causes the 2 powerplants on the md 80 to > > > >seem to be noiser than the 3 powerplants on the boeing 727??? > > That would be our old friend resonance. There's something about the > way MD hangs the engines on this airplane that does it. The DC-9 is > no better, by the way. The MD-80 has an engine sync system that is > supposed to calm this down by synching N1 or N2 of both engines. I > understand it's not used much because it actually makes things worse! > I remember that early VC10s used to have some sort of display for the flight engineer that monitored engine vibration or noise or something like that. It was a cathode tube device a bit like those radio magic tuning eye things. Anyone know what it did - I think it was an engine syncronisation system ? I don't recall seeing it in later VC10 cockpits. From kls Fri Jun 3 14:13:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: steve@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Steve McDowell) Subject: No Smoking? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Waterloo Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Jun 94 14:13:36 Just an anecdote. About a decade ago, I was flying on an Al Italia DC-9 from Rome to Athens. I had asked for a No Smoking seat. Boy, was I surprised when I discovered that, for the entire length of the plane, the smokers sat on the left side of the aisle, and the rest of us on the right! Not very effective. Anybody know if things have improved any? Steve McDowell steve@csg.uwaterloo.ca From kls Fri Jun 3 14:13:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: SJPAQUET@MECHANICAL.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Paquette) Subject: Advanced Propulsion Techniques Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Waterloo Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Jun 94 14:13:36 I am currently working on a project, investigating current trends in the Commercial Aviation Industry to offset impending declines in fossil fuels. If anyone has information, contacts or references regarding current research in this field (ie Nuclear or Laser powered aircraft) it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Steve Paquette Dept. of Mechanical Engineering University of Waterloo Tel: (519) 884-6463 Fax: (519) 888-6197 Internet: sjpaquet@mechanical.watstar.uwaterloo.ca ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen Paquette From kls Mon Jun 6 18:40:18 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: another crash in China? References: <2svj7s$hnl@news.u.washington.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: rec.travel.air Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jun 94 18:40:18 In article <2svj7s$hnl@news.u.washington.edu>, Sarah Holte wrote: >Last night in the middle of the 11 pm news here in >Seattle, the anchor announced that they had a report >of an airline crash in China, about 150 people on board. >Thats all they said, had anyone else heard about this? Monday looks to have been a *really* bad day in China! First, a China Northwest Tu-154 crashed at 820a, only eight minutes into flight 2303 from Xian to Guangzhou. All but one of the 14 crew and 146 passengers died in the crash; the sole survivor died later at a hospital. Then a Dragonair A320 had problems on a flight from Nanjing to Hong Kong. The pilot reportedly aborted the first landing attempt at 435p local time after encountering unspecified problems with the flaps. After circling for 40 minutes to burn off fuel, the pilot made an emergency landing during which 7 or 8 (the number varies with the report) of the 148 passengers and crew were injured and two tires burst. In yet another incident, this one without injury to the 139 people aboard, a China Southern 737 on a flight from Fuzhou to Canton was hijacked to Taipei, landing around 800p. -- 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 Jun 8 12:45:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: B307 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jun 94 12:45:35 Until the 777 flies sometime this month (it hasn't as of the morning of June 7th) the big news from Seattle is that the last Boeing 307 Stratocruiser has returned home. Suprisingly, it flew home - a group of Boeing people went down to the Pima County Air Museum and got it airworthy for the flight back to Seattle. It flew in last week and is currently stored a the North end of Boeing field, on the Boeing ramp area, next to the 757 ship #1, and just down the ramp from the 367-80. Unfortunately, it is in a very poor spot for photos. The story is that it will be moved into Boeing Plant 2 for external restoration by Boeing personnel, with the interior restored by ex-PAA pilots. There are no announced plans where it will go after this, but hopefully it will end up in the Museum of Flight here. The airplane was the last 307 built, as Clipper Flying Cloud for Pan Am. It later was used in Haiti, including as Papa Doc Duvalier's personal transport. In the late 60s it returned to the US for conversion as either a spray ship or a Borate bomber. The NASM spotted it and traded it for a Connie. Not having a place to display it, the airplane was loaned to Pima County, where it has been ever since. It is the last complete 307 left - the fuselage of Howard Hughes' Flying Penthouse still exists down in Florida as a houseboat! Also, the Museum of Flight's Boeing 247 is supposed to come out of restoration this summer for display. Boeing 747 #1 appears to be done with flight testing of the PW4084 and is now parked engineless on the ramp next to the Museum, right by the Museum's B-47. I saw it on Saturday, and it looks really strange with no engines (they didn't put concrete blocks on the pylons). It still has the special pylon in the #2 position. Further down the ramp is the #1 767 with the huge AOA (now AST - Airborne Surveillance Testbed) fairing. Quite a collection of historically important 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 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Wed Jun 8 12:45:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: md80 vs boeing 727 (noise) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jun 94 12:45:35 In article , julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com (Julian Fitzherbert) writes: >I remember that early VC10s used to have some sort of display for the >flight engineer that monitored engine vibration or noise or something like >that. Might just have been for monitoring vibration though I'm sure it could have been used for engine synchronization. Early 727s had engine vibration monitors though these appear to have been removed on those that had it and eliminated on later versions. From kls Wed Jun 8 12:45:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stevcaisse@aol.com (StevCaisse) Subject: NTSB Aircraft accident reports on the Internet? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jun 94 12:45:35 Could anyone advise if there is a location on the Internet where on could obtain NTSB aircraft accident reports? I am avare that I can purchase same in text or on CD from the DOT, but was curious if the data existed somewhere for spot referral only. Thanks, Steve Caisse .ATLDDDL From kls Wed Jun 8 12:45:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.ifr Path: bounce-back From: katie@physics2.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) Subject: Air traffic control questions Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Berkeley Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jun 94 12:45:35 I like to listen to the air traffic control talk that United sometimes puts on one of the audio entertainment channels, and I have some naive questions about it. My impression is that after the pilot calls the ARTCC (Oakland Center, Denver Center, Indianapolis Center, etc) the person on the ground finds the aircraft on radar and follows it. Is this right? If so, what area is completely covered by radar (contiguous United States? North America?) How far can the radar follow a plane flying across an ocean? How does the ground control know which aircraft they're seeing -- by the transponder? I don't remember ever hearing the controllers ask "what are you squawking?" although I think the plane is told what to squawk before taking off; why don't they need to ask? Also, what's happening with the new air traffic control software that IBM is supposed to be developing? Why is it behind schedule and over budget? thanks for your answers, Katie Schwarz katie@physics.berkeley.edu From kls Wed Jun 8 21:53:29 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.ifr Path: bounce-back From: greg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) Subject: Re: Air traffic control questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indiana University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jun 94 21:53:29 In katie@physics2.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) writes: >I like to listen to the air traffic control talk that United sometimes >puts on one of the audio entertainment channels, and I have some naive >questions about it. My impression is that after the pilot calls the >ARTCC (Oakland Center, Denver Center, Indianapolis Center, etc) the >person on the ground finds the aircraft on radar and follows it. Is >this right? Yes, when the aircrat can be radar identified. It's not the controller's only job, though. Note also that air traffic control can FUNCTION perfectly well without radar; it does so by reverting to "manual" callouts of position location by aircraft pilot's and a lot of distance/time calculations on the ground. Radar just increases the ATC facilities "bandwidth" or absolute # of planes in the sky. >If so, what area is completely covered by radar (contiguous >United States? North America? Not even the contiguous United Stats is completely covered by radar, at least not at low altitudes (0-7,000 feet above ground) >How far can the radar follow a plane flying >across an ocean? Depending on the facility, 50-200 miles from shore with 100 miles a pretty good average. >How does the ground control know which aircraft they're seeing -- by the >transponder? I don't remember ever hearing the controllers ask "what are >you squawking?" although I think the plane is told what to squawk before >taking off; why don't they need to ask? The Air Traffic Control computers will automatically translate a recieved transponder "sqawk" into a registration ("N" for US aircraft) number. The computer will display the registration number on the controller's screen. >Also, what's happening with the new air traffic control software that IBM >is supposed to be developing? Why is it behind schedule and over budget? I got three acronyms for you: LAN's, GUIs, and MIPS Over designed, over engineered, over budget and over time. A perfect example of the second-system effect. greg From kls Sun Jun 12 23:47:58 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hoyme@src.honeywell.com (Ken Hoyme) Subject: Boeing 777 First Flight was today - June 12 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jun 94 23:47:58 For those of who may have missed this from whatever news system you may get, the Boeing 777 made its first flight today from Everett, Washington, and (more importantly) ended it safely. :) Only the scantest of details were reported. CNN mentioned a 45 minute delay due to winds. I know that the flight had been planned for 11AM Everett time, weather permitting, and the footage of the rotation and climb showed some rather dark skies. Very high winds are expected to hit Washington by this evening, most likely delaying further flights for a day or two (this is speculation on my part). Do any of our Boeing readers have something like an official press release? An exciting day for all of us who have been involved in this program. A long 11 months of flight tests remain ahead. Ken Ken Hoyme Honeywell Technology Center (612)951-7354 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 Internet: hoyme@src.honeywell.com From kls Mon Jun 13 10:42:07 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: etech@netcom.com (Eric Chevalier) Subject: Future of Delta's Winglet Enhanced 727s? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jun 94 10:42:07 Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) A little over a week ago I was walking to work when one of Delta's Valsan winglet-enhanced 727s (N510DA) flew over on it's way to a landing at LAX. Has Delta reached any conclusions about the benefits of the winglet upgrade? Are there any plans to upgrade additional 727s? I came across a previous message (here in S.A.A., I think) which indicated that Valsan is now out of business. If Delta were interested in pursuing additional upgrades, who might perform the work? -- =========================================================================== ERIC CHEVALIER | Who are you who are so wise in the Internet: etech@netcom.com | ways of science? Prodigy: GCXJ11A | Well, when you're a king you have to Compu$erve: 76010,2463 | know these sorts of things. | -Monty Python and the Holy Grail =========================================================================== From kls Mon Jun 13 10:42:07 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gregory@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Greg Wright) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 First Flight was today - June 12 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Computer Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jun 94 10:42:07 In article , Ken Hoyme wrote: >For those of who may have missed this from whatever news system you may >get, the Boeing 777 made its first flight today from Everett, >Washington, and (more importantly) ended it safely. :) Only the >scantest of details were reported. CNN mentioned a 45 minute delay due >to winds. I know that the flight had been planned for 11AM Everett >time, weather permitting, and the footage of the rotation and climb >showed some rather dark skies. Very high winds are expected to hit >Washington by this evening, most likely delaying further flights for a >day or two (this is speculation on my part). The high winds and rain have already hit, but nothing we aren't use to in Seattle. :-) The 777 that flew, plane WA001, is now going through extensive after flight inspections. It is not scheduled to fly again until the end of the week at the earliest. As for the flight itself, what a great one! Both the chief pilot and co-pilot had nothing but good things to say about the new bird. In fact, the flight went so well that Boeing extended the flight an additional 45 minutes over the scheduled time resulting in the longest first flight in Boeing history. The only problems I heard about were a semi-faulty pressure relief valve for venting excess pressure in the cabin and some noise from the landing gear at the higher gear down speeds. The weather did effect the flight. Shortly after takeoff the pilots were force to change their flight path from one that took them towards the ocean to one that led inland when the t-38 chase plane lost WA001 in the clouds. The pilots were reported as saying, "We couldn't tell the difference between the simulator and the actual plane." I feel this is a great achievement, to have a simulator, designed before first flight, behave so much like the actual air plane. > >Do any of our Boeing readers have something like an official press >release? > >An exciting day for all of us who have been involved in this program. A It truly was. >long 11 months of flight tests remain ahead. and another 4,920 flights........then delivery in May, 1995. > >Ken > >Ken Hoyme Honeywell Technology Center >(612)951-7354 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 >Internet: hoyme@src.honeywell.com > -- ________Greg Wright________ Software Development | gregory@bcstec.boeing.com | 777 Division. | gregory@halcyon.com | |___uunet!bcstec!gregory____| NOT A BOEING SPOKESPERSON. From kls Mon Jun 13 10:42:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: KManning@UH.EDU Subject: Jet fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Houston Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jun 94 10:42:08 What can the pros tell me about modern jet fuel? I have always understood that its octane is much lower than gasoline; is this true? Does jet fuel have to meet certain environmental requires? Does it have lead (as gasoline used to?) Are there any estimates of how much jet fuel emissions harm the environment, particluarly in comparison to automobiles? Ken Manning Houston, Texas From kls Mon Jun 13 10:42:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Nicolas Ercan Murat Subject: Re: No Smoking? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jun 94 10:42:08 > > Just an anecdote. About a decade ago, I was flying on an Al Italia DC-9 from > Rome to Athens. I had asked for a No Smoking seat. Boy, was I surprised when > I discovered that, for the entire length of the plane, the smokers sat on the > left side of the aisle, and the rest of us on the right! Not very effective. > > Anybody know if things have improved any? > > Steve McDowell > steve@csg.uwaterloo.ca > > Even the Europeans are getting their act together... Many European flights are becoming completely non-smoking (eg Air France). I have even flown from LHR to SFO on a 11 hour non-smoking BA flight. I wonder how the Europeans do it. The mentality is really finally changing, I even got upgraded to Business Class on Air France once because there was no room left in non-smoking - this was an 8 hour flight too! Even Alitalia has a better seating policy now I think. Nick vis@leland.stanford.edu From kls Mon Jun 13 10:42:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) Subject: Re: No Smoking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jun 94 10:42:08 In sci.aeronautics.airliners, steve@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Steve McDowell) writes: >Just an anecdote. About a decade ago, I was flying on an Al Italia >DC-9 from Rome to Athens. I had asked for a No Smoking seat. Boy, >was I surprised when I discovered that, for the entire length of the >plane, the smokers sat on the left side of the aisle, and the rest >of us on the right! Not very effective. I remember airline manufacturers recommending this arrangement since the return air ducts were located on the left sides; thus putting smokers on left side should have been the most effective arrangement. However, most airlines didn't follow this recommendation mainly because non-smokers didn't want to sit abreast of smokers. >Anybody know if things have improved any? Yes. Most, if not all, of the airlines in the United States are now banning smoking on flights. However, most airports haven't banned smoking yet. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Williams swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil --------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Jun 13 10:42:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: No Smoking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jun 94 10:42:08 Steve Williams writes: >>smokers sat on the left ... the rest of us on the right! >I remember airline manufacturers recommending this arrangement since >the return air ducts were located on the left sides; thus putting smokers >on left side should have been the most effective arrangement. Interesting. You say "manufacturers" in the plural -- were there others besides McDonnell Douglas? From what I recall of the 737, which may or may not apply to other Boeings, I don't see where there would be any difference. At least one other MacDAC product does seem to have a peculiar air flow pattern, though -- the DC-10. United used to have the smokers in the *front* of the main cabin. I don't recall if F class was backwards as well or not. I asked someone why they did this and was told that, unlike other aircraft, the interior air circulated from back to front, thus putting smokers in front gave the non-smokers clear air than the usual setup. I have no idea if this is accurate or not. On the subject of smoking, I also recall some comments by a friend who had seen the effects on a TWA L-1011 -- plenums that had to be cleaned regularly because they would get coated with a think, tarry goo. That leads me to wonder how much the airlines are saving in maintenance because of the non-smoking flights! -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Mon Jun 13 10:42:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: etate@mcl.bdm.com (C. Emory Tate) Subject: Re: NTSB Aircraft accident reports on the Internet? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BDM Federal, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jun 94 10:42:08 In article , stevcaisse@aol.com (StevCaisse) says: >Could anyone advise if there is a location on the Internet where on >could obtain NTSB aircraft accident reports? Try ftp://rascal.ics.utexas.edu/misc/av/safety-folder/ for some NTSB accident abstracts. The full reports don't seem to be available on the 'net yet. C. E. Tate ______________________________________________________________ A loaf of bread, a jug of Gatorade, and a 600ft/min thermal... ______________________________________________________________ From kls Mon Jun 13 10:42:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.ifr Path: bounce-back From: rob@scilibx.ucsc.edu (Rob Strand) Subject: Re: Air traffic control questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UC Santa Cruz Science Library Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jun 94 10:42:08 In article katie@physics2.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) writes: >this right? If so, what area is completely covered by radar (contiguous >United States? North America?) How far can the radar follow a plane flying Depends on the altitude. I think coverage is complete for air carrier planes in the lower 48--prolly less than half of Canada and Alaska. >across an ocean? Not very far. > >How does the ground control know which aircraft they're seeing -- by the >transponder? I don't remember ever hearing the controllers ask "what are The instrument of choice is the Mark 1 I-ball and the procedure is called "looking out the window". >you squawking?" although I think the plane is told what to squawk before >taking off; why don't they need to ask? The controllers control the squawk codes. If one ever asked a pilot what he was squawking it would be because he had gotten confused or the pilot had switched to one of the emergency codes. -- -Rob Strand rob@ucscvm.ucsc.edu From kls Mon Jun 13 10:42:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jun 94 10:42:08 In article , Terrell D. Drinkard wrote: >In article , >Robert Ashcroft wrote: >>[Some stuff deleted] That >>foolishness with recycling air might have to stop on such a long flight >>(perhaps the air could be "refreshed" every 8 hours or so?). [...] > >Let me clear up a misconception here. The air in a commercial airliner is >half fresh, half (or less) recirculated air. It is not currently possible >to maintain the same air on board for 8 hours, or even one. As a rule of >thumb, you can figure that the air completely changes every three minutes. No misconception. I meant that perhaps every few hours they'd treat people by blowing in fully fresh air. Of course this assumes there is a problem with recirculated air, which is currently a topic exercising Congress. RNA From kls Mon Jun 13 10:42:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: davelett@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Sun) Subject: Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jun 94 10:42:08 In article davelett@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Sun) writes: >Delta's Flight 89, LAX-HKG, is the longest duration nonstop flight >in the world. It leaves LAX at 11:55A and arrives HKG 5:45P, and >if my math is correct, this is 15:50 in duration. Ooops...14:50 in duration. My math wasn't correct. Those time zones get confusing. From kls Mon Jun 13 19:31:47 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: Boeing 777 First Flight was today - June 12 References: <9406130039.AA22216@stimpy.src.honeywell.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jun 94 19:31:47 BOEING 777 COMPLETES FIRST FLIGHT The Boeing 777 took to the sky for the first time at 11:45 a.m. PDT Sunday, June 12 embarking on the most comprehensive flight-test program in the history of commercial aviation. Sunday's three-hour, 48-minute flight was the first of more than 4,800 test flights planned for the latest addition to the Boeing family of commercial jetliners. Coincidentally, the flight came almost 78 years to the day after the June 15, 1916, first flight of the first Boeing airplane, the B&W seaplane. "We're doing pretty well right now," Chief Pilot John Cashman, said moments after the airplane lifted off from Everett's Paine Field. After putting the airplane through various maneuvers Cashman radioed back that the 777 is "as smooth as can be." During its maiden flight, the 777 broke through the clouds at 15,000 feet (4,615 meters) and reached a maximum altitude of 19,000 feet (5,846 meters). Decked out in the traditional Boeing paint scheme of red, white and blue, the airplane completed several circular routes over a portion of Washington state heading northwest along Puget Sound, passing over the San Juan Islands, turning east and crossing the Cascade mountain range before looping back toward Everett. "I'm proud to be part of this," said Ken Higgins, Boeing director of Flight Test and first officer for today's mission. "Our successful first flight is the result of a lot of other people's effort." "This airplane program is going to be a big part of our future, and it's off to a great start," said Frank Shrontz, who was on hand to greet the crew when the 777 returned to Everett. "It's a very exciting day for all of us. It's great to see a product of working together with our customers and suppliers turn out so well." Also on hand to greet the two-man crew were Phil Condit, Ron Woodard, Alan Mulally, vice president and general manager of the 777 program, and family members of the flight crew. Christened "Working Together" in recognition of the approach used to develop the jetliner with participation by airline customers, suppliers and the engine companies, the first 777 is powered by two Pratt & Whitney 4084 engines. It will be joined in the flight-test program by eight other 777s including two powered by General Electric GE90 engines and two with Rolls- Royce Trent 800 engines. During subsequent flight tests, 777s will be operated in both extremely hot and cold climates to prove the safety and reliability of the airplane's systems. Flight times will vary from less than an hour to extended-range missions lasting nine hours. Successful completion of the testing program is expected to lead to the certification of Pratt & Whitney-powered 777s in April of next year, with delivery of the first customer airplane to United Airlines scheduled for May 15, 1995. Certification of GE-powered 777s is expected in August 1995, and certification of Rolls-Royce-powered 777s anticipated in January 1996. Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud Software and Distributed Systems Research & Technology Boeing Computer Services From kls Mon Jun 13 19:31:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: PW 777 First Flight News Release References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jun 94 19:31:48 PW4084 POWERS FIRST 777 FLIGHT EVERETT, Wash., June 13 /PRNewswire/ -- The Boeing 777 made its first successful flight yesterday, June 12, powered by two Pratt & Whitney PW4084 engines, the most powerful engines to ever fly in a commercial aircraft. The flight, piloted by Captains John Cashman and Ken Higgins of Boeing, lasted three hours and 48 minutes. During the flight, some 30 systems checks were carried out as the aircraft was put through various maneuvers. The two PW4084s, each developing 84,000 pounds of thrust, performed flawlessly throughout the flight. One test involved shutting down one engine and relighting it. As it came back up to power, Captain Cashman was quoted as saying, "Pratt & Whitney, dependable again." "Everyone at Pratt & Whitney is proud of the role we played in yesterday's flight," said Karl J. Krapek, company president. "Thousands have worked for four years to make this flight happen and to give our customers the most reliable, service-ready engine in the industry. It's another first in the long line of first the people of Pratt & Whitney have achieved." Yesterday's flight begins a year-long test program which will involve five Pratt-powered 777s. The aircraft will enter revenue service in June, 1995 at United Airlines. Pratt engines have been selected to power nearly half the 777s ordered so far. Besides United, customers include All Nipon Airways, Japan Air System and Japan Airlines. The engine received formal Federal Aviation Administration certification in April of this year. While the flight tests are underway at Boeing over the next year, Pratt & Whitney will continue a series of parallel tests at its own facilities to assure Extended Twin Operations (ETOPS) capability at entry into service. Starting later this month engines will be put through several thousand cycles of endurance testing under ETOPS conditions. They will go through cycles that exactly simulate long distance flights and will be operated and maintained with airline standards and tools. The PW4084 test program involves 23 engines and has already built up over 2,500 hours of operation and 6,000 flight cycles. This includes 23 flights totaling 76 hours aboard a Boeing 747 flying test bed. This engine is the newest and largest member of the PW4000 family of engines. The PW4084 has been certified at 84,000 pounds of thrust, although many of the critical certification tests were carried out at a 90,000 pound rating. It has produced more than 100,000 pounds of thrust in ground tests. It has a 112-inch diameter fan, as compared with the 94-inch fan of the original PW4000. That engine went into service in 1987 and is used today aboard the Boeing 747 and 767, the Airbus A300/A310 series and the McDonnell Douglas MD-11. A 100-inch fan version of the engine, the PW4168, will enter service later this year on the new Airbus A330. Pratt & Whitney is a unit of United Technologies Corporation (NYSE: UTX) of Hartford, Connecticut U.S.A. -0- 6/13/94 /CONTACT: Larry Churchill of Pratt & Whitney, 203-565-8896/ (UTX) CO: Pratt & Whitney; United Technologies Corporation ST: Washington, Connecticut IN: ARO SU: From kls Mon Jun 13 19:31:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "S.Rathinam 319-395-8290" Subject: Re: Boeing 777 First Flight was today - June 12 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jun 94 19:31:48 In article you write: [[...]] |>Do any of our Boeing readers have something like an official press |>release? |> |>An exciting day for all of us who have been involved in this |>program. A |>long 11 months of flight tests remain ahead. |> |>Ken (Howdy Ken - long time no hear). Here's a partial text of an article from _The News Tribune_ (Tacoma, WA - Pierce County Edition) posted with permission of Jan Brandt, Managing Editor. (Article by Sean Griffin, typos if any, are mine). I have included my comments in "[[ ]]." ------- begin excerpts Title: Boeing's Future Takes Wing Subtitle: 4-hour maiden venture of 777 jetliner 'best first flight we've ever had' [[There were two pictures, one of the 777 lifting off, another of a group of senior Boeing people with the 777 in the background.]] Boeings new 777 jetlinet took to the air for the first time Sunday, flexing its wings for nearly four hours before returning home with a flawless landing. The flight itself wasn't flawless. A pressurization valve failed, a backup instrument on the flight deck didn't work, and the weather forced the crew to deviate from the intended course. But all the failures were deemed of little significance - especially in comparison with the successes. "Fantastic" Capt. John Cashman said when asked how the 777 did on its first off-the-ground test. "It's going to be hard not to sound like every test pilot in the world after they've flown the first flight of the new model by saying this is the greatest airplane," Cashman said. "But it's *really* good." Boeing chairman and chief executive Frank Shrontz said the results of the first flight confirmed Boeing's decision to change the way it built jetliners with the 777. [[... (about design build teams etc.)]] "This is the best first flight we've ever had, actually - both in terms of the performance of the airplane and (the pilots') satisfaction with it," Shrontz said. With hundreds of Boeing workers and volenteers looking on, Cashman and co-pilot Ken Higgins lifted the strikingly quiet widebody northward into windy, gray skies at 9:42 Sunday, then veered west to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. But decent weather - essential for the chase planes to photograph the plane and watch for leaks or other problems - eluded them. So Cashman turned the 777 around and headed east, climbing over the Cascades, slipping over Glacier Peak and finally finding clear visibility over Lake Chelan. The 777's first flight, as it is with all new airplanes, has a fundamental goal - to make sure the plane flies, the cabin pressurizes, the instruments work, the flaps extend and the controls respond. According to Cashman and Higgins, the plane did all that and more. Cashman said the 777's first flight turned up fewer problems with instrumentation, engineering and maintenence than newly built jetliners that have been in production for years. The pilots put the plane through 43 separate tests, including shutting down an engine, letting it cool completely and then relighting it. "They wouldn't have done that if there was any kind of issue at all with control surfaces, hydraulic or electrical," said Bill Whitlow, an analyst with Pacific Crest Securities and a former Navy A-3 pilot. "The fact that they did that on the first flight - which is unusual - is an indication that it went pretty well." Not just unusual - unprecedented, Boeing officials said. The plane spent most of its time between 15,000 and 18,000 feet, reaching a peak altitude of 19,000 feet. On at least two occasions, they encountered ice. The first time, Cashman said, they switched on the anti-ice system manually. Later, they found the automatic anti-ice capability of the 777 worked perfectly, he said. On final approach, Cashman let the automatic pilot find the signal that would guide the plane back to Paine Field. But about halfway to the ground, he took control of the plane "because I wanted to feel the airplane before I had to land it." Cashman said the autopilot worked so perfectly that "I think I could have let it go all the way down and do an auto-land." [[I work for the Collins Autopilot group - so, shameless plug here for the company that pays my salary.]] When the jetliner touched down onto a rainsoaked runway in a brisk crosswind at 3:31 pm, a teary eyed 777 chief Alan Mulally ran up to Ron Woodward, president of Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, and gave him a congratulatory hug. "It looked good, didn't it?" Mulally said. "Did you see how stable it was?" Sunday's flight was the start of a nine-month program of flight testing involving nine 777s. [[... (stuff on Program, FAA cert, early ETOPS etc).]] ========= end excerpts Sethu R Rathinam (Not a Rockwell/Collins Spokesman) sys_srr@afds.cca.rockwell.com rathinam@ins.infonet.net From kls Mon Jun 13 19:31:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Michael P. Hartley" Subject: Re: Russian 'UFO' shaped plane? Anyone? References: <2s4pfp$mh2@infa.central.susx.ac.uk>, Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indiana University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jun 94 19:31:48 The large transport was commonly called the 'Black Sea Monster', roughly the size of a modern sub from sat. photos, and it did actually work... I believe it was a very large ground-effect vehicle (not a hover-craft), but it may have been a very large hydro-foil craft. (this is from vague memory, and I don't have the reference to where it is from) It looked (from the photo I saw) vaguely like the old Merrimac, without stacks ;^) This new aircraft looks to be a lifting-body, with horizontal and vertical stabs. I recall that the US abandoned lifting-body reasearch some time ago. Does anyone have stats on US lifting-body research? I recall two prototypes, one made from plywood and un-powered. (f2n1? some long designation) Michael P. Hartley / Physicist by Choice sys_mph@afds.cca.ROCKWELL.com ) Mathematician by Accident loadstone@ins.infonet.net \ Programmer by Mistake From kls Mon Jun 13 19:31:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stedder@tulsix.utulsa.edu (Stephen Tedder) Subject: Jet fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Jun 94 19:31:48 1. Yes, the octane number of jet fuel is much lower than that of gasoline. Octane number is not particularly meaningful in the operation of turbine engines, however. 2. Does jet fuel have to meet environmental standards? Not my department. I am not aware of any emissions requirements on aircraft themselves. I can tell you that jet engine test cells, like all stationary sources of pollution, require environmental permits. Jet aircraft are much more efficient than automobiles and therefore burn much less fuel, per passenger-mile. 3. Is there lead in jet fuel? No. Lead compounds were added to gasoline to reduce the knocking tendency of the fuel. Jet engines have no tendency to knock and do not require any anti-knock additives. 4. Emissions related to automobiles? Well, think it over. There are only a few thousand airliners operating in the US. My company, American Airlines, has one of the biggest fleets at 656 in May, and there are only three or so others that come close. Military aircraft fly only a small fraction of the hours that airliners do. But there are millions of cars, in fact, millions are sold every year! And aircraft are much more efficient than cars. So order-of-magnitude, anyway, a good guess would be that cars contribute a much bigger burden of pollutants than airplanes. As a point of interest, Jet-A, the typical airliner fuel, is similar to kerosene or diesel fuel. It is much less volatile than gasoline. Interestingly, a GE CF6-6 engine can, in an emergency, be operated on gasoline. (Don't try this at home, we're trained professionals!) But don't ever try to run a gasoline engine on jet fuel!! -- Steve Tedder stedder@tulsix.utulsa.edu 918 292-3301 From kls Fri Jun 17 23:59:07 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jod@equator.com (John Setel O'Donnell) Subject: Re: Jet fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Equator Technologies, Inc., Seattle, WA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jun 94 23:59:07 In article stedder@tulsix.utulsa.edu (Stephen Tedder) writes: >... Jet aircraft are much >more efficient than automobiles and therefore burn much less fuel, >per passenger-mile. I fly SEA-NRT and back with some regularity :-( Northwest commonly posts a data sheet in the cabin regarding the flight. The NRT->SEA flight is about 4700 miles. Typically they go through about 34,000 gallons of fuel, carrying maybe 300-350 passengers. At 300 passengers that's under 42mpg, worse than driving a VW Rabbit Diesel (similar fuel energy/gal) by yourself. On the other hand, it's 10x faster. -- John Setel O'Donnell jod@equator.com Equator Technologies, Inc. 206-328-6544 voice/fax "Disease is very old and nothing about it has changed. It is we who change as we learn to recognize what was formerly imperceptible." -Charcot From kls Fri Jun 17 23:59:07 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: SCA@pab5.larc.nasa.gov (Scott C. Asbury) Subject: Re: Jet fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: SCA@pab5.larc.nasa.gov (Scott C. Asbury) Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jun 94 23:59:07 There is a significant amount of legislation pertaining to aircraft and emisisons. The EPA has regulations pertaining to all aircraft powerplants manufactured after December 31, 1979. In general, aircraft contributions to the overall emissions inventory in the U.S. is small, typically less than 1% on a national basis. The major emissions of concern from internal combustion engines are Carbon Monoxide (CO), Hydrocarbons (HC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx). All contribute to photochemical smog formation in large metropolitan areas that affects air quality. CO and NOx can contribute to the "Greehouse Effect". NOx plays an important role in the formation of ozone, which at low altitudes is a pollutant, and also behaves as a greenhouse gas. NOx may contribute to ozone depletion, but this issue needs more study. 1990 EPA data of mobile source emissions (cars, trucks, ships, trains, aircraft, etc.) in Southern California lists the following emissions in tons/day. CO&HC NOx Cars 755 418 Trucks 108 247 Motorcycles 17 2 Trains 2 23 Ships 1 32 Aircraft Commercial 6 14 Military 8 3 GA 1 0.1 As you can see, as compared to cars and trucks aircraft emissions are very small. Another thing to consider, a breakdown of NOx emissions on a global basis. Transportation-Ground 29% Biomass burning 24% Industrial 16% Soil 12% Lightning 11% NH3 oxidation 6% Aircraft 0.6% Misc. 0.4% The EPA under the California Federal Implementation plan is proposing a fine/fee schedule for airlines and general aviation pilots for emissions. If all aircraft operations were to stop today there would be no significant effect on emissions. For more about this subject consult the following paper: AIAA 91-7021 "The Impact of Air Transport on the Environment" Scott Asbury SCA@larc.nasa.gov Disclaimer: I am NOT a spokesman for NASA, or any other program or organization. From kls Fri Jun 17 23:59:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: etate@mcl.bdm.com (C. Emory Tate) Subject: Cockpit Ergonomics in the '90s Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BDM International, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jun 94 23:59:08 The June 13th edition of AW&ST has a small postscript to an article on p. 31 about Chinese airline safety. Seems the thinking about the MD-80 CFIT near Urumqi is that the flight crew didn't understand the GPWS alerts, programmed to be spoken in English. Yeef. Maybe the phone company should get the Bitchin' Betty contracts. __ C. E. Tate snailmail: BDM Federal, Inc. 1501 BDM Way McLean, VA 22102 ______________________________________________________________ A loaf of bread, a jug of Gatorade, and a 600ft/min thermal... From kls Fri Jun 17 23:59:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Fred Christiansen" Subject: wake turbulence Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jun 94 23:59:08 Seeing the amount of thrust that the PW4084's can put out on the 777 prompts me to ask about wake turbulence. It is my understanding that wake turbulence has been a problem with the "heavies" -- DC-10, MD-11, 747, 767, TriStar. My guess was that this was due to the large amount of thrust put out by the engines of these aircraft. I heard on the radio that it is now known that the 757 has significant wake turbulence, just like a "heavy". The report did not say, as I recall, but I again guessed it was due to engine thrust. If that's the case, what sort of wake turbulence will a 777 put out? The thrust on those engines is amazing! Are there high-engine-thrust airplanes w/o wake turbulence problems? Why did the 757 problem come as a surprise? -- Fred Christiansen ("Canajun, eh?" from Ontario) Email: fredch@phx.mcd.mot.com Disclaimer: I do not speak for Motorola Computer Group Fax: 602-438-3836 "For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof: but by a man of understanding and knowledge the state thereof shall be prolonged." Prov 28:2 From kls Fri Jun 17 23:59:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: laewell@iastate.edu (Lars A Ewell) Subject: Thunderstorms Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa (USA) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jun 94 23:59:08 To Whom it May Concern, While taking a recent flight from LaGuardia on a 727-200 we flew through a rather significant thunderstorm. The rain was coming down pretty hard but what got my attention was at least one lightning flash that was not too far from the plane. Are most commercial airliners protected against lightning flashes? Has there ever been a record of lightning striking an airliner and if so, what were the consequences? thanx, Lars Ewell From kls Fri Jun 17 23:59:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: A320 hull losses: Lies, damned lies and statistics Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jun 94 23:59:08 This thread of the discussion was originally started by Wesley Kaplow in RISKS DIGEST 16.15 under the title: "Does it matter why A3??'s have a poor record?" To recap, Wesley said (without citing a source): > Already, Airbus Industry has lost more planes per delivered plane > than other major aircraft manufacturer in the past 3 decades (Lockheed, > Boeing, MD). I contradicted this in RISKS 16.16, citing a table of statistics from an article entitled ``Der Traum von Total Sicherheit'' ["The Dream of Total Safety"], in the German magazine Focus, 38, 1993, pp18-21, and Wesley has since agreed that his statement requires support (see his follow-up mailings). The table was as follows:- >Aircraft No. in Hulls % Losses >Type Service Lost > >DC-9/MD-80 2065 68 3.29 >Boeing 727 1831 62 3.39 >Boeing 737 2515 57 2.27 >Boeing 747 988 22 2.23 >DC-10 446 21 4.71 >Airbus A300/310 636 7 1.10 >Airbus A320 411 4 0.97 Focus magazine cited "Luftfahrtindustrie" (NOTE: not "Lundfahrtindustrie", as I originally transcribed it) as the source. Since then, I have been jumped on from a great height by several RISKS contributors who have accused me of abusing statistics. Since this is not something I do deliberately, I would like to make the following points (taking into account the various objections raised by those who have written to me):- 1. I am well aware that the statistics above are incomplete. They do not allow for the total operating time of each type. They do not distinguish between losses due to on-board system failure and losses due to other causes which could not possibly be blamed on the manufacturer (e.g., the Lockerbie bombing, the Vincennes shoot-down). They do not take account of wear-out and natural retirement, so that the number shown may be the "number sold" and not the "number in service". I quoted them because they were all I had at the time (while being acutely aware of their imperfections). 2. Wesley's original statement *is*, however, refuted by these statistics *provided they are correct* (see point 3). A secondary question arises: "Is this a meaningful measure of the safety of a type of aircraft?" I will return to this in point 4. 3. Peter Ladkin pointed out to me that the source name that I had originally misread as "Lundfahrtindustrie" and assumed to be some official body which records air accident statistics, is in fact "Luftfahrtindustrie" (well, it was in small print! :-) and means simply "Air Travel Industry". In other words, the source cited by Focus magazine is totally vague, and (as Peter said) about as authoritative as "I read it on the net"! :-) The statistics I naively quoted therefore need substantiation. 4. What would convince Joe Public that a given aircraft type was safe to fly? There are several possible measures of the safety of an aircraft design (note: I do *not* pretend that this list is exhaustive):- a) Deaths per passenger mile on the given type. This is used by the aircraft manufacturing industry. Conclusion: air travel is the safest way of going anywhere. b) Deaths per passenger *hour* on the given type. This makes flying about as safe as driving, but the risk would seem to be tolerable, since a probability of 10^-4 per year of dying in a road accident doesn't seem to worry most people (figures based on official UK statistics). c) Crashes (i.e., hull write-off) per revenue flight hour. This is used by the certification agencies (FAA, JAA, etc.) when awarding an airworthiness type certificate. The target is a maximum probability of loss of aircraft of 10^-6 per flight hour due to *all* causes. Historically, statistics show that *system-related* causes account for 1 in 10. The conservative assumption that there are 100 critical systems on board then leads to the famous 10^-9 requirement for probability of failure of an individual flight-critical system. d) Crashes per cycle (take-off plus landing). e) Crashes per example delivered (which is where we came in! :-) f) Passenger deaths per cycle. g) Serious incidents per flight hour or per cycle. (Q: "How many accidents has the A320 had?" A: "Five - You forgot about Lille, where an A320 landed on top of a Mooney, taking off both its wings and the empennage, and collapsing the A320's front gear. Since nobody was hurt, it doesn't count, or does it?") The whole picture is confused by the fact that the public perception of risk is biased *against* rare events that kill lots of people, and less against common events that kill a few. (In assessing any event that loses the aircraft, you must assume the worst case: that you kill everyone on board. If you crash a car, it's just you and the guy you hit!) I don't pretend to give an answer here, simply raise a few pertinent questions, whose answers (IMHO) are far from obvious. 5. A fairer comparison would be between the A320 and competing aircraft *of the same generation*. I would like to thank Robert Dorsett for the following:- 757 = 0 in eleven years. 767 = 1 in twelve years. (Lauda) A320 = 4 in five years. (Air France, Indian Airlines, Air Inter, Lufthansa) 6. Given that all the statistics above are deficient (basically, they lack an exposure time base), they do still tell us *something*. (In considering a fleet above a certain size, we could assume roughly the same operating hours per day for each example, and things like maintenance time, etc., would average out.) We could *tentatively* conclude that the A320 is a long way from being a flying coffin, but also a long way from being the safest aircraft ever, or even as safe as it should be, given its modernity. The public perception of the A320 seems to be that it is the most dangerous thing that ever left the ground. IMHO this is wrong, and we should be careful not to spread false alarm. There are, of course, better statistics (e.g., from Flight International) and I shall attempt to locate a few. The best come from the air insurance industry, but I am not sure that I can get my grubby paws on those for reasons of confidentiality. In the meantime, if anyone knows of a good source ... :-) Also, how can I phrase an argument to convince my mother that I stand a greater chance of being run over crossing St. Johns Road while walking from Farringdon tube station to the University than I do of dying in an air crash? Then I won't have to make long distance 'phone calls from the airport in B*m***k Egypt to tell her we landed safely every time I go to a conference! :-) Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB Tel: +44 (71) 477-8422, Fax.: +44 (71) 477-8585, E-mail (JANET): p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk [Original posted to RISKS] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Fri Jun 17 23:59:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: They don't do this in Mother Russia, that's for sure. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jun 94 23:59:09 >From the May 1994 _Air Line Pilot_, p. 7: NTSB Order EA-3616/3673 A widebody captain's certificate was revoked because he left the flight deck enroute for a period of approximately 30 seconds without ensuring that a qualified pilot was at a pilot duty station. At the time, the first officer was on a relief period, and the relief first officer (RFO) was standing just outside the cockpit door. The captain did not specifically order the RFO to take a pilot seat. NTSB upheld the revocation. The Board noted that the RFO "appears to have succeeded, by deliberately refraining from entering the cockpit after the [captain] left, in having the [captain] fired... after a 25-year violation-free career." FAA appealed the NTSB decision on the grounds that the observation concerning the RFO was inappropriate and should be expunged. NTSB stated that its comment was supported by the evidence and was relevant to understanding the incident and would remain. The captain's certificate was nonetheless revoked. YIKES! -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Fri Jun 17 23:59:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tomas@sics.se (Tomas Stephanson) Subject: Operation costs for airliners? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jun 94 23:59:09 I search for historical data showing the development of operation costs for airliners. These could be given either as - seat mile costs or as - cost per hour, where of course mph and seats per plane would be of interest. The purpose is to compare piston engined machines with gas turbine engined airliners, as well as to show the development of the modern airliner through the years, partly thanks to the gas turbine. Of large interest would be to get the costs distribution amongst the following (or other) factors - passenger handling costs, - line maintenance, - airframe maintenance (maybe split into light and heavy), - engine maintenance (maybe split into light and heavy), - fuel, - capital, - other. Further it would be of interest to hear som guesses about the future. What will be the effects of interacting developments in technology and economy. /Tomas From kls Wed Jun 22 16:57:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Smoking on airliners (also jet fuel followup) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:48 Yes, it is nice that we don't need to breath in that stuff, but the yellow stain that cigarette smoke leaves was great for finding leaks in the pressure vessel of the aircraft (another words - cracks). I have also heard that the goo helped seal the pressure relief valve when it was closed. Somehow a post about Jet fuel ended up in this thread. I'm not an expert, but I know Jet A (JP-1) used in commercial airliners is essentially Kerosene, which must have an awfully low Octane rating. Every time someone gets a tank full of it on a piston engined aircraft, by accident, they end up crash landing shortly after take-off from the poor engine performance. Lead is added to Gasoline to raise its Octane rating, usually from the low 80s to 100 or more (to delay the onset of detonation and increase the available power). As jet engines have continous combustion, instead of intermittent, high Octane ratings are not necessary for jet fuel. However, the old JP-4 fuel that has largely been phased out was a 50-50 cut of Gasoline and Kerosene. I remember a B737-300 getting a load of JP-4 and having problems with the CFM-56s. Last I knew, the military mostly used JP-5, which I don't think is much different from JP-1. The SR-71 was an exception, using an exotic fuel that was called JP-7. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Wed Jun 22 16:57:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Joseph_Hall@sat.mot.com (Joseph Hall) Subject: Re: No Smoking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Motorola Inc., Satellite Communications Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:48 Seems it was swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) who said: > >Anybody know if things have improved any? > >Yes. Most, if not all, of the airlines in the United States are now >banning smoking on flights. However, most airports haven't banned smoking >yet. The only domestic flights with smoking sections that I know of are to/from Alaska and Hawaii, since smoking is prohibited by law on domestic flights of less than 6 hours. I don't know whether "domestic" includes flights to US possessions and territories as well. It's a kind of a rotten surprise the first time you fly from DFW or ORD to Honolulu and find, to your horror, that the back end of the plane is filled with ... smoke? I believe that some US airlines have banned smoking altogether even on flights of over 6 hours duration, though this wouldn't be practical on most flights to Europe and certainly not to the Pacific Rim (if any non-US passengers were to be carried). Some airports have worse problems with smoke than others. In particular the air in O'Hare reeks of stale smoke almost no matter where you go. This is the #1 reason I have an Admiral's Club membership, since I travel through O'Hare frequently and the air in the Club is much, much better. -- Joseph Nathan Hall | Joseph's Law of Interface Design: Never give your users Software Architect | a choice between the easy way and the right way. Gorca Systems Inc. | joseph@joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us (home) (on assignment) | (602) 732-2549 (work) Joseph_Hall-SC052C@email.mot.com From kls Wed Jun 22 16:57:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: paulhand@hk.net (Paul Hand) Subject: Re: No Smoking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hong Kong Internet & Gateway Services, Wanchai, Hong Kong Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:48 In article , Nicolas Ercan Murat wrote: >> >> Just an anecdote. About a decade ago, I was flying on an Al Italia DC-9 from >> Rome to Athens. I had asked for a No Smoking seat. Boy, was I surprised when >> I discovered that, for the entire length of the plane, the smokers sat on the >> left side of the aisle, and the rest of us on the right! Not very effective. >> >> Anybody know if things have improved any? Not if you insist on flying Qantas they have't. QF still uses the left/right seating arrangement on it's 747 flights in Asia (although not on the 767s for some reason). As a smoker its all the same to me ;-). Just as an aside and to bring together two threads, Cathay Pacific's longest route (LAX to HKG) is also a no smoking flight. No Fun but very healthy :-). Paul paulhand@hk.net From kls Wed Jun 22 16:57:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: No Smoking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:48 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >On the subject of smoking, I also recall some comments by a friend >who had seen the effects on a TWA L-1011 -- plenums that had to be >cleaned regularly because they would get coated with a think, tarry >goo. The tarry goo also fouled up the outflow valves and were a major cause of pressurization problems. However, just to prove that some good comes from everything, that same goo would leave marks on door frames and was very helpful in finding damaged seals. It's a lot harder to find the cause of a squealing door now. From kls Wed Jun 22 16:57:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ferg0012@gold.tc.umn.edu () Subject: Re: Russian 'UFO' shaped plane? Anyone? References: <2s4pfp$mh2@infa.central.susx.ac.uk>, Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:48 In rathinam@ins.infonet.net writes: >depend on ground effect. I remember reading an (unconfirmed) >report that the ex-USSR had a large military airplane that flew >low - primarily over water - using "ground" effect and there were >plans for using it for transporting troops. They do indeed have ground effect vehicles operating in the Crimean. Check last year's AW&ST. Rob Ferguson History of Science and Technology University of Minnesota, Twin Cities From kls Wed Jun 22 16:57:49 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: Russian 'UFO' shaped plane? Anyone? References: <2s4pfp$mh2@infa.central.susx.ac.uk>, Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:49 On 13 Jun 94 19:31:48 , "Michael P. Hartley" said: Michael> Does anyone have stats on US lifting-body research? I recall Michael> two prototypes, one made from plywood and un-powered. (f2n1? Michael> some long designation) M2-F1, M2-F2, M2-F3, HL-10, X-24A, X-24B, are the manned lifting bodies. The M2-F1 was the unpowered plywood aircraft, the M2-F2 is the one you see crashing in the opening scenes of "The Six Million Dollar Man", the M2-F3 is what they rebuilt the M2-F2 into, the HL-10 is the one you see coming off the hooks on the NB-52B in "The Six Million Dollar Man", the X-24A was a joint project with the USAF, the X-24B was the follow-on rebuild of the X-24B. We flew lifting bodies here from 1966 to 1975, with a total of 144 flights. The M2-F1 is here at Dryden, as is the HL-10. The M2-F3 is hanging in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. The X-24B is on display in the USAF museum at Wright-Patterson AFB. There's a proposed lifting body, the HL-20, floating around. NASA Langley has come up with this as a personel mover for Space Station. It looks a lot like an HL-10 on steroids. -- 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 Wed Jun 22 16:57:49 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: wake turbulence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:49 In article "Fred Christiansen" writes: >Seeing the amount of thrust that the PW4084's can put out on the 777 prompts >me to ask about wake turbulence. It is my understanding that wake turbulence >has been a problem with the "heavies" -- DC-10, MD-11, 747, 767, TriStar. >My guess was that this was due to the large amount of thrust put out by >the engines of these aircraft. I heard on the radio that it is now known >that the 757 has significant wake turbulence, just like a "heavy". The >report did not say, as I recall, but I again guessed it was due to engine >thrust. No, thrust can provide a threat to aircraft and personnel (and buildings) on the ground, with very high wind velocities, but in-flight wake turbulence (and on-runway wake turbulence) is primarily the result of the *lifting* capability of the wing. When the wing is producing lift, vortices are spilled off the wingtips. >If that's the case, what sort of wake turbulence will a 777 put >out? The thrust on those engines is amazing! Are there high-engine-thrust >airplanes w/o wake turbulence problems? Why did the 757 problem come as >a surprise? The 757 issue is covered surprisingly well in the July issue of _FLYING_. The bottom line is that different people are saying different things. The FAA is proceeding in one direction. NOAA researchers are saying others. And the NTSB has axes to grind in a third direction. Historically, the 757 issue went something like: NTSB starts muttering about the 757 in mid-1993. NOAA's comments are taken out of context by the press in late 1993. FAA starts damage control in early 1994. NTSB publishes wake vortext report this spring. Everyone's saying something a bit different, but the bottom line is that the 757's wing-flap geometry can produce *relatively* heavy wake vortices, but not *spectacularly* heavy for airplanes of its weight. The *risk* of the vortices comes from the 757's performance: it can out-climb just about every other transport out there by a factor of 1.5 to 2. This means that classic restrictions on vortex separation may not work: you can't stay "at or above" another airplane's wake if you can't stay at or above the other airplane. To make things even more complicated, the NOAA research, which wasn't primarily concerned with the 757--as a research issue, at least--also showed that the characteristics of wake turbulence in general may be more complicat- ed than once thought: i.e., the effects may stay around a lot longer than the 500 fpm sink rate used as a rule of thumb. It's probably important to note that the relationship between the NTSB and FAA seems to be at an all-time low. This adds a *political* dimension to the equation. Lastly, I'm interested in seening the NOAA report. I've only seen references and rehashed versions of it, none of which have a complete citation. Any pointers would be of interest. -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Wed Jun 22 16:57:49 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: wake turbulence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:49 In article "Fred Christiansen" writes: >Seeing the amount of thrust that the PW4084's can put out on the 777 prompts >me to ask about wake turbulence. It is my understanding that wake turbulence >has been a problem with the "heavies" -- DC-10, MD-11, 747, 767, TriStar. >My guess was that this was due to the large amount of thrust put out by >the engines of these aircraft. Wake turbulence (more correctly called wake vortices due to their structured nature) is not caused by thrust, but by a wing that is creating lift. For a wing to create lift, it must have circulation about it. Circulation is sort of a measure of the vorticity about the wing, and vorticity is more or less the angular velocity of the fluid around the wing. Circulation can have no end, so at the wingtip it appears as a rapidly rotating cylinder of air. (n.b. many people and books will tell you that high pressure air below the wing trying to get to the low pressure air on top of the wing is what creates wingtip vortices, if this is true, why does it only happen at the wingtips, and why does it form well structured vortices...something that doesn't just "happen"?). As the angle of attack (the angle between the wing chord line and the relative wind) increases, circulation increases, thus so does the strength of the vortices. A slow, heavy aircraft with flaps up will produce stronger vortices than the same aircraft when it is going faster or has the flaps down. So, yes, the 777 will produce some strong wake vortices. As for whether the jet blast from the 777 will be much faster, I do not know for sure, but I suspect they get the massive amounts of thrust from accelerating a larger volume of air rather than accelerating a "normal" amount of air through a greater change in velocity (I guess this from the 112" fan disk diameter). _____________________________ _____ | Keith Barr \ \ \__ _____ | barr@netcom.com \___________\ \/_______\___\_____________ | COMM/AS&MEL/IA/A&IGI / { /_/ ....................... `-. |_____________________________/ `-----------,----,--------------' _/____/O From kls Wed Jun 22 16:57:49 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: plisner@mti.mti.sgi.com (Peter Lisner) Subject: Re: wake turbulence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:49 In article , Fred Christiansen wrote: >Seeing the amount of thrust that the PW4084's can put out on the 777 prompts >me to ask about wake turbulence. It is my understanding that wake turbulence >has been a problem with the "heavies" -- DC-10, MD-11, 747, 767, TriStar. >My guess was that this was due to the large amount of thrust put out by >the engines of these aircraft. I heard on the radio that it is now known >that the 757 has significant wake turbulence, just like a "heavy". The >report did not say, as I recall, but I again guessed it was due to engine >thrust. If that's the case, what sort of wake turbulence will a 777 put >out? The thrust on those engines is amazing! Are there high-engine-thrust >airplanes w/o wake turbulence problems? Why did the 757 problem come as >a surprise? The 757 has an incredibly high rate of climb. A takeoff in one of those (especially a noise abatement one!) is probably the most fun you can have in an airliner. They also descend much faster than most other aircraft on final approach. So this makes it harder for following traffic to stay above the flight path of a 757. This last statement sounds counter-intuitive, but what happens is that even though a following aircraft may be above the preceding one, the first aircraft was actually higher than the second one when it was at the same distance from touchdown earlier. So the second aircraft is below the wake still there from the first. There is a very good article about this in the latest (July I think) edition of "Flying" magazine, written by Richard Collins. Get a copy, and you will get a much better explanation than my clumsy attempt ! All opinions are mine, not SGI's. -- Peter Lisner e-mail: plisner@mti.sgi.com phone : (415)390-4419 Silicon Graphics Inc. From kls Wed Jun 22 16:57:49 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: wake turbulence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:49 In article "Fred Christiansen" writes: Seeing the amount of thrust that the PW4084's can put out on the 777 prompts me to ask about wake turbulence. It is my understanding that wake turbulence has been a problem with the "heavies" -- DC-10, MD-11, 747, 767, TriStar. My guess was that this was due to the large amount of thrust put out by the engines of these aircraft. I heard on the radio that it is now known that the 757 has significant wake turbulence, just like a "heavy". The report did not say, as I recall, but I again guessed it was due to engine thrust. If that's the case, what sort of wake turbulence will a 777 put out? The thrust on those engines is amazing! Are there high-engine-thrust airplanes w/o wake turbulence problems? Why did the 757 problem come as a surprise? ------ Wake Turbulence is primarily caused by wingtip vortex shedding, not engine thrust. The wingtip vortex strength is proportional to the amount of lift the wing must generate to stay in the air (to the first order). The reason that the B757 was somewhat of a surprise is that the particular wing design chosen for that aircraft turns out to have very high intensity wake vortex for its weight, probably as an outgrowth of the wing's aerodynamic efficiency. In fact, I recall reports that the tangential velocities of the air in the vortex exceeded any previous measurement done on any airliner. However, the total energy of the vortex is smaller than that of a B747, say, because the vortex itself occurs in a smaller volume. However, if you happen to fly into that small area, it appears that you are in for one heck of a ride! 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 Jun 22 16:57:49 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Thunderstorms References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:49 In article laewell@iastate.edu (Lars A Ewell) writes: > > While taking a recent flight from LaGuardia on a >727-200 we flew through a rather significant thunderstorm. >The rain was coming down pretty hard but what got my >attention was at least one lightning flash that was not >too far from the plane. Are most commercial airliners >protected against lightning flashes? Has there ever >been a record of lightning striking an airliner and if >so, what were the consequences? Usually it's a tiny hole in the fuselage. Rarely, the airplane blows up. In one case, it triggered a bizarre chemical reaction, and the wing of an Iranian Imperial Air Force 747 fell off over Spain. Sometimes, you can even get ball lightning in the cabin! Airplanes get hit all the time. It's a wild experience. -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Wed Jun 22 16:57:49 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: STOCKER@alpha.salem.ge.com (David Stocker) Subject: Re: Thunderstorms References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GE Drive Systems, Salem, VA, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:49 In laewell@iastate.edu writes: > While taking a recent flight from LaGuardia on a > 727-200 we flew through a rather significant thunderstorm. > The rain was coming down pretty hard but what got my > attention was at least one lightning flash that was not > too far from the plane. Are most commercial airliners > protected against lightning flashes? Has there ever > been a record of lightning striking an airliner and if > so, what were the consequences? Lightning strikes on aircraft are fairly common. Yes, they are designed with the possibility of lightning strikes in mind. Last year a UPS 757 dirverted here to Roanoke after taking a strong hit in an area of thunderstorms between here and Lousivile. There were three burn spots on the plane, under the cockpit area, but no other visible damage. Their electronics were knocked out for a short time but were fully restored within seconds. The plane was stuck here over the weekend until a UPS mechanic came and released it for flight back to Louisville. The Captain and F/O told me this was the first time either had been hit by lightning, but they also added that it isn't that uncommonon, though. Also note that thanks to the in-flight weather watch equipment now required on airliners (weather radar in particular), airliners almost never fly directly through thunderstorm cells, where the lightning threat is greatest. Twenty+ years ago airliners didn't always divert around TRW's, simply because they didn't always know where the cells were. Dave 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: 703-387-8651 From kls Wed Jun 22 16:57:49 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Thunderstorms References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:49 In article laewell@iastate.edu (Lars A Ewell) writes: While taking a recent flight from LaGuardia on a 727-200 we flew through a rather significant thunderstorm. The rain was coming down pretty hard but what got my attention was at least one lightning flash that was not too far from the plane. Are most commercial airliners protected against lightning flashes? Has there ever been a record of lightning striking an airliner and if so, what were the consequences? ---- While commercial airliners do not get hit often by lightning, it is not uncommon. Airliners have static discharge wicks, which look like black "antennas" sticking out the trailing edge of wings and tail surfaces. Lightning tends to hit these rather than the fuselage. These static wicks do another duty by dissapating static charge which accumulates on the fuselage into the air stream by a mechanism I don't know too much about, quite frankly. The main problem with static buildup is that it can affect the comm radios and other RF devices. Airlines go through much effort to insure that static wicks and antennas are securely bonded to the airframe. 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 Wed Jun 22 16:57:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hac@kinkoman.res.utc.com (H. Andrew Chuang) Subject: Singapore Airlines' $10.3b order Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: United Technologies Research Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:50 Today (6/22), Singapore Airlines (SIA) announced an order worth up to $10.3 billion. The order includes 22 Boeing 747-400's (11 firm + 11 options) and 30 Airbus A340-300E's (10 firm + 20 options). Pratt & Whitney will supply the engines for the B747 while CFMI will supply the engines for the A340. SIA can convert the B747 options to B777's, and the A340-300 options to A330's or A340-200's. (I infer from the news release that the new designation for the A340-300X powered by the CFM56-5C4 is A340-300E, perhaps, E stands for Extended-range?) The firm orders are valued at $3.5 billion. The A340 order is SIA's second. IMHO, the order is an interesting one because SIA has yet to receive the first aircraft from its first A340 order. For a relatively conservative airline like SIA to make such a decision, the initial A340 operating data must be fairly impressive (unless the French and German are giving additional landing rights to SIA :-). I would think this is a big boost for the A340 program. Ever since Northwest's cancellation of 20 A340's in 1992, Airbus has picked up orders of 16 new A340's only: Virgin Atlantic's 4, Cathay Pacific's 6 (plus 4 leased aircraft originally destined for Philippine Airlines), and Air Canada's 6. (Am I right, Karl? It's a lot easier to keep track of the new orders when the airline industry is so depressed :-) Boeing is probably a little disappointed that SIA did not make any firm commitment to the B777. IMHO, the B777 should be THE plane for the Asian market, especially the B-market and the proposed stretched versions. Nonetheless, the SIA acquisition is the first significant B747 order since late 1992 (Saudia's order of 5 B747 is not insignificant, but the order has yet to be finalized). BTW, I believe, with this order, SIA have ordered more B747's than any other airlines except JAL. JAL have ordered ~100 B747's, SIA ~85, and BA ~75. With the Saudia's $6 billion and SIA's $3.5 billion orders plus the up-coming $5 billion order from China, the airframe industry is not doing too bad this year. Other than Air Canada's A319 purchase, most of the big orders have gone to Boeing. Just for reference, last year's big orders include: UPS's order of 30 B767F's, Continental's order of 50 B737's, 25 B757's, 12 767's, and 5 B777's, Korean Air's 8 B777's, and Southwest's 63 B737-700's. Although, Continental's order was very sizable, it was somewhat misleading. Most of the order was merely a "re-commitment" of previous orders made before it filed for Chapter 11. For Boeing, it did get some extra from the Continental deal: Continental switched the A330 orders to a combination of B767's and B777's. BTW, other than Korean's undecided B777 powerplant and Continental's R-R-powered B757's, all of last year's major engine orders went to General Electric! H Andrew Chuang (hac@utrc.utc.com) From kls Wed Jun 22 16:57:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines' $10.3b order References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:50 H. Andrew Chuang writes: >since Northwest's cancellation of 20 A340's in 1992, Airbus has >picked up orders of 16 new A340's only: Virgin Atlantic's 4 ... Even that isn't as rosy as it looks, since the Virgin A340s were "virtual white tails" from the Northwest order -- the cancellation came too late to catch some of the longer-lead time items, so Airbus might have been stuck with white tails. >... Cathay Pacific's 6 (plus 4 leased aircraft originally destined >for Philippine Airlines), and Air Canada's 6. (Am I right, Karl?) I don't see the November, 1993 order for six A340s by China Eastern in your list. But you also don't mention that Continental cancelled seven A340 orders along with the A330 cancellations in March, 1993, just two months before their first A340 was to have been delivered. >I believe, with this order, SIA have ordered more B747's than any >other airlines except JAL. JAL have ordered ~100 B747's, SIA ~85, >and BA ~75. Are you including options? If so, United should be second. They acquired 18 747-122s (the original order may have been bigger; I'm not sure) and 2 -222Bs. Their first 747-400 order was for 15 (with the order for 101 737-300s, at the time Boeing's biggest single sale) and then United ordered 60 more (half options) as part of their 777 order. That's 95 747s. I'm not sure if it's fair or not to add in the two 747-451s that Northwest cancelled at the last minute; United is taking delivery of them this month and next. (United has also acquired at least 25 used 747s over the years.) >For Boeing, it did get some extra from the Continental deal: >Cotinental switched the A330 orders to a combination of B767's and >B777's. As noted above, A340s were cancelled as well as a larger number of A330s. Boeing actually got its foot in the door with *all* of its large twins -- Continental hadn't previously had the 757, either. >BTW, other than Korean's undecided B777 powerplant and Continental's >R-R-powered B757's, all of last year's major engine orders went to >General Electric! Right after you left GE for Pratt, eh? 8-) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.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 Jun 22 16:57:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gregory@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Greg Wright) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 First Flight was today - June 12 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Computer Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:50 As a follow up to my last post, did it make it out?, here is a Boeing MIB about the first flight with some more details. greg. ===================================================================== BOEING 777 COMPLETES FIRST FLIGHT The Boeing 777 took to the sky for the first time at 11:45 a.m. PDT Sunday, June 12 embarking on the most comprehensive flight-test program in the history of commercial aviation. Sunday's three-hour, 48-minute flight was the first of more than 4,800 test flights planned for the latest addition to the Boeing family of commercial jetliners. Coincidentally, the flight came almost 78 years to the day after the June 15, 1916, first flight of the first Boeing airplane, the B&W seaplane. "We're doing pretty well right now," Chief Pilot John Cashman, said moments after the airplane lifted off from Everett's Paine Field. After putting the airplane through various maneuvers Cashman radioed back that the 777 is "as smooth as can be." During its maiden flight, the 777 broke through the clouds at 15,000 feet (4,615 meters) and reached a maximum altitude of 19,000 feet (5,846 meters). Decked out in the traditional Boeing paint scheme of red, white and blue, the airplane completed several circular routes over a portion of Washington state heading northwest along Puget Sound, passing over the San Juan Islands, turning east and crossing the Cascade mountain range before looping back toward Everett. "I'm proud to be part of this," said Ken Higgins, Boeing director of Flight Test and first officer for today's mission. "Our successful first flight is the result of a lot of other people's effort." "This airplane program is going to be a big part of our future, and it's off to a great start," said Frank Shrontz, who was on hand to greet the crew when the 777 returned to Everett. "It's a very exciting day for all of us. It's great to see a product of working together with our customers and suppliers turn out so well." Also on hand to greet the two-man crew were Phil Condit, Ron Woodard, Alan Mulally, vice president and general manager of the 777 program, and family members of the flight crew. Christened "Working Together" in recognition of the approach used to develop the jetliner with participation by airline customers, suppliers and the engine companies, the first 777 is powered by two Pratt & Whitney 4084 engines. It will be joined in the flight-test program by eight other 777s including two powered by General Electric GE90 engines and two with Rolls- Royce Trent 800 engines. During subsequent flight tests, 777s will be operated in both extremely hot and cold climates to prove the safety and reliability of the airplane's systems. Flight times will vary from less than an hour to extended-range missions lasting nine hours. Successful completion of the testing program is expected to lead to the certification of Pratt & Whitney-powered 777s in April of next year, with delivery of the first customer airplane to United Airlines scheduled for May 15, 1995. Certification of GE-powered 777s is expected in August 1995, and certification of Rolls-Royce-powered 777s anticipated in January 1996. -- ________Greg Wright________ Software Development | gregory@bcstec.boeing.com | 777 Division. | gregory@halcyon.com | |___uunet!bcstec!gregory____| NOT A BOEING SPOKESPERSON. From kls Wed Jun 22 16:57:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mdw@ccu1.auckland.ac.nz (Woodhams) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 First Flight was today - June 12 References: <9406130039.AA22216@stimpy.src.honeywell.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Auckland Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:50 Stephen L Nicoud writes: > Successful completion of the testing program is expected to lead to the > certification of Pratt & Whitney-powered 777s in April of next year, with > delivery of the first customer airplane to United Airlines scheduled for > May 15, 1995. Certification of GE-powered 777s is expected in August 1995, > and certification of Rolls-Royce-powered 777s anticipated in January 1996. Why does it take so long to certify the plane with the different engines? (10 months to certify the whole plane plus P&W engines, another 9 months after that before the RR engines are certified.) I would have guessed that 80% of the certification testing would be independent of which engine was used. Michael W. From kls Wed Jun 22 16:57:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: clhp19@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ("Bill McMillan") Subject: Construction of Flight Data Recorders Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Strathclyde Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:50 Hi there, Can anyone provide me with construction details of flight data recorders? Especially with regard to the recording mediums used. Replies by e-mail please. Thanks in advance, Bill. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill McMillan, CONTESSE Project, The Marine Technology Centre, e-mail: bill.mcmillan@strathclyde.ac.uk University of Strathclyde, 100 Montrose Street, phone : +44 (0)41 552 4400 x3315 Glasgow, Scotland. fax : +44 (0)41 552 2879 From kls Wed Jun 22 16:57:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.ifr Path: bounce-back From: akrodriguez@tasc.com (A. Kevin Rodriguez) Subject: Re: Air traffic control questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TASC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:50 In article , greg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) says: > >In katie@physics2.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) writes: > >>I like to listen to the air traffic control talk that United sometimes >>puts on one of the audio entertainment channels, and I have some naive >>questions about it. My impression is that after the pilot calls the >>ARTCC (Oakland Center, Denver Center, Indianapolis Center, etc) the >>person on the ground finds the aircraft on radar and follows it. Is >>this right? > >Yes, when the aircrat can be radar identified. It's not the controller's >only job, though. Note also that air traffic control can FUNCTION perfectly >well without radar; it does so by reverting to "manual" callouts of >position location by aircraft pilot's and a lot of distance/time calculations >on the ground. Radar just increases the ATC facilities "bandwidth" or absolute ># of planes in the sky. > Under IFR (I don't know about VFR) the plane doesn't just show up in the new controller's sector. The aircraft is always handed-off from one controller to the next (i.e., the receiving controller has to accept the aircraft). So, when the pilot calls the new controller, the controller is already expecting to hear from him. This all happens on the controller's comm so you don't hear the exchange. I don't know the level of automation in the hand-off process (voice or data or whatever). The controller already knows the plane is there before any radio contact. In fact the computer prints out the flight strip several minutes early telling the controller when and where (e.g., 10:00 GMT, J31) to expect the plane. Note: Central ATC management uses this information to forecast congestion in a particular sector or airport and delay planes on the ground (a common experience in the NE corridor). __________________________________________ A. Kevin Rodriguez (AKRodriguez@TASC.com) The Analytic Sciences Corporation (TASC) Reading, Massachusetts From kls Wed Jun 22 16:57:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.ifr Path: bounce-back From: rem@world.std.com (Ross E Mitchell) Subject: Re: Air traffic control questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:50 The squawk code is assigned on the ground, prior to taxi for IFR flights. This code is kept throughout the flight. The first departure controller will reference the transponder code indirectly by stating "radar contact" shortly after the plane takes off. No further mention is made of radar status unless contact is lost, at which time the controller states "radar contact lost." This tells the pilot that he or she must then make position reports until radar contact is re-established. (Sometimes the pilot is given a new squawk code prior to arrival if the destination approach control uses a local numbering system to distinguish between aircraft proceeding to the various airports in the area.) The controller hands-off an IFR flight to the next controller via landline BEFORE the pilot is instructed to call the next controller. When the pilot calls, that controller is already waiting for the call. For VFR flights, transponder codes are assigned and radar contact is established as the pilot transfers from one controller's area to another. There is no controller hand-off. Except in certain controlled areas, pilots flying under VFR are not required to be in contact with a controller at all, and controllers are not required to accept VFR traffic, except as their workload permits. When not under the control (or guidance) of a controller, a VFR flight squawks code 1200. Interestingly, if the pilot squawks the hijack code, the controller will ask the pilot to confirm that that code is being squawked without making any reference to what it means. If the pilot confirms the hijack code by repeating its number, or does not respond to the controller's query, the controller assumes that a hijacking is in progress and proceeds accordingly. -- Regards, Ross Mitchell - rem@world.std.com - Phone: 617-965-7010 - Fax: 617-630-0140 From kls Wed Jun 22 16:57:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ditka!sgiblab!uunet.UU.NET!ide!pete (Peter Coe) Subject: Concorde Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Interactive Development Environments Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:51 Earlier this month, I finally managed to experience this unique airliner. The problem is that the journey raised more questions than it answered, so I am hoping that some of you can answer my questions. I flew from Washington D.C. to London on a scheduled British Airways flight, and one look around the cabin made me wonder how BA can manage to keep the route going. There were only about 40 of us on board, and at times it seemed like there were more staff than passengers. I had already been in one of the proto- types, so I knew that the plane was small on the inside. I had forgotten just how small. I am well over 6 feet, and that made using the restrooms very awkward! The first question is around the take off. Before the we started onto the runway, the Captain explained that noise abatement meant that afterburners would be switched of (precisely) 1 minute and 14 seconds after we started the roll, and at that time the plane would have a very obvious pitching moment. So we used after burner for take-off. Is that always needed. I would have thought that in our relatively lightly loaded state, we could have avoided it. The second question, is that at the time the throttles were opened up, the air pressure in the plane was raised. I have an altimeter watch which put the raise in pressure at an altitude equivalent of about 1200 feet, but my ears could have told me anyway. Was this a fault, or just something unique to the design. Third and final, is about the cruise. I got a chance to see the cockpit, (and there was me thinking the cabin was cramped!), and whilst there asked a few questions. The answer that surprised me most was that Concorde cruises without afterburner. I remember a few years ago that F-22 and F-23, were hailed for their ability to 'super-cruise' at something over Mach-1 without afterburner. What is Concorde's secret? Is it that it is just over powered compared with fighters? I think not. I knew that the Olympus engines were special, but didn't realise that they were this unique. The biggest dissapointment of the trip, was just how uneventful it was. But for the Mach meter at the front of the cabin, I would never have known when we broke the sound barrier. I think they were to successful at making supersonic flight uneventful :-) Still, I have no regrets about the trip, and if I get the chance again I will take it. Whether it would have been worth $5000 (the full price) is another matter. From kls Sun Jun 26 16:18:24 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: Russian 'UFO' shaped plane? Anyone? References: <2s4pfp$mh2@infa.central.susx.ac.uk>, Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 16:18:24 On 22 Jun 94 16:57:49 , shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) said: Mary> On 13 Jun 94 19:31:48 , "Michael P. Hartley" Mary> said: Michael> Does anyone have stats on US lifting-body research? I recall Michael> two prototypes, one made from plywood and un-powered. (f2n1? Michael> some long designation) Mary> M2-F1, M2-F2, M2-F3, HL-10, X-24A, X-24B, are the manned lifting Mary> bodies. The M2-F1 was the unpowered plywood aircraft, the M2-F2 Mary> is the one you see crashing in the opening scenes of "The Six Mary> Million Dollar Man", the M2-F3 is what they rebuilt the M2-F2 Mary> into, the HL-10 is the one you see coming off the hooks on the Mary> NB-52B in "The Six Million Dollar Man", the X-24A was a joint Mary> project with the USAF, the X-24B was the follow-on rebuild of Mary> the X-24B. The X-24B was the rebuild of the X-24A, obviously. Those of you with access to the World Wide Web can find a lot more information about lifting bodies, including pictures, on http://mosaic.dfrf.nasa.gov/dryden.html -- 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 Sun Jun 26 16:18:24 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gregory@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Greg Wright) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 First Flight was today - June 12 References: <9406130039.AA22216@stimpy.src.honeywell.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Computer Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 16:18:24 In article , Woodhams wrote: >Stephen L Nicoud writes: >> Successful completion of the testing program is expected to lead to the >> certification of Pratt & Whitney-powered 777s in April of next year, with >> delivery of the first customer airplane to United Airlines scheduled for >> May 15, 1995. Certification of GE-powered 777s is expected in August 1995, >> and certification of Rolls-Royce-powered 777s anticipated in January 1996. > >Why does it take so long to certify the plane with the different >engines? (10 months to certify the whole plane plus P&W engines, >another 9 months after that before the RR engines are certified.) I >would have guessed that 80% of the certification testing would be >independent of which engine was used. The testing of the Rolls-Royce-powered 777s may not start right when the testing of the previous engine ends. Also, engines can make a very big difference in the performace of the wing in areas such as landing and takeoff. They really can change the airflow in high-lift/low-speed areas of the flight envelope. As you know, these are the two most important part of the flight testing: landing and takeoff performance. greg. -- ________Greg Wright________ Software Development | gregory@bcstec.boeing.com | 777 Division. | gregory@halcyon.com | |___uunet!bcstec!gregory____| NOT A BOEING SPOKESPERSON. From kls Sun Jun 26 16:18:25 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gregory@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Greg Wright) Subject: 777 2nd Flight. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Computer Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 16:18:25 The 777 "Working Together" airplane flew for the second time Wednesday. With Boeing Capts. John Cashman and Ken Higgins at the controls, the airplane took off from Paine Field at about 8:45 a.m., went through a majority of flight testing along the western coast of Washington state, and landed more than seven hours later, at 3:50 p.m. The second flight was the first of five "flight-control clearance" tests aimed at assuring the air worthiness of the flight-control system and to assess the airplanes's handling qualities. The aircraft eventually will move from Paine Field to the Boeing Field flight test center, where the flight-test program will continue. After the five flight-control clearance tests are complete, the 777 will fly to Glasgow, Mont., for a series of "flutter tests," which essentially test how the airplane structure responds to high speeds. The test are expected to last until mid-July. -- ________Greg Wright________ Software Development | gregory@bcstec.boeing.com | 777 Division. | gregory@halcyon.com | |___uunet!bcstec!gregory____| NOT A BOEING SPOKESPERSON. From kls Sun Jun 26 16:18:25 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: coburn@informix.com (David Coburn) Subject: Aeroflot? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Informix Software, Inc. Menlo Park, CA 94025 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 16:18:25 I was waiting on a connection at LAX the other day, and glimpsed a HUGE tail on an AC that taxied between terminal C and the Bradley (?) international terminal. I went over to the window, and saw what appeared to be a widebody jet, with 4 engines and some pretty large winglets. There were three sets of main landing gear (one under each wing, where one would expect them, the third under the fuselage), and a bit of a knob over the APU exhaust. First, does anybody know what type of airliner this is? (No, there is no way I had been drinking; there is just enough time in the SAN-LAX run to have the flight attendants make a mad dash through the cabin tossing peanuts and little juice containers out.) Anyway, what are the extra mains for? Rough field ops? Second, they parked the jet between terminals for quite a while, which really screwed up ground ops. The tug had to come out and fetch the jet. I would *hope* the pilot had sufficient skill to park it at the gate, and the wing span wasn't great enough to interfere with other gates if it was a hair off. Thanks in advance, David David Coburn coburn@informix.com Informix Software, Inc. ...uunet!infmx!coburn ========================================================================= Any opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Informix (or for that matter, anybody else). ========================================================================= From kls Sun Jun 26 16:18:25 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Aeroflot? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 16:18:25 >First, does anybody know what type of airliner this is? The description sounds like an A340, but your subject ("Aeroflot") suggests that you think it was Russian. In that case I'd suspect it was an Il-96-300. >Anyway, what are the extra mains for? Rough field ops? They're there for the same reason the DC-10-30 and -40 have a two- wheeled main in the middle, in addition to the pair of four-wheeled mains of the DC-10-10 and -15, or the 747 has four sets of four- wheeled mains -- weight. The extra tires distribured over a larger area mean less weight is concentrated in a given spot, so the runway (taxiway/whatever) doesn't need to be as strong. Of course the aggregate weight is not reduced any, so a structure like a bridge must still be stronger to handle a heavier aircraft. Unfortunately, the landing gear is an incredibly heavy portion of an aircraft, so additional mains add a lot of weight. Boeing chose to use a pair of six-wheeled mains on the 777 instead of a trio of four- wheeled mains (as on the plane you saw), in part to save weight, but also to permit more space in the wing box area for fuel. (The Tu-156 also has six-wheeled mains -- where the otherwise similar 777 has two-wheeled mains! Obviously the aircraft wasn't all *that* heavy, but they wanted to use unpaved runways, which of course could not handle as much weight within a tire footprint as a paved runway.) On one final note regarding landing gear, the L-1011-500 is an inter- esting contrast to the DC-10-30/-40. Lockheed needed stronger landing gear for the higher weights, but built beefed up versions of the four- wheeled mains instead of adding a third strut. This presumably was lighter, and of course involved fewer parts, but lacked the substantial part commonality of the DC-10 approach. Which was the better tradeoff depended upon whether you asked the Lockheed or the Douglas salesman! >Second, they parked the jet between terminals for quite a while, >which really screwed up ground ops. The tug had to come out and >fetch the jet. That's normal for most of the gates at Bradley -- I believe the two terminals are too close together, at least with large aircraft, and the jet blasts might damage the other terminal or otherwise cause some disruption. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.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 Jun 26 16:18:25 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdl1@ukc.ac.uk Subject: Re: Thunderstorms References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Counsel Wolf Organization: University of Kent at Canterbury, UK. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 16:18:25 In article ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) writes: >While commercial airliners do not get hit often by lightning, it is >not uncommon. Airliners have static discharge wicks, which look like >black "antennas" sticking out the trailing edge of wings and tail >surfaces. Lightning tends to hit these rather than the fuselage. > >These static wicks do another duty by dissapating static charge which >accumulates on the fuselage into the air stream by a mechanism I don't >know too much about, quite frankly. The main problem with static >buildup is that it can affect the comm radios and other RF devices. >Airlines go through much effort to insure that static wicks and >antennas are securely bonded to the airframe. The other mechanism is triboelectric charging. Essentially droplets can be charged, by the same charge separation mechanisms that lead to lightning discharges between clouds. When an aircraft flies through a cloud of charged droplets, it can acquire their charge and build up a high potential - the capacitance of the aircraft is much less than that of millions of little drops. If this potential exceeds a breakdown threshold, a lightning-like discharge can occur from the aircraft. Some early aviators with rubber wheels used to get a jolt when deplaning, until metal skids were used. As Ed says, the main problem is RF interference these days. Some space probes (Galileo, Huygens) also carry static discharge wicks to protect from lightning or triboelectric charging. Ralph Lorenz Unit for Space Sciences University of Kent UK From kls Sun Jun 26 16:18:25 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stevcaisse@aol.com (StevCaisse) Subject: Re: Thunderstorms / Pan Am Elkton crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 16:18:25 In article , laewell@iastate.edu (Lars A Ewell) writes: Lars, The other replys to your question covered the hows/whys of your interest. You also asked about consequesnces. The most notable lightning strike accident occurred 08 Dec 1963. On that date a Pan American Boeing 707-121, N709PA was struck by lightning near Elkton Maryland on a flight from Baltimore to Philadelphia (PA214 SJU-BAL-PHL). The lightning strike caused an explosion of the fuel in the left wing and the aircraft crashed with 81 persons lost. Numerous modifications to airframe/fuel/procedures following that accident make the possibility of lightning downing a commercial airliner today, very remote. Steve Caisse / ATL From kls Sun Jun 26 16:18:26 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ghdahlbacka@lbl.gov (Glen Dahlbacka) Subject: Re: Thunderstorms St Elmo's FIre References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: LBL TTD Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 16:18:26 A Western Airlines pilot told me years ago about an incident where a corona discharge formed a blue conical column in front of the plane, and rooted on the nose cone. Being experienced he immediately took off his headset, but the co-pilot wasn't as quick and got quite an earful when the discharge occured to disipate the corona build up. Now, was this guy pulling my leg, or have others experienced this phenomenon? From kls Sun Jun 26 16:18:26 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cherkas@crl.com (Brian Cherkas) Subject: Re: Thunderstorms References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 16:18:26 In article , ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) wrote: > These static wicks do another duty by dissapating static charge which > accumulates on the fuselage into the air stream by a mechanism I don't > know too much about, quite frankly. The main problem with static > buildup is that it can affect the comm radios and other RF devices. Another phenomena we get while flying near thunderstorms are some very exciting displays of St. Elmo's fire. One time while picking our way around cells, the cockpit windows were dancing with bright blue electricity. After a while, St. Elmo's seemed to enter the cockpit, as a ballish looking blob of electricity danced in mid-air for a second and then bang, we heard a very loud explosion as the electricity dissapated. I've twice experienced this sudden explosion of electricity while flying, and many times experienced such shows of St. Elmo's that it surpassed my most enlightening shows of the northern lights. Brian. -- --+ -- 0=/ || 0=/ | Brian Cherkas --------------------/TWA| ----------------------- (@ ooo ooooo oooooo ooo > cherkas@crl.com -------- ----- / compuserve/73644,1444 0=\ || \__| \--+ From kls Sun Jun 26 16:18:26 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: STOCKER@alpha.salem.ge.com (David Stocker) Subject: Re: Thunderstorms References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GE Drive Systems, Salem, VA, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 16:18:26 In STOCKER@alpha.salem.ge.com writes: > In laewell@iastate.edu writes: > > > While taking a recent flight from LaGuardia on a > > 727-200 we flew through a rather significant thunderstorm. > > The rain was coming down pretty hard but what got my > > attention was at least one lightning flash that was not > > too far from the plane. Are most commercial airliners > > protected against lightning flashes? Has there ever > > been a record of lightning striking an airliner and if > > so, what were the consequences? > > Lightning strikes on aircraft are fairly common. Yes, they A timely followup - yesterday at lunch I was out at the Roanoke airport (ROA), conducting some business. There was a large thunderstorm about 5nm north of the field. As I was walking from my car to the terminal a huge lightning bolt hit a county resivoir about 4nm north of the airport, then within seconds I saw a Delta Communter Brasilia (two engine turboprop) start on it's way down the runway. As he climbed through about 400 feet, he got hit, too. It appeared to be a small air to ground bolt that changed direction right at the plane. Of course I couldn't tell if it hit the fuselage, wing, etc. He continued on his merry way. [Note: when there's TRW's close to the airport, we G/A pilots decide that's a good time to have another Coke in the lobby! If we're already in the air, we decide it's a good time to fly somewhere else!] Dave 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: 703-387-8651 From kls Sun Jun 26 16:18:26 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Dorsett Subject: Re: Thunderstorms References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rdd@netcom.com Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 16:18:26 >In article , you write: > >[sub: lightning strikes on airplanes] > >> >>Usually it's a tiny hole in the fuselage. Rarely, the airplane blows >>up. In one case, it triggered a bizarre chemical reaction, and the wing >>of an Iranian Imperial Air Force 747 fell off over Spain. Sometimes, you >>can even get ball lightning in the cabin! > >Can you point me to a reference to the Iranian 747 wing problem? >I am interested in finding out more. See NTSB-AAR-78-12, "Special Investigation Report--Wing Failure of Boeing 747-131, Near Madrid, Spain, May 9, 1976," dated October 6, 1978. >What happened to the >airplane? It crashed. The "bizarre chemical reaction" was an early theory. The following may be of interest. Note that the NTSB could not render a probable cause statement, since it was out of jurisdiction. "Hypotheses of wing failure causes" summarized as one of (pp. 17-18): "a. Internal overpressures. Loads resulting from an explosion or ignition of fuel vapors within the wing. "b. Aerodynamic forced. Loads developed by the wing's aerodynamic surface as the aircraft exceeds limit speeds through the air mass; loads developed as a result of an encounter with high velocity horizontal wind gusts, updrafts, or downdrafts; loads developed as a result of maneuvering the aircraft through pilot or autopilot control system inputs; or any combination of the above. "c. Dynamic forces--loads developed when a structural body is excited to an undamped vibration at or near its natural frequency." On the specific subject of lightning protection: "Lightning currents flowing in the skin and and structural elements of an aircraft can induce some level of voltage in all of the electrical wiring enclosed within the aircraft. The metallic structure of an aircraft acts as a conductor of the lightning stroke currents and prevents direct attachment to units enclosed by the metallic shield. The currents of the stroke generate magnetic fields while passing along this shell which, in turn, penetrate the metal shell and induce voltages and currents in elements within the shell. Experiments in the past have led to estimates that the highest level of induced voltage can be 1,000 to 2,000 volts. "Systems installed within a wing, such as fuel quantity measuring devices, fuel lines, and electrical wiring, will be subjected to induced voltages and currents. Discontinuities of various electrical paths within the wing can produce arcing of the induced voltages which could become ignition sources for a flammable fuel. as long as these induced currents are conducted along a continuous path through the wing and wing elements and eventually off the aircraft, no arcing should occur. Discontinuities are prevented at points where mechanical joints exist by electrical bonding or "jumpers" to assure conductivity. Fuel system components are located in zones in which the magnetic coupling effect is greatly reduced by the mass of the shielding structure and the geometry of the component's location. "Fiberglas components of the aircraft's structure include metallic strips which permit current to pass through the component and thus prevent discontinuitis of the direct lightning strike current. Lightning strike tests on scale models pointed out the areas of the aircraft's geometry that were more susceptible to strike attachment. Such informatin helped to determine the location of components that were considered critical. Service experience also contributes to the design of lightning protection." -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Sun Jun 26 21:42:04 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Aeroflot? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 21:42:04 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >(The Tu-156 also has six-wheeled mains -- where the otherwise similar >777 has two-wheeled mains! Obviously the aircraft wasn't all *that* >heavy, but they wanted to use unpaved runways, which of course could >not handle as much weight within a tire footprint as a paved runway.) Karl, what are you saying here? What's a Tu-156? All Tupolevs I've ever heard of end in 4. And the only Tupolev I've ever heard of that is similar to a 777 is the Tu-204, which is a 757 clone. Is the 156 some sort of rarity? Also, you just got through saying that the 777 has 6-wheel mains. So why are they now 2-wheel? And if you really meant 757, doesn't the 757 have 4-wheel mains? I'm confused. Another example is the Indian Airlines Airbus 320, which has 4-wheel mains for soft/bad runways, whereas all other A320s have 2-wheel mains. RNA From kls Sun Jun 26 21:42:04 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Aeroflot? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 21:42:04 >In article , >Karl Swartz wrote: >>(The Tu-156 also has six-wheeled mains -- where the otherwise similar >>777 has two-wheeled mains! Obviously the aircraft wasn't all *that* >Karl, what are you saying here? What's a Tu-156? All Tupolevs I've >ever heard of end in 4. And the only Tupolev I've ever heard of that >is similar to a 777 is the Tu-204, which is a 757 clone. Boy, I *really* fumbled up that one! Can I blame it on the heat?! What I meant was the Tu-154 and the 727. >Also, you just got through saying that the 777 has 6-wheel mains. >So why are they now 2-wheel? And if you really meant 757, doesn't >the 757 have 4-wheel mains? I'm confused. The 777 does have six-wheel mains and the 757 (like the 767) has four- wheel mains. It's the 727 that has the two-wheel mains. (As does the 737, but let me not try to get things even more confused here!) >Another example is the Indian Airlines Airbus 320, which has 4-wheel >mains for soft/bad runways, whereas all other A320s have 2-wheel mains. Right, I was going to mention that but since it's a real oddball I thought I should stop before making it too confusing. Sounds like I should have stopped sooner! -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.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 Jun 26 21:42:04 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wohlsen@sri.com Subject: Modifications for zero-G parabolic flights Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SRI International Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 21:42:04 I suspect any aircraft can be used for zero-G parabolic flights; however, I assume some are better suited for it than others. Vne, G-load limits, and service ceiling are probably important considerations. I believe NASA uses a KC135 and Novespace an Aerospatiale Caravelle. Why were these aircraft chosen? What mofifications are necessary to convert an airliner for this application other than replacing most of the interior? What is the typical flight path used for such flights? How long is the zero-G period? Where are the flights usually conducted? In controlled airspace? Thanks for any information. Bob Wohlsen bob_wohlsen@qm.sri.com From kls Sun Jun 26 21:42:04 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stevcaisse@aol.com (StevCaisse) Subject: Re: Future of Delta's Winglet Enhanced 727s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 21:42:04 In article , etech@netcom.com (Eric Chevalier) writes: Eric, As of the moment, the jury is still out as to the benefit of the winglet's on Delta's 727-232's. Two aircraft, N510DA and N511DA are participating in the program. Extensive data is being collected from these two aircraft and will require significant analysis before a final decision is reached. When a final decision is announced, I'll try to post it here. Regards, Steve Caisse ATLDDDL From kls Sun Jun 26 21:42:04 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: (also jet fuel followup) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 21:42:04 In article , David Lednicer wrote: >However, the old JP-4 fuel that has largely been phased out >was a 50-50 cut of Gasoline and Kerosene. I remember a B737-300 getting a >load of JP-4 and having problems with the CFM-56s. Last I knew, the military >mostly used JP-5, which I don't think is much different from JP-1. The >SR-71 was an exception, using an exotic fuel that was called JP-7. I remember a story about the debate between proponents of JP-4 and Jet A. JP-4 is a lighter than Jet A (you need fewer lbs of it to fly the same distance). On the other hand, it's a lot more dangerous too. Apparently the standing challange from one of the Jet A proponents was that he would stand in a pool of Jet A and drop matches into it if the guys who thought JP-4 was OK would do the same with JP-4. Funnily enough no one was willing to take up that particular challenge. Anyone else hear this story and remember any details? I've heard Jet A is quite safe so long as you don't atomize it (thereby increasing the contact between it and oxygen). Probably not something to try at home though. RNA From kls Sun Jun 26 21:42:04 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Gautam Shah Subject: Re: wake turbulence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: nasa Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 21:42:04 rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: > The 757 issue is covered surprisingly well in the July issue of _FLYING_. > The bottom line is that different people are saying different things. The > FAA is proceeding in one direction. NOAA researchers are saying > others. And the NTSB has axes to grind in a third direction. [Items attributed to AP are paraphrased from reports, not actual quotes] Further adding to the confusion of the general public, Associated Press reports on this topic have been rather erroneous. For example, AP reported that an FAA scientist "discovered the existence" of tip vortices from the 757 (referred to, of course, as 'powerful, horizontal tornados'). Later in the same report (or maybe a follow- on, I can't remember) AP stated that 'similar problems involving wake vortices have been experienced on other large aircraft like 747, DC-10, etc.' So in addition to several agencies saying different things, it appears the media may be making wake turbulence out to be a *new* hazard to air travel. Gautam Shah g.h.shah@larc.nasa.gov (and most certainly *NOT* an official NASA spokesman!) From kls Sun Jun 26 21:42:04 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: wake turbulence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 21:42:04 In article ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) writes: > The wingtip vortex strength is proportional to the amount of lift the wing > must generate to stay in the air (to the first order). The strength of the vortices are proportional (can't remember what order) to the angle of attack, not the lift generated. Lift is fairly constant through an entire flight regime, but the strength of the vortices changes throughout the flight envelope. I know this sounds odd, but it is actually excess thrust that makes an airplane climb, not excess lift. Knowing that a wing always needs to create lift roughly equal to the weight, the pilot has three methods to balance this...changing angle of attack, changing airspeed, and changing wing camber (flaps & slats). Since the lift must remain constant, if you increase the lift by increasing angle of attack, airspeed, or camber, you must make a corresponding decrease to the lift by decreasing one of the aforementioned parameters. If you have one of those great computer flight simulators, they demonstrate this quite well. Set you power at some medium power level, and pitch up. You will climb momentarily, as you convert kinetic energy during the slow down, but after that, you won't climb very well until you add more power. Normal flight Lift balancing: ---------------------------- Airspeed Angle of Attack Camber -------- --------------- ------ Initial climb out: Low Medium High Cruise Climb: Medium Medium Low Cruise: High Low Low Descent: Medium Medium Low Landing Flare: Low High High _____________________________ _____ | Keith Barr \ \ \__ _____ | barr@netcom.com \___________\ \/_______\___\_____________ | COMM/AS&MEL/IA/A&IGI / { /_/ ....................... `-. |_____________________________/ `-----------,----,--------------' _/____/O From kls Sun Jun 26 21:42:05 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nduehr@netcom.com (Nathan N. Duehr) Subject: Re: wake turbulence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 26 Jun 94 21:42:05 Peter Lisner (plisner@mti.mti.sgi.com) wrote: : The 757 has an incredibly high rate of climb. A takeoff in one of : those (especially a noise abatement one!) is probably the most fun you : can have in an airliner. They also descend much faster than most other : aircraft on final approach. So this makes it harder for following : traffic to stay above the flight path of a 757. This last statement : sounds counter-intuitive, but what happens is that even though a : following aircraft may be above the preceding one, the first aircraft : was actually higher than the second one when it was at the same : distance from touchdown earlier. So the second aircraft is below the : wake still there from the first. There is a very good article about : this in the latest (July I think) edition of "Flying" magazine, : written by Richard Collins. Get a copy, and you will get a much better : explanation than my clumsy attempt ! I never have figured out why everyone keeps promoting flying _higher_ than the approach path of the preceeding aircraft. If we all did that, number 10 for the approach would be flying a 10 degree glideslope. If wake vortices _decend_, then fly the _same_ approach path as the preceeding aircraft and touch down at or beyond where it touches down and you should not have any wake vortex turbulence, since it will have decended below your flight path by the time you arrive under standard separation. Of course, if you accept a visual approach, the separation is now your repsponsibility, so don't tailgate! (grin) Just another $0.02 worth of noise on the net! Nate Duehr -- ########################################################### Nathan N. Duehr - Private Pilot - Student Commercial Pilot Email: nduehr@netcom.com AMPRnet: n0ntz@n0ntz.ampr.org CAP: Pikes Peak 120 Ham BBS: n0ntz@n0qcu.#neco.co.usa.na Memorable quote:"Scan 1.08 found "Windows" - Remove (y/n)?" ########################################################### From kls Mon Jun 27 12:01:07 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nolanm@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Michael Nolan) Subject: Re: Jet fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Purdue Data Network Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 94 12:01:07 jod@equator.com (John Setel O'Donnell) writes: >In article stedder@tulsix.utulsa.edu (Stephen Tedder) writes: >>... Jet aircraft are much >>more efficient than automobiles and therefore burn much less fuel, >>per passenger-mile. >I fly SEA-NRT and back with some regularity :-( >Northwest commonly posts a data sheet in the cabin regarding the >flight. The NRT->SEA flight is about 4700 miles. Typically they >go through about 34,000 gallons of fuel, carrying maybe 300-350 >passengers. At 300 passengers that's under 42mpg, worse than >driving a VW Rabbit Diesel (similar fuel energy/gal) by yourself. >On the other hand, it's 10x faster. It all depends how you lok at these things. Using the above figures, I figure that it takes about 113 gallons to move one passenger 4700 miles (34,000 gallons divded by 300 passengers) My Honda Accord gets at least 30 mpg so it would use 156 gallons to drive 4700 miles. That seems less efficient. But when you figure that I travel with 5 people in the car, that reduces it to about 31 gallons per person, for a 4700 mile trip, alot more efficient than the airliners 113 gallons per person! But as previously noted, the airliner is 10 times faster. You pay for that speed. Can't get something for nothing! mike.... From kls Mon Jun 27 12:01:07 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: greg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) Subject: Re: Thunderstorms References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indiana University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 94 12:01:07 In laewell@iastate.edu (Lars A Ewell) writes: >To Whom it May Concern, > While taking a recent flight from LaGuardia on a >727-200 we flew through a rather significant thunderstorm. >The rain was coming down pretty hard but what got my >attention was at least one lightning flash that was not >too far from the plane. Are most commercial airliners >protected against lightning flashes? Has there ever >been a record of lightning striking an airliner and if >so, what were the consequences? The information I have suggests that a typical airliner gets struck by lightning once a year. That is, EACH airliner gets struck once a year; that makes about 5000 (real rough) strikes/year for the fleet. Obviously, most of the strikes result in little or no damage to the aircraft. However, it is not unknown for lightning the bring down an airliner, particularly if it incapacitates the crew or ignites fuel vapors. A particularly nasty accident occured to an early 707 in the late fifties/ early sixties (my reference is at work). The 707 was stacked in a hold over Washington, DC when it was struck on the wing by lightning. The bolt ignited venting fuel and the aircraft crashed, killing all aboard. The result of that accident was improved fuel venting and safety systems. greg From kls Mon Jun 27 12:01:07 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: greg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) Subject: Re: wake turbulence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indiana University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 94 12:01:07 In "Fred Christiansen" writes: >Seeing the amount of thrust that the PW4084's can put out on the 777 prompts >me to ask about wake turbulence. It is my understanding that wake turbulence >has been a problem with the "heavies" -- DC-10, MD-11, 747, 767, TriStar. >My guess was that this was due to the large amount of thrust put out by >the engines of these aircraft. I heard on the radio that it is now known >that the 757 has significant wake turbulence, just like a "heavy". The >report did not say, as I recall, but I again guessed it was due to engine >thrust. If that's the case, what sort of wake turbulence will a 777 put >out? The thrust on those engines is amazing! Are there high-engine-thrust >airplanes w/o wake turbulence problems? Why did the 757 problem come as >a surprise? Wake turbulence is not, as is often believed, an engine-thrust phenomena; it is an airframe phenomena. Indeed, before its origins were known, wake turbulence was referred to a "prop-wash" - early aviators who encountered the wake erroneously believed it to be caused by the propellor(s) of the aircraft in front of them. In simple terms, wake turbulence results when the fuselage and wings of an aircraft compress the air immediately below the airplane. Since this air is at a higher pressure than the air on top of the wings, the air attempts to "spill" out from under the airplane and around to the low-pressure region above the wings. As it spills, lengthwise, from around the wingtips to the top of the wing, it is imparted a circular motion forming two vortices behind the generating aircraft. The wake is extremely similar to that generated by a boat on still water. greg From kls Mon Jun 27 12:01:07 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Jonathan N. Deitch) Subject: Re: Cockpit Ergonomics in the '90s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Georgia State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 94 12:01:07 etate@mcl.bdm.com (C. Emory Tate) writes: >The June 13th edition of AW&ST has a small postscript to an >article on p. 31 about Chinese airline safety. Seems the >thinking about the MD-80 CFIT near Urumqi is that the flight >crew didn't understand the GPWS alerts, programmed to be spoken >in English. don't you think they'd bother to learn English if they're gonna fly airplanes that only speak English ? - Jonathan -- musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu | "I Hate it when I can't trust | Atlanta 1996 !! jdeitch@aol.com | my own technology!" - LaForge | Play Pinball !! jdeitch@gisatl.fidonet.org |-------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- "Thrills! Chills! Magic! Prizes!" -- Hurricane Gene Roddenberry, Isaac Asimov, Jim Henson, Dr. Seuss, Mel Blanc ... Sigh ... From kls Mon Jun 27 12:01:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hac@kinkoman.res.utc.com (H. Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines' $10.3b order Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: United Technologies Research Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 94 12:01:08 Karl Swartz wrote: >>... Cathay Pacific's 6 (plus 4 leased aircraft originally destined >>for Philippine Airlines), and Air Canada's 6. (Am I right, Karl?) > >I don't see the November, 1993 order for six A340s by China Eastern >in your list. But you also don't mention that Continental cancelled >seven A340 orders along with the A330 cancellations in March, 1993, Obviously, I'm getting old. Thanks for the corrections. >>I believe, with this order, SIA have ordered more B747's than any >>other airlines except JAL. JAL have ordered ~100 B747's, SIA ~85, >>and BA ~75. > >Are you including options? If so, United should be second. They >acquired 18 747-122s (the original order may have been bigger; I'm >not sure) and 2 -222Bs. Their first 747-400 order was for 15 (with >the order for 101 737-300s, at the time Boeing's biggest single sale) >and then United ordered 60 more (half options) as part of their 777 >order. That's 95 747s. Options are not included, nor are cancelled orders counted. SIA took delivery from Boeing 19 B747-212's, 1 B747-212F, 11 B747-312's, 3 B747-312C's and 25 B747-412's, and before the 6/22 order, they still had 11 B747-412's and 5 B747-412F's on firm order. Including the 6/22 order, they have ordered 81 B747's and may have either 11 or 24 options. The latest number that I have on United B747-422's (12/93 Flight International) showed UA had 22 -422's in service and 15 -422's on order. (Obviously, they cancelled a lot of B747 orders!) So, even with the two ex-NW B747 that they took delivery directly from Boeing, they had ordered 59 B747's from Boeing. Nonetheless, UA operates at least 15 more B747's than SIA. (SIA had a very aggressive fleet renewal plan that the airline sold its first B747-212 after only six years of operation! Now, they are pulling "old" planes out of the fleet after at least ten years of service.) Since you brought up the biggest single sale: wasn't UA's order of 30+30 B747-400's and 34+34 B777-200's the biggest single sale ever? >As noted above, A340s were cancelled as well as a larger number of >A330s. Boeing actually got its foot in the door with *all* of its >large twins -- Continental hadn't previously had the 757, either. According to my source (based on some data complied by Aviation Data Service, Inc.), Continental did have 25+25 B757's on "order" before their last Chapter 11. >>BTW, other than Korean's undecided B777 powerplant and Continental's >>R-R-powered B757's, all of last year's major engine orders went to >>General Electric! > >Right after you left GE for Pratt, eh? 8-) I am not sure if I understand your comment. Last year, (when I was at GE) GE was doing relatively well in a very depressed market. Nonetheless, one has to be reminded that Continental was brought out of Chapter 11 by GE Capitals. Also, Southwest's B737-700 order was an indirect result of GE's innovative idea of sharing the development cost of the B737-6/7/800 with Boeing. On the other hand, Pratt seems to be doing much better this year. They got the JAL B777 order after two years of fierce competition. SIA's order is certainly a plus. Also, they probably are a little bit better poised for the majority of Saudia's order than GE. Furthermore, Pratt might just have the inside track for Korean Air's B777 order, since, I believe, KAL's A330's are to be fitted with the PW4168's. I certainly would like to think that my presence in East Hartford helped Pratt's turn-around. 8-) H. Andrew Chuang(hac@utrc.utc.com) From kls Tue Jun 28 01:11:19 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: wake turbulence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jun 94 01:11:19 In article barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) writes: In article ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) writes: > The wingtip vortex strength is proportional to the amount of lift the wing > must generate to stay in the air (to the first order). The strength of the vortices are proportional (can't remember what order) to the angle of attack, not the lift generated. Lift is fairly constant through an entire flight regime, but the strength of the vortices changes throughout the flight envelope. I know this sounds odd, but it is actually excess thrust that makes an airplane climb, not excess lift. ---- I stand corrected. It's angle of attack / lift coefficient, not the actual amount of lift. 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 Jun 28 01:11:19 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: king@ukulele.reasoning.com (Dick King) Subject: Re: wake turbulence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jun 94 01:11:19 In article , greg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) writes: |> |> Wake turbulence is not, as is often believed, an engine-thrust |> phenomena; it is an airframe phenomena. In fact, don't migrating birds gain an efficiency improvement by flying in a V formation, so each bird except the leader is in the updraft portion of the wingtip vortex of its predecessor? -dk From kls Tue Jun 28 01:11:19 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Thunderstorms References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jun 94 01:11:19 In article , David Stocker wrote: >Lightning strikes on aircraft are fairly common. Yes, they >are designed with the possibility of lightning strikes >in mind. Last year a UPS 757 dirverted here to Roanoke >after taking a strong hit in an area of thunderstorms >between here and Lousivile. There were three burn spots >on the plane, under the cockpit area, but no other visible >damage. Their electronics were knocked out for a short >time but were fully restored within seconds. What precautions does Airbus take to harden the FBW systems against this sort of thing? Having the computers knocked out for a few seconds doesn't sound too nice... RNA From kls Tue Jun 28 01:11:19 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Thunderstorms St Elmo's FIre References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jun 94 01:11:19 In article , ghdahlbacka@lbl.gov (Glen Dahlbacka) writes: >Being experienced he immediately took off his headset, but the >co-pilot wasn't as quick and got quite an earful when the discharge >occured to disipate the corona build up. Now, was this guy pulling >my leg, or have others experienced this phenomenon? I know of several people who have been zapped while sitting on the jet tug pushing the airplane out. Lightning traveled down the headset cord. I always remove the headset when there is lightning in the area. From kls Tue Jun 28 01:11:19 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rathinam@ins.infonet.net Subject: Lightning strike while fuel-dumping Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rathinam@ins.infonet.net Organization: INS Info Services, Des Moines, IA USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jun 94 01:11:19 All the talk about lightning strikes prompts me to ask this following question: If lightning strikes the airliner while it is dumping fuel (in flight), what will happen? One would assume this situation is much less safe than other 'normal' lightning strike situations. Does the fuel system design take into effect this scenario and provide some safety mechanism? (I am especially interested in the latest generation airliners.) -Sethu Rathinam rathinam@ins.infonet.net From kls Tue Jun 28 01:11:19 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: greg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) Subject: Re: No Smoking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indiana University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jun 94 01:11:19 In kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >On the subject of smoking, I also recall some comments by a friend >who had seen the effects on a TWA L-1011 -- plenums that had to be >cleaned regularly because they would get coated with a think, tarry >goo. That leads me to wonder how much the airlines are saving in >maintenance because of the non-smoking flights! Some, no doubt, but I recall a conversation with a United maintenance supervisor who related that the "tarry goo" had the beneficial effect of closing many cabin leaks - especially around skin lap joints, etc. It may well be apocryphal, but he claimed that the increase in bleed air necessary to pressurize new aircraft that had never been smoked in was substantial and effected fuel economy! greg From kls Tue Jun 28 14:33:20 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: king@reasoning.com (Dick King) Subject: Re: Modifications for zero-G parabolic flights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jun 94 14:33:20 In article , wohlsen@sri.com writes: |> I suspect any aircraft can be used for zero-G parabolic flights; ... Aerobatic aircraft have various features that allow them to pull negative Gs. They use fuel injection, etc. rather than carbs with their float valves, but one of the more interesting adaptations is that some of them have rubber bladdars within the fuel tank, so that as fuel is consumed the bladdar just gets smaller and all of the air enters the tank outside the bladdar. If you don't do this then the engine might get air bubbles or even pure air as the fuel outlet ends up above the fluid level. Zero G is not negative G, of course, but it could become -0.001 G, at least accidentally, and air bubbles can be a problem even at real zero G. Deep space spacecraft are often designed to perform a large burn when they get near the planet they're designed to explore. The zero G fuel flow problem is solved in one of two ways: * Spin the spacecraft. You need to have the fuel outlet on the outermost and rearmost corner of the tank. That way, the outlet is below the fluid level both before thrust builds up and after. * have a small burn of some manouvering jet before the main burn. It doesn't take much to settle the fuel. From kls Tue Jun 28 14:33:20 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jharuni@london.micrognosis.com (Jonathan Haruni) Subject: Options to buy aircraft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Micrognosis, a division of CSK(UK) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jun 94 14:33:20 I frequently hear in the mass media that an airline has bought options on an aircraft from its manufacturer. What does this mean ? Is it like an option on commodities or financial futures ? How much, typically, does an option cost on a plane worth X ? What proportion of airliner options tend to be executed, and hence what proportion defaulted ? Can you buy options to sell airliners ? Is there a secondary market in airliner options ? Is there an opportunity for arbitrage ? (Okok, I'm getting carried away here...) -- Jonathan Haruni From kls Wed Jun 29 01:00:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: katie@physics2.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) Subject: Canadian 757 out of fuel incident? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jun 94 01:00:43 Organization: University of California, Berkeley Someone just told me about an airliner running out of fuel in flight. Can any of you experts in this group confirm this and add more details? This is the story I heard: When the Boeing 757 had just been introduced, an Air Canada flight with a new 757 that had only made ten flights so far did not take on enough fuel. Either the pilot miscalculated the fuel that was needed, or didn't measure the amount of fuel correctly, and the fuel gauge in the cockpit was stuck and showed that the tank was full when it wasn't. In the middle of the flight the engines started failing when the fuel ran out, and this made the hydraulics fail also. The pilot was only able to keep control of the plane because he had a lot of experience in gliders. It landed safely at an air force base. Did this happen the way I heard it? If the amount of fuel on board was way too low, wouldn't they notice that the plane was much lighter than it should be? I know that on a long flight after a significant portion of fuel is burned so the aircraft is lighter, they can change the angle of attack to reduce drag and get better mileage. Thanks for your answers, Katie Schwarz katie@physics.berkeley.edu From kls Wed Jun 29 01:00:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Canadian 757 out of fuel incident? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jun 94 01:00:43 >Someone just told me about an airliner running out of fuel in flight. >Can any of you experts in this group confirm this and add more details? I suspect you're referring to the incident known as the Gimli Glider, which involved an Air Canada 767 (not 757) on a flight from Toronto or Montreal to the western part of Canada, probably Vancouver. There was some confusion over the units (liters, gallons, imperial gallons) used to measure the amount of fuel loaded, and the aircraft ended up with a lot less fuel than it should have had. They ran out over Manitoba. Two bits of serendipity helped avert disaster. First, the captain was an experienced glider pilot. Second, while no obvious airports were within their range, the first officer had flown out of an RCAF field (it might have been recently retired, I can't quite recall the exact details) at Gimli and was pretty sure they could land there. I could have sworn this had been discussed in this newsgroup, but the archives certainly don't have any record of it. If someone has more details -- beyond recommending the book The Gimli Glider, which is all about the incident -- could they please post them? >If the amount of fuel on board was way too low, wouldn't they notice >that the plane was much lighter than it should be? Good question. Given the range of the 767, and that they were short by enough fuel for maybe 1500 miles, the difference may not have been distinguishable from lighter passengers and baggage than normal. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.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 Jun 29 01:00:43 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tmackay@uoguelph.ca (Anthony MacKay) Subject: Re: (also jet fuel followup) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Guelph Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jun 94 01:00:43 : Apparently the standing challange from one of the Jet A proponents was : that he would stand in a pool of Jet A and drop matches into it if the : guys who thought JP-4 was OK would do the same with JP-4. : Funnily enough no one was willing to take up that particular challenge. : Anyone else hear this story and remember any details? I've heard Jet A I know that the story hailed from the UK. I think that it might have been Lord Brabazon in the early 50's. The proponents of JP4 were adamant that it was safe (despite evidence to the contrary). The debate was only put to rest with the challenge about standing in the bath of JP1/JP4 and dropping in matches. Sometime around the mid 60's, Flight International listed all airlines still using JP4. From kls Wed Jun 29 09:31:54 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Canadian 757 out of fuel incident? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jun 94 09:31:54 The aircraft is question was a 767-200. It landed at a car drag-strip shortly after racing ended. The aircraft's nose gear collapsed on landing. RE: hydraulics failing. The 757 and 767 both have Ram Air Turbines (RAT). This is a propellor-driven hydraulic pump (center system) mounted on the end of an arm that automatically extends from the belly of the airplane in the event of an engine failure (less than 50% N2 both engines and greater than 80 kts). From kls Wed Jun 29 09:31:55 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Candian 757 out of fuel incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jun 94 09:31:55 You got most of the details right, but here are some more. On departure, the capaicitence fuel gauges weren't working, so the refuelers used a dipstick to measure the fuel level. They then had to convert units (liters to gallons or something like that) and yes, they got the conversion backwards, so they left with a lot less fuel than they thought. The airfield at Gimli was closed and there was a sports car race going on there at the time. Luckily, several participants noticed the 767 on finals and they cleared the track in time. The 767's nose gear collapsed during the landing, and it came to rest on its nose. I seem to remember that they repaired it on site (Boeing AOG team?) and flew it out and returned it to service. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Wed Jun 29 09:31:55 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Boeing 757 Performance Specs? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jun 94 09:31:55 In article , Terrell D. Drinkard wrote another fine article on the 757: >BTW, get used to Mach .80 as a cruise speed. That is getting to be a very >common, almost a standard, cruise speed target for twins. The heavier >three and four engine airplanes can cruise faster, but they were all >designed some time ago - with one notable exception (the A340) which >cruises at about Mach .82 as compared to the 747's cruise Mach of .855. > >Climb and descent rates are operational constraints usually. Climb can be >limited by load and ambient conditions (heavy, high, and hot are badness). >Descent is limited by flight idle thrust on the engines at one end and >maximum design speed on the other. I hesitate to give a typical descent >Mach number; we use a standard one, but I don't remember what it is >offhand. I've flown the 757 and the 747-400 recently. The thing I always notice about the 757 is the way it climbs---it's like a rocket. I think we've gone over this already: as I remember, the 757 has oodles of power and a big wing (for its size). The 747-400, on the other hand, barely manages to climb at all, when fully loaded. I was wondering how the 757 climb rates compare to the A321. The thing that has struck me about the A321, in all the pictures of it, is how wimpy the wings look in comparison to the 757. The 757 simply looks like a stronger, more robust aircraft. Is this reflected in the performance statistics? If I had to guess, I'd say a further stretch would be difficult with the same A320 wing? RNA From kls Wed Jun 29 09:31:55 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mark@solomon.technet.sg (Rajanik) Subject: Cost of payload for 747? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Technet, Singapore Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jun 94 09:31:55 Does anybody know how much you would save if you could reduce the weight of a 747 on a kg per year basis? Thanking you in advance. Mark From kls Thu Jun 30 00:34:17 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gkc@bunny.udev.cdc.com (Gordon Chace) Subject: Re: Canadian 757 out of fuel incident? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 94 00:34:17 In article you write: ... |> I suspect you're referring to the incident known as the Gimli Glider, |> which involved an Air Canada 767 (not 757) on a flight from Toronto or |> Montreal to the western part of Canada, probably Vancouver. There was |> some confusion over the units (liters, gallons, imperial gallons) used |> to measure the amount of fuel loaded, and the aircraft ended up with a |> lot less fuel than it should have had. They ran out over Manitoba. ... |> details -- beyond recommending the book The Gimli Glider, which is all |> about the incident -- could they please post them? |> |> >If the amount of fuel on board was way too low, wouldn't they notice |> >that the plane was much lighter than it should be? |> |> Good question. Given the range of the 767, and that they were short |> by enough fuel for maybe 1500 miles, the difference may not have been |> distinguishable from lighter passengers and baggage than normal. Karl, I read a book whose title was something more in the style of yellow journalism, something like Flameout at 41000 Feet or somesuch. Not only were they confused over units of measure, but they had a known instrument failure with no spares readily available. Their minimum equipment list at that time allowed them to perform dipstick measurements at selected stops then use calculations to figure out how much to add. I believe the MEL was made stricter after the incident since the procedure they used allowed single mistakes that would not get double-checked. They originally intended to glide to the active airport at Winnipeg but very quickly calculated that they were just a little too far away. Gimli turned out to be actually a little too close and they had to do a slip on final. Gimli had been closed long enough that its pavement had been turned over to some motorsports people who needed to look up and realize the need to clear out. The book claims that steep-than-expected climbout was noticed but not thought about very much. Hard to tell how reliable the book is when it claims to read the minds of the participants. -- Gordon K. Chace voice (612) 482-6524 OpenVision Technologies, Inc. fax (612) 482-2383 4201 N. Lexington, Arden Hills, MN, USA 55126 email gordon.chace@ov.com RISC: Really Invented on the Sixty-six-hundred by CDC From kls Thu Jun 30 00:34:17 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "michel (m.) tougas" Subject: Re: Canadian 757 out of fuel incident? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 94 00:34:17 The Air Canada Boeing 767-233 was supposed to go to Edmonton, Alberta, from Montreal, Quebec, via Ottawa, Ontario. The incident happened over Manitoba on the Ottawa->Edmonton leg. Michel Tougas (tougas@bnr.ca) From kls Thu Jun 30 00:34:17 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: Canadian 757 out of fuel incident? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 94 00:34:17 In article katie@physics2.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) writes: >When the Boeing 757 had just been introduced, an Air Canada flight with >a new 757 that had only made ten flights so far did not take on enough >fuel. Either the pilot miscalculated the fuel that was needed, or didn't >measure the amount of fuel correctly, and the fuel gauge in the cockpit >was stuck and showed that the tank was full when it wasn't. In the middle >of the flight the engines started failing when the fuel ran out, and this >made the hydraulics fail also. The pilot was only able to keep control >of the plane because he had a lot of experience in gliders. It landed >safely at an air force base. It was actually a 767 not a 757. The main fuel gauges (those that actually show the amount of fuel in the tanks) were inoperative (which actually made the aircraft unairworthy, BTW), but another fuel management system can be programmed with the amount of fuel being added, then it keeps track of the amount burned, so the crew figured they would be ok. Unfortunately the conversions they made between pounds and kilograms, and litres and gallons was not correct and they ended up being misfueled. I highly recommend the book "Freefall" which examines all of the mistakes that were made to cause the incident, and all of the things the crew did to bring a very serious situation to a reasonably safe ending. To Karl: I haven't heard of the book you mentioned...maybe they are the same and just published under different names? _____________________________ _____ | Keith Barr \ \ \__ _____ | barr@netcom.com \___________\ \/_______\___\_____________ | COMM/AS&MEL/IA/A&IGI / { /_/ ....................... `-. |_____________________________/ `-----------,----,--------------' _/____/O From kls Thu Jun 30 00:34:18 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: katie@physics2.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) Subject: Re: Candian 757 out of fuel incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: /etc/organization Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 94 00:34:18 Thanks for the answers about the Gimli Glider. It happened in 1983, probably before there was much of a usenet to discuss it on; if there was a usenet discussion, it may have been when the book came out. David Lednicer wrote: > You got most of the details right, but here are some more. On >The airfield at Gimli was closed and there was a sports car >race going on there at the time. Luckily, several participants noticed >the 767 on finals and they cleared the track in time. Wouldn't they have been in contact with controllers on the ground, and told them they were going to attempt to land there? Does Canada have en-route centers similar to those in the US? I suppose the book explains about this, but the UC library system doesn't have it, although it does have the Board of Inquiry reports. (Actually, now that I think of it, I've probably heard about this before: once I was on a flight when an engine failed (with a horrible loud grinding noise like the garbage disposal from hell, which scared everybody, but we felt better when we realized that the plane was under control; I never noticed any unusual motions at all) and ground control ordered us to land because there was only one engine (what are the regulations in this situation?). One passenger was reassuring everyone else by telling the story of an airliner that glided 150 miles with no engines at all. He was probably talking about Gimli.) thanks, Katie Schwarz katie@physics.berkeley.edu From kls Thu Jun 30 00:34:18 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jmk@cbvox1.cb.att.com (Joe Knapp) Subject: Re: Canadian 757 out of fuel incident? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 94 00:34:18 Here is the scoop: Wall Street Journal, December 12, 1984 Crisis Aloft: Electronics and All, Airliners Still Run Out Of Fuel in Midair ----- A Chain of Errors Caused Air Canada Jet to Make Spine-Tingling Landing ----- Silent Crying, But no Panic By William M. Carley Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal Robert Pearson, the pilot of an Air Canada Boeing 767 jet, felt all was going well as his plane flew westward 41,000 feet over Red Lake, Ontario. "I'm going to sit here and watch the trout swimming in the lake," he jokingly told his co-pilot. But suddenly warning lights blinked on in the cockpit, then alarm gongs sounded, and the jet's two engines both flamed out. The plane, carrying 69 passengers and crew, had run out of fuel in midair. What followed on that flight on July 23 of last year marked one of the most harrowing half-hours in aviation history. The Boeing 767 can glide, and the captain, a former glider pilot, decided to try for Winnipeg airport, 65 miles away. Alerted by radio, air controllers cleared the skies around Winnipeg. Fire trucks were called to the runways. But the Air Canada jet was dropping too fast -- it couldn't make Winnipeg. Capt. Pearson made a sharp right turn toward Gimli, a former air-force base nearby. There were people and vehicles on one end of the Gimli runway, which was being used an an automobile race track. As the plane touched down, its nose hit the runway. Amid a shower of sparks and grinding metal, the jet slid nose-down to a safe stop, just short of the throng of people and vehicles. Even though the world's airlines have entered the age of electronic fuel gauges and have long had redundant fuel warning systems and spare tanks, airplanes are still running out of fuel. In the last few years, in fact, there has been a rash of incidents involving planes that ran out, or nearly ran out, of fuel supplies. Some examples: -- Last year, a Republic Airlines DC-9 ran short of fuel en route from Fresno, Calif., to Phoenix, Ariz. After the jet was forced to land at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., 25 miles from Phoenix's commercial airport, safety investigators found that just five gallons of usable fuel remained in the tanks, enough for a few minutes of flying. -- A 747 jumbo jet flown by Pan American World Airways barely made it into Newark, N.J., airport a few years ago. As the big plane touched down on the runway, two of its four engines flamed out, and on a taxiway a third died, all for lack of fuel. -- While circling near Portland, Ore., a United Airlines DC-8 ran out of fuel and crashed in 1978. Among the 186 aboard, two crew members and eight passengers were killed. Although such accidents are relatively rare, eliminating them is difficult. That is because the causes often are complex, sometimes involving mechanical failures, sometimes human faults, and often a combination of both, safety experts say. The Air Canada case is in many ways typical. There was a long string of both mechanical and human problems that led up to the spine-tingling landing at Gimli. Details of the case have emerged in months of hearings before a board of inquiry set up in Winnipeg by the Canadian government. The jet involved wouldn't seem a likely candidate for the Gimli drama. It was Boeing Co.'s newly designed 767, a big, wide-body plane with two powerful engines and the most advanced electronic systems -- including fuel gauges -- in the world. Months before the Air Canada accident, however, some ominous signs began appearing. After United Airlines had taken delivery and was ferrying one of its new 767s from Boeing's production plant near Seattle, the pilots noticed a problem. The fuel gauge showed an amount of fuel in the tanks different from the amount the plane's flight computer calculated should have been there. According to Boeing, later tests showed that "an undetected fault could cause erroneous readings (in 767 fuel gauges) of 1,000 to 3,400 pounds above the actual fuel quantity." Because that posed the threat of running out of fuel in midair, Boeing quickly told airlines around the world to inspect 767 fuel-measuring systems for the fault. Honeywell Inc., which supplies the fuel-measuring system to Boeing, began redesigning it. Meanwhile, Conrad Yaremko, an Air Canada mechanic in Edmonton, began working on aircraft No. 604 on July 5 of last year. Because it was one of Air Canada's brand-new Boeing 767s, he checked for the fuel-measuring system fault. Mysteriously, each of the three fuel gauges -- one for each of the three fuel tanks -- went blank during the test. Later, all seemed to work properly. The night of July 22-23 saw the same big jet back in Edmonton. Mr. Yaremko was performing the same check, and again the gauges mysteriously went blank. It was a warm night, and Mr. Yaremko knew that heat is the enemy of electronic circuits. So he removed the small box of electronic gear that feeds data to the fuel gauges in the cockpit. Then, he said in testimony at the board of inquiry, "We put it {the electronics box} in the fridge for a little bit to see if it would cool it down." The tactic didn't work. Eventually the gauges did begin working again, and the plane flew to Montreal -- where they went blank again. As Capt. Pearson boarded the jet the afternoon of July 23 to fly it from Montreal to Ottawa and then to Edmonton, he saw all the fuel gauges were blank. This time mechanics couldn't get them to work again. A hubbub in the cockpit area ensued. Capt. Pearson, his co-pilot, Maurice Quintal, some mechanics and a stewardess were there. According to testimony at the board of inquiry, it was decided to use dipsticks to measure the amount of fuel in the tanks. The dipsticks were calibrated in centimeters. That measurement should have been converted to liters and then to kilograms, because the 767 is Air Canada's first plane to use the metric system and its fuel is measured in kilograms. The Air Canada men, however, didn't do that. Instead of multiplying liters by 0.8 to arrive at kilograms, they mistakenly multiplied by 1.77 and arrived at pounds -- the measure used for other Air Canada planes. Then, on the basis of the erroneous calculation, they added fuel. Capt. Pearson checked the figures, not realizing they were faulty, and ordered a bit more fuel to balance the tanks in two wings. Robert Desjardins, the chief flight attendant, was a bit nervous about the unusual fueling procedure. "We better have more than not enough," he remarked as mechanics were closing the jet's door. "You've got more than enough. You can go all the way to Vancouver," one mechanic replied. The flight from Montreal to Ottawa was uneventful. Then the jet took off for Edmonton -- with only about half the fuel needed to reach that destination. As the jet passed Red Lake (and Capt. Pearson joked about watching the trout), co-pilot Quintal began making an announcement to the passengers, according to the cockpit voice recording. "Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, this is your first officer. We're presently coming up over Red Lake. . . ., cruising at 41,000 feet, the temperature in Edmonton is, beautiful day. . . ." But 10 minutes later, at 8:10 p.m., four beeps warning of low fuel pressure sounded. Capt. Pearson: Holy {expletive}! Co-pilot Quintal: Something's wrong with the fuel pump. . . . Capt. Pearson: Left-forward fuel pump, okay, what have we got here? I hope it's just the {expletive} pump failing, I'll tell you that. . . . BEEP, BEEP, BEEP, BEEP. . . . Capt. Pearson: Let's head for Winnipeg Now. . . . Hundred and twenty-eight miles (from Winnipeg), okay. . . . Capt. Pearson had his co-pilot radio air controllers to tell them the jet had some problems and was diverting to Winnipeg. He also had his co-pilot brief Mr. Desjardins, the chief flight attendant, telling him to prepare passengers for an emergency landing. And the captain began descending from 41,000. Then more beeps, indicating problems at more fuel pumps. Co-pilot Quintal: {Expletive}, they're all going out. . . Capt. Pearson: All the {warning} lights are on! A chilling conviction settled over the cockpit. As Capt. Pearson tells it later, "Maurice and I knew that one fuel pump might fail, but to have all the pumps fail all at once, and on a brand-new airplane, that was beyond probability. We realized we had more than a pump problem, we had a fuel problem." A few minutes later that was confirmed; a deep "bong" sounded. Capt. Pearson: Okay, we've lost the left engine. Co-pilot Quintal: Okay, what will we do . . .? Capt. Pearson: Yeah, just run on one {engine}, let's just run on one {to save fuel}. Co-pilot Quintal radioed Winnipeg air-control center warning the jet had lost one engine and requesting that fire trucks be called out. Three minutes later the second engine flamed out. With power gone, eight bright video tubes in the cockpit displaying most of the plane's instruments went blank. ("That cockpit became the darkest place in the world," Capt. Pearson said later.) The captain radioed Winnipeg air-control center. Capt. Pearson: Center, (Air Canada flight) 143. This is a Mayday, and we require a vector (direction) onto the closest available runway. We are (down to) 22,000 feet (altitude) on -- with both engines have failed due to, looks like fuel starvation, and we are on emergency instruments. . . . Now please give us a vector to the nearest runway." Back in the passenger compartment, stewardesses were rushing to secure the drink trolleys. Then they briefed the 61 passengers, who had been told the plane had a fuel problem, but no more than that, on how to brace themselves. There were businessmen on board, an older couple, some teenagers and some young mothers with infants. After the briefing, all fell silent. "Obviously there was no engine noise . . ., it was very quiet in the airplane except for a few people crying," Mr. Desjardins, the flight attendant, told the board of inquiry. "People were very afraid, and some were crying silently, but there was no panic," Anne Swift, another flight attendant, told the board. Among the few emergency instruments functioning was the air-speed indicator. Capt. Pearson's first job was to select the right speed. Too slow, and the jet would stall and crash; too fast, and the plane would dive toward the ground. There is nothing in pilot manuals on how to handle a gliding 767. So, using the controls, the captain nosed the plane down just enough to maintain 220 knots, the speed that he guessed would provide the longest, safest glide. (The flight controls worked only because, when the last engine had flamed out, a tiny air turbine had descended automatically from the belly of the 767. Spun by the passing air, the turbine provided power for the 767's "power steering" -- hydraulics that enable the captain to operate controls such as ailerons on the wings and the rudder on the tail. All 767s have such turbines; but many other jets, including 747s and 727s, do not have them.) Capt. Pearson tried to steer for Winnipeg, but his compass heading had disappeared along with his video displays. He still had a small emergency magnetic compass on the dashboard, but it was swinging too much and was mounted too far to his side for him to line up on. "So I steered by the clouds underneath us," the captain said later in an interview. "I would ask Winnipeg center for a heading, they would say 'left to 220 degrees,' and I would turn left about that much, judging by the clouds, and then I'd ask Winnipeg how my heading was. Using the clouds, I kept eyeballing it." The 767 had also lost its vertical-speed indicator, a measure of how fast the plane was dropping. And it was dropping much faster than Capt. Pearson thought. Co-pilot Quintal tried to calculate the rate of descent. The jet's altitude was 14,500 feet when the Winnipeg controller said his radar showed the plane 45 miles away. The jet had dropped to 9,500 feet by the time the plane was 35 miles away. "We had dropped 5,000 feet in 10 miles," Co-pilot Quintal says. "With only about 10,000 feet of altitude left, we could glide only another 20 miles. But Winnipeg was 35 miles away -- I told Bob (Pearson) that we'd never make it." Capt. Pearson radioed Winnipeg, and the Winnipeg controller told him that Gimli was just 12 miles away, on his right. Co-pilot Quintal, who had been based at Gimli while serving in the Canadian air force, told the captain the airport had long runways. The base, which had been obscured by a cloud, was suddenly visible. "Bob turned right towards Gimli, like 'whoomph!'" co-pilot Quintal says. The captain asked the Winnipeg controller for details on Gimli. Use the right-hand runway, 6,800 feet long, the controller replied. Capt. Pearson: There will be nobody on the runway when we get there, eh! Nothing? Winnipeg Controller: I don't know -- I can't tell you for sure. . . . Co-pilot Quintal saw the Gimli strip and pointed it out. Capt. Pearson: We're going to make Gimli okay. Winnipeg Controller: Great! We show you about six miles to touchdown. But all wasn't great. The jet was coming in too fast and too high. The captain and his co-pilot discussed circling once before landing but rejected the idea because they would lose sight of the runway while circling and because they might lose too much altitude. To cut the jet's speed and altitude, Capt. Pearson then tried a rarely used technique, a side-slip, which he had practiced as a glider pilot. With the rudder, he turned the nose of the plane right, but with the ailerons he banked the plane to the left. The net effect was to make the plane fly toward the runway in a sideways attitude that would create drag and rapidly slow the plane. The captain's maneuver, in which the plane seemed to plummet to the left, frightened passengers and flight attendants. "I thought he had lost control," Mr. Desjardins said. But the plane began losing altitude quickly, and speed began dropping from 210 knots to 170 knots, still much faster than normal landing speed of 130 knots. Winnipeg Controller: Five miles to touchdown. Capt. Pearson: Roger, we have the field in sight. . . . Co-pilot Quintal flipped the landing-gear lever. But without power, nothing happened. "There wasn't any noise (from the gear going down), and that was a terrible feeling," the co-pilot says. He turned another switch allowing the gear to fall by gravity. The gear on each wing dropped, but the nose landing gear deployed only partway down. The plane bored in at 170 knots. As it hit the runway, the captain's eyes were fixed on the runway threshold. The co-pilot was frantically scanning a checklist on how to get the nose gear all the way down. Then both looked up -- and ahead on the runway they saw vehicles, people walking and youngsters bicycling. They hadn't landed on the right-hand runway, which was still used for aircraft, because its dark color had blended in with the earth. They had landed on the lighter and more visible left runway, which was being used as an autoracing strip. The last race of the day had finished, and scores of people were strolling and biking on the far end of the runway, while others were finishing dinner in camping vehicles parked on the runway. Without power, the captain couldn't use reverse thrust to slow the plane. He hit the brakes. Because the nose landing gear wasn't fully down, the plane tilted forward. Its nose ground into the concrete, sending up a huge shower of sparks. "I thought the underneath of the airplane was being torn apart," Mr. Desjardins, the flight attendant, said. As the plane continued sliding, Jo-Ann Barry was washing dinner dishes in the family camper parked on the runway. Suddenly a boy on a bike yelled that a jet was coming in. "I opened the camper door and there was this huge plane coming at us," she says. "It seemed very quiet, but it was coming 70-80 miles an hour." Her husband yelled at their five-year-old son to get off the runway, then grabbed their two-year-old son under his arm and sprinted off himself. "Everybody was hollering, grabbing their kids and running," Mrs. Barry says. Fortunately, the jet's nose acted as an excellent brake. The big plane, its tail high in the air and its nose on the runway, shuddered to a stop just short of the throng of people and vehicles. No one had been injured. What had gone wrong with the plane's fuel-measuring system? Because of a loose wire in the Honeywell electronic box, one data processor failed and couldn't provide information to the fuel gauges. The system then should have shifted automatically to a second, redundant data processor in the electronic box. But because of a shortcoming in the Honeywell system's logic, it failed to do so. Hence, all the fuel gauges went totally blank. There were, of course, other problems, including the fuel conversion to pounds instead of kilograms. Even if the fuel had been calculated correctly, however, Capt. Pearson shouldn't have taken off. According to the 767's Minimum Equipment List, if at least two fuel gauges (for two of the three fuel tanks) aren't functioning, the pilot isn't allowed to depart. Capt. Pearson testified mechanics convinced him that, even though the fuel gauges were all blank, the dipstick procedure was sufficient to bypass the Minimum Equipment List. Mechanics denied that. Although Capt. Pearson and co-pilot Quintal were praised for landing the plane safely, Air Canada said it would demote the captain to co-pilot for six months and suspend the co-pilot for two weeks. Both are appealing the disciplinary measures under union procedures, Air Canada says. Meanwhile, Air Canada has revised its fueling procedures and has retrained its crews in fueling methods. And Boeing 767s in airline fleets around the world are getting a redesigned Honeywell fuel-measuring system. As for the plane itself, Air Canada's aircraft No. 604 is still in service. In aviation circles, the big jet has come to be called "the Gimli Glider." A Near Disaster 8:10 p.m. -- First indication of low fuel pressure 8:12 p.m. -- Jet turns toward Winnipeg 8:14 p.m. -- Jet, at 41,000 feet, begins descending 8:18 p.m. -- Left engine fails 8:21 p.m. -- Right engine fails, jet at 26,000 feet begins gliding 8:31 p.m. -- 35 miles to Winnipeg, "we'll never make it" 8:33 p.m. -- Jet turns toward Gimli 8:35 p.m. -- Six miles to Gimli 8:38 p.m. -- Touchdown From kls Thu Jun 30 00:34:18 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping Huang) Subject: Re: Cost of payload for 747? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 94 00:34:18 In article mark@solomon.technet.sg (Rajanik) writes: > Does anybody know how much you would save if you could reduce the weight > of a 747 on a kg per year basis? Thanking you in advance. I don't think you've given enough context for there to be an useful answer. At the very least, how many flights is this 747 going to be making, and how long are the flights? What kind of weight are you removing? It's easy to reduce the weight of a 747 flight by thousands of kilograms by kicking out all the passengers, but you're going to reduce your fare basis for the flight, too.... -- Ping Huang (INTERNET: pshuang@mit.edu), probably speaking for himself From kls Thu Jun 30 00:34:18 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gclst1+@pitt.edu (Grant C Lynde) Subject: Fuel dumping Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 94 00:34:18 When is fuel dumping used? I understand that it may be necessary when a plane has to make an emergency landing. But is it ever used on a regular basis? And if so, wouldn't this become an environmental problem? Next question is this, and it applies more to the business side of airlines. Allegedly, one of the biggest problems facing the airline industryy in the US is over-capicity. But airlines, such as US Air, are asking for labor concessions to speed up turnaround time with the intention of increasing the number of flights between cities such as Pittsburgh and Philadelpia. So, if there is already overcapicity, and this is causing much difficulty within the airline industry, why are they taking steps to increase the number of seats flying at any given moment? From kls Thu Jun 30 00:34:19 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stedder@tulsix.utulsa.edu (Stephen Tedder) Subject: jet fuel question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 94 00:34:19 Well, a couple of weeks ago I made a rash statement about the relative efficiencies of airliners and automobiles which have given rise to comment, and deservedly so. It's particularly embarassing in view of the fact that I have an excellent reference to the subject, The Physicist's Desk Reference, from the American Institute of Physics, right over my desk. The operative figures are as follows. Apparently these are for an average over the US aircraft and automobile fleet. For automobiles the energy intensity of transport is shown as 2.77 megajoules/passenger-km. For aircraft the figure is 3.49 MJ/passenger-km. In my defense I will point out that in the early seventies, when I was learning about such stuff, the average new car gas mileage was 13.8 mpg. (I am not making this up, it's in the book too.) It is something like 30 today, so that cars were probably consuming twice as much energy then. If you want a comparison, though, why not use buses, which are by far the most efficient at 0.40 MJ/passenger-km. Some other figures of interest are the relative energy consumption of automobiles and airplanes as a whole. Transportation in general consumes 26.6% of the energy used in the United States. Of that amount, 49.5% is consumed by automobiles and 8.4% by air transport, the remainder going to trucks, marine, and rail transportation. So I think that my original contention, that the use of energy by aircraft is minor compared to automotive use, is correct. Another interesting fact is that at a typical oil refinery, from 100 barrels of crude oil, 45 barrels of gasoline are produced. The quantity of jet fuel produced from the same 100 barrels is about 8 barrels. So about 5.5 times as much gasoline is produced as jet fuel, roughly consistent with the energy consumption figures above. In fact, we're so desperate to increase the gasoline output that we build catalytic crackers to crack the heavy gas oil fraction into gasoline, catalytic reformers to make reformed gasoline out of naphtha, and even polymerize some of the gaseous fraction for gasoline! In Europe, only about 20% of crude oil is made into gasoline. I can think of one other advantage of air travel. The major airlines have had no loss-of-life accidents in the past three years, if I'm not mistaken. What other transportation system can make that claim? One other note---please remember that the above energy intensity figures are for transportation as it is actually practiced, not for the ultimate potential of either automotive or air transportation. So if we all had Diesel Rabbits, the automotive figure would be better, especially if we all rode around five to a Rabbit all the time! On the other hand, you see more '70 Buick Electras with the 455 engine than you do Diesel Rabbits... -- Steve Tedder stedder@tulsix.utulsa.edu 918 292-3301 From kls Thu Jun 30 00:34:19 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: W. T. McCandless Subject: Re: ATR Revocation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 94 00:34:19 In article Robert Dorsett, rdd@netcom.com writes: > A widebody captain's certificate was revoked because he left the flight > deck enroute for a period of approximately 30 seconds without ensuring > that a qualified pilot was at a pilot duty station. At the time, the > first officer was on a relief period, and the relief first officer (RFO) > was standing just outside the cockpit door. The captain did not > specifically order the RFO to take a pilot seat. Wait a minute. So what are you saying, that it's acceptable for the captain to leave the aircraft with no one at the controls for even the short interval that it would take for the RFO to take the controls? I would imagine that every airline (and the FAA) still mandates that a qualified pilot be "behind the wheel" for every instant of flight. If the history of turbine powered aircraft teaches us one thing, it is that bad things can happen very fast. Turbulence, other atmospheric phenomena, autopilot failures, fight control system or engine failures, etc. can upset a modern airliner in cruise condition such that a pilot at his station will require time to regain control (or even merely to get his hands onto the controls). I certainly don't want the guy who's job it is to save the bacon for himself and hundreds of passengers to have to start out from the cockpit door in such an eventuality. I think the average man on the street does not understand the unique insecurity of professional pilots, always one minor screw-up (real or perceived) or a flunked physical away from possibly losing their life's work. I do, and thus do not resent the princely salaries that senior captains command. At the same time, I cannot tolerate the sort of complacency described in the above incident report. Perhaps you are right and "they don't do this in Mother Russia". But then, I am unaware that American, Delta, or United feature family days when the flight crews turn the airplanes over to twelve year olds.