From kls Tue Jan 3 01:40:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fcox@octave.demon.co.uk (Francis Cox) Subject: Boeing 737 crash Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Jan 95 01:40:38 Reply-To: fcox@octave.demon.co.uk The WWW site I quoted in a previous post to r.t.a appears to be down for the holiday break; also, the pages on it will have been replaced on a daily basis in any case. Hence, I am posting here an excerpt from the London newspaper, 'The Daily Telegraph', Thursday 22nd December 1994; non-aviation material has been cut. [excerpt begins] Five Killed as Plane Plunges into Woodland ------------------------------------------ by David Graves, Colin Randall and Michael Smith The altimeter of a Boeing 737 that crashed yesterday near Coventry airport, killing all five people on board and narrowly missing a housing estate, could have been wrongly set. The 21-year-old plane was so low on its approach to the airport at Baginton, south of the city, that it hit two rooftops before crashing 200 yards away in woodland. [cut] The 737-200 was chartered from Air Algerie by Phoenix Aviation, of Coventry, to take live calves to Holland, but no livestock was aboard. Department of Transport investigators were examining the altimeter to see whether it was a cause of the crash. It should have been adjusted for a landing at Coventry, which is 265 ft above sea level, after an earlier landing at Amsterdam, which is at sea level. The investigators were also examining reports that air traffic controllers at Coventry had complained about the standard of English used by Algerian pilots during radio communications during previous flights taking calves to the Continent. They said it had been difficult to communicate with them properly during landings and take-offs. Another line of enquiry was whether the aircraft's instrument landing system was compatible with the airport's directional landing system, which would have aided the pilot in poor visibility - which was down to about 500 yards because of fog. Officials said it was likely that the pilot was using only the airport's landing radar system, which would not have indicated the Boeing's height. [cut] The accident happened as the plane neared the end of a short hop from East Midlands airport. It had been diverted there on a flight from Amsterdam because of the fog. Sixteen-year-old Lee Tubman was sitting in a friend's house when he heard a terrifying bang. "I saw this huge plane clip the top of the pylons and send them crashing into the garden," he said, "I thought it was going to crash into the house. Then I looked over and saw the plane clip the houses across the road and nosedive into the ground. There was a huge explosion and it turned into a raging fireball." Some people spoke of hearing an engine "coughing and spluttering" moments before impact. [cut] The Civil Aviation Authority said last night a 737 flying from Algiers to Coventry was involved in a near miss with a Boeing 747 jumbo jet on its way from Brussels to New York at 28,000ft above Chigwell, Essex, at noon on Monday. A spokesman at the London offices of Air Algerie said that if the reported near-miss did occur, the aircraft involved would have been the one that crashed yesterday. The official thought it probable that a different crew would have been flying it. A CAA spokesman said that a report would be published on the near-miss. There was no indication yet which, if either, of the planes was to blame. [excerpt ends] -- Francis Cox ............. fcox@octave.demon.co.uk From kls Tue Jan 3 01:40:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Joseph D. Mazza" Subject: Re: Loss of an engine Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Jan 95 01:40:39 Organization: Naval Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Excerpts from netnews.sci.aeronautics.airliners: 21-Dec-94 Loss of an engine by eph72385@Rosie.UH.EDU > I am curious how a crew, most notably the pilots, could not > notice the loss of an engine in flight. > > Are there not sufficient warning systems for engines that > would go off if an engine were to come off? Somthing > like a loss of oil pressure, unstable fuel flow, leaking > hydraulic fluid, something? Turbine speed? Temperatures? > > I am certainly no expert on commercial, or any aircraft > for that matter. I just find it extremely hard to believe > that it would simply go unnoticed. It depends on what you're doing. If you're taking off, for example, you have high power on both engines. When one fails the power loss is immediately noticible, as is the assymmetric thrust (the difference between high power on one engine and no power on the other). A lot of rudder and more power on the good engine are needed right away to get things under control and continue the climb out. On the other hand, during a descent there is often very little power on either engine (you're essentially gliding) so when one fails the difference between idle power on one side and no power on the other is slight. There might be some warning like low RPM or the like, but they could go unnoticed for awhile while tuning radios etc during an approach. Since the windmilling prop usually keeps turning and generators etc may stay on the line, a power loss might not be noticed until power is added to slow the rate of descent, level off, or wave off. Then the assymmetric thrust is again obvious. Hope this helps. -----Joe From kls Tue Jan 3 01:40:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sikcol@rcinet.utc.com (Christopher Lowenstein) Subject: Re: Loss of an engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Product Safety, Sikorsky Aircraft Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Jan 95 01:40:39 In article eph72385@Rosie.UH.EDU writes: >I am curious how a crew, most notably the pilots, could not >notice the loss of an engine in flight. >Are there not sufficient warning systems for engines that >would go off if an engine were to come off? Somthing >like a loss of oil pressure, unstable fuel flow, leaking >hydraulic fluid, something? Turbine speed? Temperatures? Phil- In the referenced thread, the pilots _knew_ they had a catastrophic engine malfunction. They did not know, however, that the engine had departed the airframe. In a massive engine failure, especially uncontained ones, all the engine indicators ie: temps, pressures, speeds, EPR, etc, will likely go off-scale. So in some cases, the crew may not know if the engine failed completely and remained attached, or if it actually departed the airframe. -Reminds me of a memo I once got..."the aircraft was passing through 8000 feet, when the Number 1 engine flamed out. A normal cross-start was made, and the engine returned to base." From kls Tue Jan 3 01:40:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Loss of an engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Jan 95 01:40:39 In article eph72385@Rosie.UH.EDU writes: >I am curious how a crew, most notably the pilots, could not >notice the loss of an engine in flight. What exactly are you referring to? Of course an engine failure would be noticed. If you're referring to the media's propensity to report pilots' inability to determine whether a tail-mounted engine is attached or not, the checklist items for engine fire, failure, severe damage, and separation are the same. All that matters is that there is an engine failure. Once the severity of the damage has been established (i.e., not a fire), it's not operationally relevant whether it's attached. It's then up to captain's judgement and operational policy whether to divert to the nearest suitable airport or continue to destination. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@rascal.ics.utexas.edu From kls Tue Jan 3 01:40:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Keith Steele Subject: Re: Loss of an engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Jan 95 01:40:40 There is no indicator in the cockpit of any transport that I know of that would positively indicate that an engine had seperated from the aircraft. If the engine were to sieze (as is possible with a total loss of oil) the cockpit indications would be zero oil pressure, zero engine rotation, zero thrust, and the exhaust gas temperature pegged at the bottom of the scale. If the engine were to seperate from the aircraft the indications would be identical. There would be a slight nose down pitching moment in an aft mounted engine configuration but may not be noticed if the engine was vibrating seriously prior to seperation. Keith Steele B-727 Captain and Flight Instructor 75126,1123@compuserve.com From kls Tue Jan 3 01:40:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: olesen@metronet.com (Eric Olesen) Subject: Re: Engines CAN jettison (Was Rear engined aircraft. (727 DC9 MD80) ) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Texas Metronet, Internet for the Individual 214-705-2901 (info) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Jan 95 01:40:40 Clemens Emanuel Tillier (ctillier@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote: : >>(1) They are designed in a ditching situation to shear off and flip over : >> the top of the wing rather than dig into the water & pull the wing off. : >This is also for landings on runways without landing gear, but I think : >the concern is more to keep the aircraft from flipping than it is for : >tearing off the wings. : How can an engine shear off and go *over* wing? In situations such as : described above, I would expect the engine wreckage to go *under* the : wing. On most aircraft with underwing engines (except for the 737-100 & 200), the engine nacelles project slightly forward of the leading edge of the wing. Assuming that the impact would be on a slight flare (nose up), it appears (I'm not an engineer...) that the nacelles would be deflected upward, and hopefully, over the wing. If the engine was hung directly below, it would be deflected upward, and immediately downward by the wing surface. : Also, what is meant by "flipping" the aircraft when landing without gear? Obtain a copy of the UA232 crash at Sioux City to see an airframe flip and cartwheel....... Although the UA232 flip was not caused by the engine, the flip can occur when debris deflects a wing upward, which will cause the other wing to strike the ground... The other wing will slow down either from friction or become imbedded in the ground, allowing the remaining intertia to carry of the rest of the airframe into a flip and cartwheel. This can also happen on any airframe -- CO flipped a DC9 back at DEN back in '87 I believe -- one wing was loaded with ice, and hit the runway on a takeoff roll... Flip.... Skid.... Oops... I'd guess that most of the casualties of the UA232 crash resulted from the cartwheel, and not the initial impact. E From kls Tue Jan 3 01:40:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Engines CAN jettison (Was Rear engined aircraft. (727 DC9 MD80) ) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Jan 95 01:40:40 In article T.E.Thacker.Junior@lesueloc.com writes: > The pilots can't purposely select to jettison an engine but they *CAN* >be jettisoned: >(1) They are designed in a ditching situation to shear off and flip over > the top of the wing rather than dig into the water & pull the wing off. I will have to disagree with your first point. Yes engines are designed to detach in such a manner as to "fly" over the wing but this would only happen with the engine still developing thrust and the aircraft must be in the air or on its wheels. In a ditching situation the forces acting on the engine are such that the engine pylon and everything will just get ripped of by the ground or water or whatever. Think of where the engine and ground will contact then work out where all of the forces are going to act, there is no way the engine will go over the wing in a ditching situation. Brad AME,A&P From kls Tue Jan 3 01:40:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Rear Engined Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Jan 95 01:40:40 In article , Richard Shevell wrote: >thrust line with respect to the flight direction does in fact provide lift >equal to the thrust times the sine of the thrust incidence angle referred >to the flight direction. This discussion depends on the definition of >thrustline incidence. The thrustline incidence is generally defined with >respect to the fuselage reference line which is an arbitrary line in the >fuselage defined, in a transport, to be parallel to the floor. Normally >one selects the wing incidence such that the fuselage floor is level in the >usual cruise configuration. Therefore the thrust does provide a lift if >there is a positive incidence angle. Flight attendants do not appreciate >puishing 100 lb. carts uphill so a substantial airplane incidence in >cruise, defined by the fuselage reference line, is a negative, although it >has happened sometimes. In any case if the thrust has a positive incidence >with respect to the reference line, a positive contribution to lift occurs >compared to a zero incidence thrust line. > Well, I don't want to argue abstruse technical definitions with you (mostly because they differ from company to company). However, studies have shown that 3 degrees is about all that the cabin crew will tolerate, and that is what we design to, along with the aero group's demand for additional cheap lift. The floor is NOT level in cruise. Check it out next time you fly, but you may need to bring something like a carpenter's level with you. 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 Tue Jan 3 01:40:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sharam@ole.cdac.com (Sean Namazi) Subject: Re: 747 forced ocean landings -- survival odds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cascade Design Automation, Bellevue, WA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Jan 95 01:40:40 In article Albert Thomas Bozzo writes: > >In one, a JAL DC-8 landed well short (miles) of SFO. The >circumstances of the landing notwithstanding, the aircraft stopped in one >piece and settled into mud. The aircraft was not in danger of sinking per >se and was evacuated because of leaking fuel. The aircraft was extracted >from the mud, found to be in good condition despite over two days of salt >water immersion, and was repaired and returned to service, as I recall. It was my understanding that The China Air 747-400 which ran out of runway in Hong Kong (Kaitak?) and ended in the bay was declared totalled due to immersion in salt water, despite being in very good shape otherwise. So my question is: what was really different in the case of the JAL incident at SFO? Also, what are the deciding factors in such cases? Thanks, -- Shahram Namazi | UUCP: ...!uunet!ole!sharam Cascade Design Automation Corp. | Internet: sharam@ole.cdac.com 3650 131st Ave SE, Suite 650 | TEL: (206)-649-7609 Bellevue, WA 98006 | FAX: (206)-649-7600 From kls Tue Jan 3 01:40:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: 747 forced ocean landings -- survival odds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Jan 95 01:40:41 In article , Pete Mellor wrote: >> There's a blazing discussion underway in rec.aviation.misc about >> forced ocean landings of 747s. At issue are the odds of the plane >> staying in one piece, how long it would stay afloat and whether it >> would begin to leak through hull weep holes or other openings, >> whether or not passengers would be better off remaining in the cabin >> or proceeding to life rafts, etc, etc. A quick answer: The airplane fuselage is likely to remain in one piece. The engines will likely be shed. The landing *will* be violent. The aircraft will sink after some amount of time, even in calm waters (something over 10 hours I think, but I don't have a reference handy). The passengers are very definitely better off in the raft. Hi Peter! >A few thoughts:- > >The hull is designed to withstand positive pressure *inside*. Once under >water (assuming it would sink *before* the water filled the cabin), every >device for keeping pressure *in* would work "the wrong way round". (The >plug doors would be forced open by the external pressure, for example.) >If passengers donned life-jackets, they could presumably bob up to the >surface, *provided they could get out of the doors against a rush of >incoming water*. (Not a cheerful survival prospect, IMHO.) Actually, the doors aren't likely to leak (take a look at the latching mechanism next time you get the opportunity. The drain masts on the ventral side of the aircraft may well leak, but they are quite small and the airplane is a very light vehicle compared to the volume it displaces, giving it good endurance in that sort of condition. > >The main question is, how long would it float? I have not flown on a 747 >recently, but I did fly on a 737-400 last week. The safety card shows the >aircraft floating on the water after ditching, with the passengers sitting >calmly on the wings in their life-jackets after making an exit through the >over-wing doors. I was sufficiently surprised the first time I saw this to >ask one of the cabin staff if the 737-400 really was designed to float, but >I didn't get a particularly authoritative answer. Yep, it will float. For quite a while, too, assuming no extreme damage to the skin panels. > >> Would someone with knowledge of this issue please make a posting >> to rec.aviation.misc and share some insight? > >Please feel free to repost this, if you think it is useful. I would be >interested in any opinions on the 737's qualities as a flying boat! Actually, all of Boeing's airplanes are designed with ditching in mind. On the New Large Airplane, it caused us to put several extra life rafts up forward (most, if not all, jets tend to float nose up). Our aft doors on the main deck would let water in if opened. There are two schools of thought on designing for ditching. One says that we need to take every possible precaution to protect our final customers, the passengers (this is a very conservative group, by and large). The other group says, "Hey, there is only *one* recorded instance of a jetliner deliberately ditching (a DC-9 in the Virgin Islands, if memory serves) so why burden the design with these sorts of Neaderthalian requirements?" For one thing, it eliminates high-wing configurations from study because of their notoriously bad ditching characteristics. Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Wed Jan 4 00:40:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wolpjame@cwis.isu.edu (Jim Wolper) Subject: Re: Boeing 737 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Idaho State University, Pocatello Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Jan 95 00:40:58 The fact that the aircraft's altimeter had been set in Amsterdam is not relevant, since it had spent time flying above the transition level. This varies from country to country, but above this altitude all altimeters are set to standard pressure (29.92"Hg or equivalent metric settings). A more likely problem would in fact be a confusion as to whether the altimeter setting received from ATS was in millibars or inches; several accidents and incidents have been traced to this problem. Most ILS receivers are usable worldwide, by the way. The same is true for VOR and NDB systems. -- Jim Wolper CFII Department of Mathematics Idaho State University Pocatello, ID 83209-8085 USA From kls Wed Jan 4 00:40:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) Subject: Re: Rear Engined Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Stanford University, Dept. of Aero/Astro Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Jan 95 00:40:58 In article , drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) wrote: > Well, I don't want to argue abstruse technical definitions with you (mostly > because they differ from company to company). However, studies have shown > that 3 degrees is about all that the cabin crew will tolerate, and that is > what we design to, along with the aero group's demand for additional cheap > lift. The floor is NOT level in cruise. Check it out next time you fly, > but you may need to bring something like a carpenter's level with you. Not only definitions but design policies differ from company to company. At Douglas we usually designed for a level floor. After the increased emphasis on fuel economy in the 70's, many aircraft flew at a higher lift coefficient than the original design assumed so that the floors often had a positive angle on cruise. -- Richard Shevell Email: shevell@leland.stanford.edu From kls Wed Jan 4 00:40:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Loss of an engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Jan 95 00:40:58 >Since the windmilling prop usually keeps turning and generators etc may >stay on the line, a power loss might not be noticed Maybe on a reciprocating engine. No way this can happen with a turboprop or tubojet/fan engine. You need a min of about 45% N2 to keep the generators online on a 737/727 - I doubt you can get that off of a windmilling engine. From kls Wed Jan 4 00:40:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Loss of an engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Jan 95 00:40:58 >the exhaust gas temperature pegged at the bottom of the scale. If the >engine were to seperate from the aircraft the indications would be identical. Not necessarily. Could be pegged high or low, might even give a semi-normal indication - all depends on how the wiring is damaged when the engine departs. For example, an open circuit on an oil temp indication system (727/737) results in pegged high indication, a short gives you pegged low. In any event, isn't an EGT gauge that is pegged low a very unusual indication for an engine that has just been shutdown? From kls Wed Jan 4 00:40:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bob_wohlsen@qm.sri.com (wohlsen) Subject: Booster engines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: sri international Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Jan 95 00:40:58 In the '60s, Hawker Siddeley produced a stretched version of the 3-engined Trident that employed a 4th "boost" engine for take-offs. Was this the only example of a boost engine being used on a commercial jet airliner? Given the excess thrust available in twin jet airliners when both engines are running (to meet emergency single engine take-off requirements I assume), has any manufacturer considered employing a boost engine instead and using smaller main engines? Perhaps the boost engine might take the form of an oversized APU with a special high-power mode designed for intermittent usage, i.e. take-off and emergency backup. (No, I don't mean afterburners.) Bob Wohlsen From kls Thu Jan 12 01:56:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics.simulation,comp.simulation,sci.engr.manufacturing Path: bounce-back From: "bob@worldesign.com" Subject: Presentation on software-aided design of 777? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:03 Organization: Worldesign Inc., Seattle For a May 1995 conference panel on virtual design applications, I'd like to locate someone at Boeing, IBM, Dassault, or any combination of the above who can speak publicly on the planning for and design of the 777 aircraft, with special attention to the challenge of conveying and sharing design concepts as well as images. Thanks for your help: email to me. Bob Jacobson Worldesign Inc. Seattle From kls Thu Jan 12 01:56:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ckd@loiosh.kei.com (Christopher Davis) Subject: BAe146 (aka Avroliner RJxx) ditching? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Baseball First -- Everything Else Second Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:03 TDD> == Terrell D Drinkard TDD> [...] it eliminates high-wing configurations from study because of TDD> their notoriously bad ditching characteristics. So what's the deal with the BAe 146 (the only "Western" commercial jetliner I can think of with a high wing)? As I recall from my flights on a Business Express (Delta Connection) 146, the evacuation cards indicate that you should use whichever side's exit is higher after a ditching. Obviously this cuts the number of usable exits dramatically, but are there any other problems with ditching? -- Christopher Davis * | "It's 106 ms to Chicago, we've got a full http://www.kei.com/homepages/ckd/ | disk of GIFs, half a meg of hypertext, * MIME * PGP * WWW * [CKD1] * | it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." Save swap space: gzip /proc/[0-9]* | "Click it." -- From kls Thu Jan 12 01:56:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Keith Steele Subject: Re: Booster engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:03 Let me preface this with I am a pilot not an aircraft designer but. The problem is that an extra engine that is used only for takeoff A - produces drag throughout the flight costing fuel and B - weighs a lot reducing the number of passengers or cargo that can be carried. Multiply the loss of several passengers throughout the service life of the aircraft and you are quickly behind the economic eight ball. About APUs. Although they are turbine engines they are not designed to produce thrust. Their output is maximized to produce compressed air for starting and air conditioning and electrical power. The thust output is negligable - similar to the thrust output of a turboprop which is also a turbine engine. To design it to produce thrust as well as aux power would significantly increase cost and weight. A solution already in use by some military transports is to use a jato bottle. Essentially a small rocket strapped to the side of the aircraft with a very high thrust to weight ratio. The problem is most passengers would probabaly react unfavorably to the sight of flames and smoke pouring out just below the window line. The EPA would probabaly not be impressed either because solid fuel rockets produce some pretty hazardous chemicals when they are fired. From kls Thu Jan 12 01:56:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dey@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Michael E. Dey) Subject: Re: Booster engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:03 In article , wohlsen wrote: >In the '60s, Hawker Siddeley produced a stretched version of the 3-engined >Trident that employed a 4th "boost" engine for take-offs. Was this the >only example of a boost engine being used on a commercial jet airliner? A version of the DeHaviland Comet was evaluated with two extra booster engines to be used during take-off. I believe they were solid rockets. They didn't put that version into production though, because new and better Rolls Royce(?) engines became available. -- Michael Dey /Native Texan//PP-ASEL,AOPA/ National Center for University of Colorado at Boulder Atmospheric Research dey@rintintin.colorado.edu dey@ncar.ucar.edu From kls Thu Jan 12 01:56:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Subject: Ditching 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: 12 Jan 95 01:56:04 Way back in 1960 my Navy patrol squadron made a bit of history: We were flying a P2V Neptune in the Sea of Japan on a long patrol and the crew was forced to shut down first one reciprocating engine, and then the other (R3350 Turbo-Compound). Using the under-wing jets (J34) the plane continued to fly until shortly before all fuel was exhausted and then made a controlled water landing. The P2V had empty fuel tanks (self sealing btw) and floated nicely, in fact, after the crew was picked up by a Grumman Albatross the Navy sent out a tug, towed the damn thing to port and the plane was refurbished and flew again! Thereafter our Squadron motto was: IN THE AIR, ON THE LAND, AND IN THE SEA! (VP-6, Barbers Point, Ha.) John -- "Negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full!" From kls Thu Jan 12 01:56:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gustin@evs2.uia.ac.be (Emmanuel.Gustin) Subject: Re: Loss of an engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Free University of Berlin, Germany Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:04 Keith Steele (keithsteele@delphi.com) wrote: : There is no indicator in the cockpit of any transport that I know of : that would positively indicate that an engine had seperated from the : aircraft. Stupid question: What don't they "simply" fit a rearward-looking camera on these aircraft? Modern CCD cameras are compact and light, and recent cockpit designs are already using CRT's. Seems to me that looking at it is a good method to asses the presence of an engine... Or a fire, whatever. Emmanuel Gustin From kls Thu Jan 12 01:56:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: flygirl@ix.netcom.com (Linda D. Pendleton) Subject: Re: Loss of an engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:04 In tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) writes: >In any event, isn't an EGT gauge that is pegged low a very unusual >indication for an engine that has just been shutdown? > No, and EGT gauge will go peg at the bottom almost immediately when the engine is shutdown. Linda D. Pendleton DPE, ATP CE-500 VNY, SNA, LGB From kls Thu Jan 12 01:56:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Keith Steele Subject: Re: Loss of an engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:04 The bottom indication on the EGT indicator in the 727 is 100 deg C. On the ground it would take a few minutes for the EGT indicator to reach the bottom of the scale. In flight with temperatures well below 0 and a 600 mph breeze the EGT will peg low very quickly. The problem however is not that the indications for a seperated engine are different from a failed engine. It is the difference between an engine that sustained severe structural damage during the failure and one that has seperated. If the engine sustains severe damage during the failure many of the indicator wires or the sensors themselves will be damaged. How do you tell if the wires broke because of the shaking and ratteling or because the engine departed the aircraft. Engine failures due to severe or because of severe damage are less common than your garden variety flameout but they do occurr. The most common reasons for severe engine damage are foreign object injestion -birds - ice from some part of the airframe, and turbine disk or turbine blade failure. As I recall in the American incident the failure was due to the engine injesting a hunk of ice caused by a leaking toilet servicing fitting. From kls Thu Jan 12 01:56:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pleavin@HK.Super.NET (Mr Ted Pleavin) Subject: Re: Loss of an engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hong Kong Supernet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:04 Robert Dorsett (rdd@netcom.com) wrote: : In article eph72385@Rosie.UH.EDU writes: : >I am curious how a crew, most notably the pilots, could not : >notice the loss of an engine in flight. : What exactly are you referring to? Of course an engine failure would be : noticed. In one of the previous post descent was mentioned and untill you get the bells ringing it is difficult to know when one has flamed out. Or it may get confussing on descent in high work load terminal areas when the first thing you get is A generator off line or hydraulic failure due to the engine failure. : If you're referring to the media's propensity to report pilots' inability to : determine whether a tail-mounted engine is attached or not, the checklist : items for engine fire, failure, severe damage, and separation are the same. : All that matters is that there is an engine failure. : Once the severity of the damage has been established (i.e., not : a fire), it's not operationally relevant whether it's attached. : It's then up to captain's judgement and operational policy whether to divert : to the nearest suitable airport or continue to destination. Please remember that a contained catastrophic failure is different than a separation. Although the Boing check list is called " fire severe damage or separation ", when an engine leaves an A/C in flight it normally does more damage than a severe failure would. The earliest one I remember was in Toronto in 1970, where the wing fractured and caught fire at the point where the separation occurred and the A/C became uncontrollable. In theory a separation should just shear the pins and detach the fuel, hydraulics, etc therefore pulling the fire handle/switch should contain the damage, however, if the skin of the wing above the pylon is ruptured you can have raw fuel pouring onto the problem area and all you then need is a source of ignition :(. Cheers Ted. From kls Thu Jan 12 01:56:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Engines CAN jettison (Was Rear engined aircraft. (727 DC9 MD80) ) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:04 In article , Clemens Emanuel Tillier wrote: >>>(1) They are designed in a ditching situation to shear off and flip over >>> the top of the wing rather than dig into the water & pull the wing off. Not so. Engines will shear off in the aft direction in a ditching (or at least, that is how we analyze it). >Karl Swartz wrote: > >>This is also for landings on runways without landing gear, but I think >>the concern is more to keep the aircraft from flipping than it is for >>tearing off the wings. > >How can an engine shear off and go *over* wing? In situations such as >described above, I would expect the engine wreckage to go *under* the >wing. (Especially for the water landing.) Also, what is meant by >"flipping" the aircraft when landing without gear? An engine can shear off and depart the airplane by going over the wing if it is still generating thrust and the rear emgine mount failed first, as it is designed to do. I think what Karl is referring to is when an airplane skids in and an engine hit some obstacle, like a berm at the end of the runway or something, causing the airplane to spin violently. I think we'd rather have the engine shear off. It has the side benefit of absorbing (or shedding, depending on your point of view) some of the aircraft's energy. -- 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 Jan 12 01:56:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Rear Engined Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:04 In article , Limerock wrote: > >Terry, this is Paul M. The body attitude at cruise creates a very small >amount of lift but a significant nose up pitching moment thus reducing >lift and drag losses due to trim. The thrust vector is tilted upwards for >the reasons given by myself and others in previous notes. You are exactly right. I forgot about the pitching moment. Thanks. -- 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 Jan 12 01:56:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pravelin@us.oracle.com (Paul Raveling) Subject: Re: Rear Engined Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: pravelin@us.oracle.com (Paul Raveling) Organization: Oracle Corporation. Redwood Shores, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:04 In article , shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) writes: |> In article , |> drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) wrote: |> |> > Well, I don't want to argue abstruse technical definitions with you (mostly |> > because they differ from company to company). However, studies have shown |> > that 3 degrees is about all that the cabin crew will tolerate, and that is |> > what we design to, along with the aero group's demand for additional cheap |> > lift. The floor is NOT level in cruise. Check it out next time you fly, |> > but you may need to bring something like a carpenter's level with you. |> |> Not only definitions but design policies differ from company to company. |> At Douglas we usually designed for a level floor. After the increased |> emphasis on fuel economy in the 70's, many aircraft flew at a higher lift |> coefficient than the original design assumed so that the floors often had a |> positive angle on cruise. Designing for a level floor seems a bit surprising. The two main benefits of a positive deck angle in cruise are... -- The fuselage generates a nose-up pitch moment; this reduces the usual download that the horizontal tail must produce. That in turn decreases trim drag and allows designing a smaller, lighter horizontal stabilizer. -- At a positive deck angle the fuselage generates some lift and brings the spanwise pressure distribution over the wing root area closer to the ideal elliptical distribution. Designers can use deck angle to trade off lift over the fuselage for lift generated on outer wing sections; the latter necessarily adds structural weight. The best bottom line summary I know of are the excerpts below from a 12-page letter that Lockheed wrote to Eastern Airlines in 1974 when Eastern wondered why the L-1011 couldn't have a level floor, or at least a lower deck angle. "In summary, the total drag increase associated with the effect of fuselage rotation is equal to 2.2% of total airplane drag for each 1 degree that the floor angle is decreased." [...] "In summary, on the L-1011 the structural penalties associated with each 1 degree reduction in floor attitude is about 900 pounds..." The letter cites annual fuel burn of 7.5 million gallons per year, costing $.22 per gallon (in 1974!)e, notes 25 L-1011's in Eastern's fleet, and finally concludes: "Therefore a 6.6% increase in fuel burned - due to reducing the floor angle in cruise by 3 degrees - results in an increase in fuel costs of 2.7 million dollars just due to drag effects. "Because of the increased structural weight, the airplane is now heavier (when serving the same route with the same passengers as before and, therefore, drag is increased since more wing LIFT is required). This adds almost another one percent drag and the total fuel bill increases by about 3.0 million dollars per year. "The 3.0 million dollar operating cost penalty is, of course, associated with changing the fuselage floor angle on the L-1011 airplane as it is presently defined. However, incorporating a 2,700 pound weight penalty and a 6.6% increase in drag would reduce the range of the airplane at full passenger payload by 220 nautical miles. Assuming that it would have been necessary to maintain the range of the present airplane (not off-load passengers), the airplane's maximum Gross Weight would have to be increased by approximately another 10,000 pounds weight with an additional 1,500 pounds of structural weight to provide the capability for this higher design weight. Obviously, at these higher weights if it were required to retain the present field length characteristics, the wing area and/or the thrust of the engine would have to be increased. Obviously, these factors would cause even further increases in the initial price and operating costs." ---------------------- Paul Raveling Raveling@netcom.com or pravelin@us.oracle.com From kls Thu Jan 12 01:56:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: alaw@us.oracle.com (Alvin Law) Subject: Re: 747 forced ocean landings -- survival odds 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: 12 Jan 95 01:56:05 In article sharam@ole.cdac.com (Sean Namazi) writes: > In article Albert Thomas Bozzo writes: > >a JAL DC-8 landed well short (miles) of SFO ... The aircraft was extracted > >from the mud, found to be in good condition despite over two days of salt > >water immersion, and was repaired and returned to service, as I recall. > It was my understanding that The China Air 747-400 which ran out of > runway in Hong Kong (Kaitak?) and ended in the bay was declared > totalled due to immersion in salt water, despite being in very good > shape otherwise. So my question is: what was really different in > the case of the JAL incident at SFO? Also, what are the deciding > factors in such cases? To quickly answer your question, the water in Victoria Harbour is very different than the water in the San Francisco Bay; it's much dirtier. With all four engines already submerged in the dirty sea water for a few days, I think it is a smart move to write off the whole plane. -- | Alvin Law .. Project Leader, Applications Division ... Oracle Corporation | | Email: alaw@us.oracle.com ..... Voice: 415.506.8317 . Fax: 415.506.7299 | From kls Thu Jan 12 01:56:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lmnp1@eng.cam.ac.uk (L.M.N. Peiris) Subject: Re: 747 forced ocean landings -- survival odds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cambridge University Engineering Department, UK Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:05 In article , sharam@ole.cdac.com (Sean Namazi) writes: > In article Albert Thomas Bozzo writes: > >In one, a JAL DC-8 landed well short (miles) of SFO ... > It was my understanding that The China Air 747-400 which ran out of > runway in Hong Kong (Kaitak?) and ended in the bay was declared > totalled due to immersion in salt water ... About two years ago, an Air France 747-400 ditched into the ocean off the runway in Tahiti, after an asymmetric deployment of the fan reverser during the landing run. In this incident only the nose bay was flooded destroying the forward electronic systems. However, the aircraft was not declared unusable. ******************************************************************************** Reply to: lmnp1@eng.cam.ac.uk ******************************************************************************** From kls Thu Jan 12 01:56:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: 747 forced ocean landings -- survival odds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:05 In article , Sean Namazi wrote: >It was my understanding that The China Air 747-400 which ran out of >runway in Hong Kong (Kaitak?) and ended in the bay was declared >totalled due to immersion in salt water, despite being in very good >shape otherwise. So my question is: what was really different in >the case of the JAL incident at SFO? Also, what are the deciding >factors in such cases? Actually, the aircraft was totaled because the tail was blown off with explosives (it was a hazard to landing aicraft), not just because of the salt water immersion. -- 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 Jan 12 01:56:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) Subject: Re: Boeing 737 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:05 In article wolpjame@cwis.isu.edu (Jim Wolper) writes: The fact that the aircraft's altimeter had been set in Amsterdam is not relevant, since it had spent time flying above the transition level. This varies from country to country, but above this altitude all altimeters are set to standard pressure (29.92"Hg or equivalent metric settings). A more likely problem would in fact be a confusion as to whether the altimeter setting received from ATS was in millibars or inches; several accidents and incidents have been traced to this problem. Most ILS receivers are usable worldwide, by the way. The same is true for VOR and NDB systems. Considering that the incident was in the UK where the use of QFE is common, it might have been a confusion between using QFE or QNH as the altimeter setting. -- 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 Thu Jan 12 01:56:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Subject: Re: Boeing 737 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:05 >The fact that the aircraft's altimeter had been set in Amsterdam is >not relevant, since it had spent time flying above the transition >level. This varies from country to country, but above this altitude >all altimeters are set to standard pressure (29.92"Hg or equivalent >metric settings). A more likely problem would in fact be a confusion >as to whether the altimeter setting received from ATS was in >millibars or inches; several accidents and incidents have been traced >to this problem. Another possibility: The local altimeter setting given to the crew by ATC was either mis- understood or not accurate. In a center (where I work) altimeter setting updates are given to us only once an hour, and during periods of rapidly changing pressures (quickly moving weather systems) it's possible for the setting we give to crews to be off by several points. A change of .10 inches is equal to 100' in altitude. John -- "Negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full!" From kls Thu Jan 12 01:56:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: S.Tolboom@kub.nl (Stephan Tolboom) Subject: Re: Boeing 737 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: S.Tolboom@kub.nl Organization: Tilburg University / The Netherlands Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:05 In Article "wolpjame@cwis.isu.edu (Jim Wolper)" says: > The fact that the aircraft's altimeter had been set in Amsterdam is > not relevant, since it had spent time flying above the transition > level. This varies from country to country, but above this altitude > all altimeters are set to standard pressure (29.92"Hg or equivalent > metric settings). A more likely problem would in fact be a confusion > as to whether the altimeter setting received from ATS was in > millibars or inches; several accidents and incidents have been traced > to this problem. Another thing that definately rules out the altimeter story is that the plane didn't come from Amsterdam but from East Midlands airport.(which lies considerably above sea-level). What Mr. Wolper says seems very credible, don't forget the plane had an Algerian crew. Stephan S.Tolboom@kub.nl From kls Mon Jan 16 21:39:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lgoodin@indirect.com (Richard L. Goodin) Subject: about the 777 jet liner. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:06 Organization: Internet Direct, indirect.com Hey guys; I work for Honeywell, and last summer the 777 flew by our plant whear we make the avionics package for it. on both of the FLY bys, i noticed two long wires trailing behind the plane. I think these are HF radio antennas, but I am not shure. If they are HF radio antennas, then what frequencys do they operate? -- R. L. Goodin | NN N 777777 MM MM FFFFF Y Y WHY ASK WYE? lgoodin@indirect.com | N N N 7 M M M M FFF Y Y (602) 516-2088 Home voice | N N N 7 M M M F Y (602) 436-1595 Work voice | N NN 7 M M F Y From kls Mon Jan 16 21:39:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia.org (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Flight International article on cockpit design Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:06 Organization: International Internet Association. In 11-17 January 1995 issue of _Flight International_ there is an article titled ``Lessons from the Cockpit.'' A brief history of "glass cockpit" was given. Much of the article dealt with the German pilot union's reactions to a number of recent Airbus's mishaps (namely, Lufthansa's 93 A320 crash in Warsaw, China Airlines' 94 A300-600 crash in Nagoya, TAROM's 94 A310 near crash near Paris-Orly, Air Inter's 92 A320 crash, and Airbus's own A330 test-flight crash in 94). Interestingly, it was mentioned in the article that there was a Service Bulletin issued by Airbus in Dec 93 that the French authority (DGAC) classified as a mandatory airworthiness directive (AD) requiring French operators to incorporate the autopilot-software modifications for the A300/310 in two years. As speculated in the article that if China Airlines had implemented the modifications, the accident might have been avoided. In conclusion, the article said (a direct quote): Meanwhile, Airbus is gaining operational experience every day with DFBW (Digital Fly-By-Wire), using a digital system which is not designed to make the pilot feel as if he is flying a traditional aeroplane. Boeing is about to enter the operational ring with its 777, an aircraft which artificially reproduces for the pilots the characteristics of a traditionally controlled aeroplane, although it is flow using digital-control laws. Is Boeing right in its premise that reality must be disguised to achieve the best possible man-machine interface? Or, there being no prefect solution, do both companies' approaches have an equal chance of being effective? As the world progresses into digital future, only time will tell. You may want to check out the article yourself. -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Mon Jan 16 21:39:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: etlmhpl@etlxdmx.ericsson.se (Mukesh Patel 4531 ETL/XL/S MHPL TC ) Subject: Help on Concorde questions Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: etlmhpl@etlxdmx.ericsson.se Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:06 Organization: Ericsson Telecommunications Ltd Hi, Please can someone help me with the following info. regarding Concorde:- 1. How much of the market is Concorde taking, 2. What is the life expectancy of Concorde i.e. when it expires, 3. How well Concorde was doing in its boom days as compared to the recession, 4. How BA Concorde is doing compared to AF Concorde. I would appreciate any help that can be given. Thanks in advance Mukesh email:- etlmhpl@etlxdmx.ericsson.se From kls Mon Jan 16 21:39:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: entmlf@cr41.staffs.ac.uk (Martin at Staffs University, UK) Subject: Configuration Warning Sys at T/O References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:07 R. Solene wrote:- >After all, didn't the cockpit crew of a Northwest MD-80 forget to >extend the wing flaps (via mechanical actuation) just prior to take-off >causing a crash and the deaths of some 160 passengers? SURELY that can't happen any more! I thought that after the BA 747 crash at Nairobi, in the 70's, full takeoff configuration warning systems were mandatory, in all ICAO states? They would sound a siren if anything was amiss (flaps, slats, speedbrakes, spoilers etc) when the throttle was advanced for take-off? Can anyone reassure me that R.Solene is wrong? Martin Fiddler entmlf@staffs.ac.uk From kls Mon Jan 16 21:39:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: entmlf@cr41.staffs.ac.uk (Martin at Staffs University, UK) Subject: Re: Boeing 737 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:07 I've got the preliminary AAIB report in front of me regarding the B737 freighter crash at Coventry, UK, on 21-12-94 The main points are:- The aircraft ILS receiver couldn't tune to the Coventry ILS frequency (109.75MHz) as it was one of the old radios that can only tune in 50KHz increments. The aircraft was cleared to descent to 1500 ft (1013mb) and SSR replays show that it did just this. The 1st Officers altimeter, when found, was correctly set to 1013mb. The RVR was 1100 meters, scattered stratus base 700ft, scattered stratcumulus base 1200 ft, temp +2 degC, QNH 1023 and QFE 1013. Due to the inability to tune to the ILS, they were using a Surveillance Radar Approach (SRA) which would terminate at 2nm from the airport, with obstacle clearance limit of 650ft. As the aircraft passed the 2nm limit, there was a 10 second power failure at the airport. After power was restored at the airport the aircraft was asked its intentions, but there was no reply. The aircraft had struck a 132Kv power pylon 72 ft agl. The pylon was on the extended centreline of runway 23, and the aircraft was level when it hit. The left wing was damaged, and the aircraft rolled to the left, clipping a house, rolling inverted, and crashing into a wood. The time was 0952. There was a considerable fuel-fire. Prior to the crash, on the same day:- The crew had initially departed Coventry at 0059 for Amsterdam. It left Amsterdam at 0342 and landed at Coventry. It left Coventry at 0452, arriving at Amsterdam at 0551. The craft was refuelled there. On approach to Coventry at 0735 the RVR was 700 meters, and so a SRA terminating at 0.7nm was attempted. The crew aborted the approach with a go-around, and held for 9 minutes before diverting to E. Midlands airport. The ILS couldn't be tuned, as the ILS was 109.35 MHz. The crew made a visual approach, landing at E.Mids at 0808. At 0938 it took off for Coventry, crashing at 0952. m.fiddler@staffs.ac.uk Ref: AAIB Special Bulletin S 1/95 (ISSN 0309-4278) From kls Mon Jan 16 21:39:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Boeing 737 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:07 Lars-Henrik Eriksson wrote on 12 Jan 95 01:56:05:- > Considering that the incident was in the UK where the use of QFE is > common, it might have been a confusion between using QFE or QNH as the > altimeter setting. Why is the fact that the aircraft was flying in the UK relevant? Surely QNH altitude is used during the cruise phase and QFE during take-off and approach in all countries? Yours, puzzled, Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax.: +44 (171) 477-8585, E-mail (JANET): p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Jan 16 21:39:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) Subject: Re: Boeing 737 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:07 At 19.40 95-01-12, Pete Mellor wrote: >Lars-Henrik Eriksson wrote on 12 Jan 95 01:56:05:- > >> Considering that the incident was in the UK where the use of QFE is >> common, it might have been a confusion between using QFE or QNH as the >> altimeter setting. > >Why is the fact that the aircraft was flying in the UK relevant? Surely >QNH altitude is used during the cruise phase and QFE during take-off >and approach in all countries? No! In Western Europe at least, the UK is the only country to normally use QFE during take-off and approach for civil aviation. All other countries use QNH. (In fact I am not aware that QFE is normally used anywhere outside Western Europe either, but of course my knowledge of extraeuropean procedures is quite lacking.) British Airways procedures seem to call for QFE use at all times, though. Once while visiting Stockholm ACC/APP, I saw a controller look up the QNH-QFE difference for the landing runway at Arlanda to calculate the QFE on request from an arriving BA flight. QFE can be used in other special cases. Swedish military aviation (and, because of historical influences - soaring) use QFE. They also measure altitude in metres... 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 Mon Jan 16 21:39:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Nicolas Ercan Murat Subject: Re: [Q] normal practice if an engine fail @ t.o.? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:07 Even if the reason for engine shutdown or failure at Take Off is not worrying, the Pilot usually turns around and flies back in. I know of many LH occurances wherein the pilot turned around for such problems as Engine Overheat or Oil Pressure anomalies on their Long Haulers. What does the MEL say about this? -Bernie From kls Mon Jan 16 21:39:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia.org (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: [Q] normal practice if an engine fail @ t.o.? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:07 garylapook@delphi.com wrote: : : I don't know what the law is in Australia, but in the U.S. the FAA : would bust a pilot for this, and have. The reason the news was reported because the Australian authority was investigating the incidence to see if the Cathay pilot properly handled the situation. I just read about another inflight shutdown. This time it is on an Air China Boeing 767 flying from Xiamen (off the Southern coast of China, approximately one hour north of Hong Kong) to Singapore. One engine failed at 35,000 ft over the South China Sea and was shut down. The pilot flew under the power of the other engine for over 170 minutes and safely landed at Singapore's Changi Airport. (Very close to the 180-minute ETOPS rating, but I don't know if Air China's B767 has the 180-minute ETOPS rating.) IMHO, this is simply outrageous: Hong Kong, Guangzhou, or Hainan Island should be very close to where the aircraft first experienced the engine failure. In the news article that I read, the pilot was praised for his "skillfullness". I have a slight reservation about Cathay's incidence in Australia, but I think Air China incidence is totally unacceptable. Do you think the Air China pilot made the right decision? -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Mon Jan 16 21:39:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: [Q] normal practice if an engine fail @ t.o.? 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 Jan 95 21:39:07 In article garylapook@delphi.com writes: >I don't know what the law is in Australia, but in the U.S. the FAA >would bust a pilot for this, and have. They take the position that >when an aircraft no longer meets its type certification, such as having >many motors, that the aircraft is no longer airworthy. The FARs require >that the pilot determine that the aircraft s air worthy. If the >aircraft becomes unasirworthy in flight the pilot *must* land at >the next available airport where a safe landing can be made. The problem with your premise is that airworthiness standards are largely based on component failure. AN engine failure is simply part of the equation: engine or no engine, the airplane is still airworthy. Airworthiness is a relative concept, and there are many, many relationships, as a quick perusal of a minimum equipment list will demonstrate. Judgement is more difficult to establish. Is it reasonable to dump a hundred thousand pounds of fuel, turn around, and risk a heavy-weight landing, even if the airplane (in the captain's judgement) is not in jeopardy? Does proximity to the field of departure have anything to do with it? Does engine failure in-flight mean you AUTOMATICALLY have to divert to the nearest airfield? In-flight failures even happen in the United States, and the FAA doesn't automatically pursue enforcement actions against the pilots. >A recent case that was upheld on appeal to the NTSB involved >a metroliner. Perhaps, in the case you cite, the FAA chose to prosecute since it was a twin which lost the engine, and that the consequences of another engine failure would, indeed, be catastrophic. You are also talking about some relatively mountainous terrain. What was the weather? Landing elevations? Performance? >The pilot was flying a deadhead flight with no pax >on board. Are you implying that should have made any difference in how the pilot's actions were judged? >Let the pilot beware. I would be interested in your source for this anecdote, as well as what the FAA's position actually was. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@rascal.ics.utexas.edu From kls Mon Jan 16 21:39:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: petercoe@netcom.com (Peter J. Coe) Subject: Re: [Q] normal practice if an engine fail @ t.o.? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:08 >In article Andrew Chuang writes: >>I have no doubt that the B747 can safely fly with three engines. >>However, what is the usual practice if a pilot experiences an engine >>failure at take-off on a four-engined aircraft? I would think many >>passengers would be a little paranoid if they heard strange noises >>(and perhaps saw fire) Some real world experience here. I have had suffered two engine 'failures' on take off. The first was a 707 from JFK to LHR that suffered a bird-strike on one engine. We climbed to altitude with no noticeable problems before we were told that we would be returning to JFK because of the dead engine. We then spent an hour dumping fuel before returningh to a welcoming commitee of fire trucks! The second was an aborted take off at Harare in a 747, which in many ways was far more dramatic. That was a problem with the number 4 engine just not coming up to speed. I have no idea how close we were to V1 (the speed at which the plane cannot safely abort take-off), but we were certainly clocking along. More curious with that one, was as there was not a lot of traffic at that airport, the pilot was allowed to stay on the runway whilst he tried reving the engine. We must have been there for the best part of an hour before we returned to the terminal. As we were only flying to Jo'burg, that plane could easily flown on 3 engines. I won't go into the inflight shutdowns and engines that just won't start that I have encountered. I'm beginning to think that I'm cursed when it comes to intercontinental travel. From kls Mon Jan 16 21:39:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@nudge.io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: [Q] normal practice if an engine fail @ t.o.? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:08 garylapook@delphi.com wrote: : Andrew Chuang writes: : >I have no doubt that the B747 can safely fly with three engines. : >However, what is the usual practice if a pilot experiences an engine : >failure at take-off on a four-engined aircraft? I would think many : I don't know what the law is in Australia, but in the U.S. the FAA : would bust a pilot for this, and have. They take the position that : when an aircraft no longer meets its type certification, such as having : many motors, that the aircraft is no longer airworthy. AS far as I know about operations An engine failure in flight is not really a problem on large aircraft as the 747. The aircraft can continue enroute to its destination without penalty ( except fuel and altitude). However.. If the failure occurs on takeoff (following VR) The pilot would probably cancel the bell and continue the climbout (if the failure is not catastrophic). the failure/fire would then be dealt with after the cruiitical phase of the climbout. With no noticable degradation in performance( as far as the pax know). I personally have been on flights that have had engine outs( even at T/O) and the flights continued without incident, except the one ast T/O we returned to the airport of departure, no emergency no problems. I ended up changing the engine that night as a matter of fact. I'm not sure what the problem was exactly. Later.... Brad AME,A&P From kls Mon Jan 16 21:39:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: [Q] normal practice if an engine fail @ t.o.? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:08 Andrew Chuang wrote: >I have no doubt that the B747 can safely fly with three engines. >However, what is the usual practice if a pilot experiences an engine >failure at take-off on a four-engined aircraft? About a year ago, I was on a United 747-422 that suffered a failure of #2 during takeoff from San Francisco. Shortly after we became airborne, right about the time the landing gear is normally retracted, there were a series of *very* loud bangs that seemed to shake the entire airframe. They resembled the sound and feel of sitting directly over the landing gear when they retract, except much louder, and I was sitting in the *upper* cabin, second row behind the exit door. This continued on for 10-15 seconds, with a bang every second or so, then we returned to what seemed a perfectly normal departure from 1R, including a ten degree turn to the right for separation from departures on 1L, then a normal climb up to a few thousand feet. We then began another turn to the right, which normally would have put us on a heading over Tahoe and on to Chicago. Instead, we kept turning, and once on a course down San Francisco Bay, the captain asked the flight attendants to prepare for landing. Later, I asked the pilots what had happened. The captain started to explain what I quickly realized was a compressor stall. I was surprised, as I thought a compressor stall would just produce one or two loud bangs, not a whole series of them. He said that it had been a new experience for him as well, though this was by no means he first compressor stall. Our new aircraft was another 747-422 that had been stripped of all supplies for cleaning, so there was plenty of time to chat while it was being readied for our flight. The captain said the first aircraft had suffered a failed #2 engine somewhere across the Pacific (Manila or Singapore, I think) and had been ferried back to SFO on only three engines. This was the first flight for the replacement engine, and it was overheating almost from the start of the takeoff roll. Apparently there was plenty of time for a rejected takeoff, but with three good engines the pilots chose to complete the takeoff and return immediately to SFO, avoiding any risk of a runway overrun, which would have put us in the bay. He also groused about all the paperwork they had to fill out to justify an in-flight engine shutdown. This seemed a little bit odd, especially when he noted that this was because it was a hit against their ETOPS ratings. He pointed out that while United's 747-400s obviosuly aren't ETOPS, their PW4056 engines are in the same family as the PW4060 engines used on United's 767-322(ER) fleet and thus any in-flight shutdowns are a strike against the reliability which must be maintained for ETOPS. Of about 500 commercial flights in my life, this is the only one that has had an in-flight mechanical problem, though I've had my share of flights which had problems before they got to the runway, not to mention a good number of weather delays or worse. Some may think I'm nuts (though probably not many readers of this group! ;-) ) but I enjoyed the adventure, even with the nearly five hour delay it cost. Amongst other things, it made up for my having missed the DC-8 flight from OAK to SFO which I'd always wanted to fly 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 Mon Jan 16 21:39:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Booster engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:08 In article bob_wohlsen@qm.sri.com (wohlsen) writes: >In the '60s, Hawker Siddeley produced a stretched version of the 3-engined >Trident that employed a 4th "boost" engine for take-offs. Was this the >only example of a boost engine being used on a commercial jet airliner? I worked on a boeing 727 which was built with JATO rockets installed. I don't know who owned the aircraft before they were removed but it is now owned By Royal Airlines out of Montreal Canada. The airframe has several reinforcements that were apparently installed by Boeing at the factory (although I'm not positive) I would love to see a 727 do a jato assisted takeoff. If any oone has any positive information or even a picture i would love to hear or see it. Brad AME, A&P From kls Mon Jan 16 21:39:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Booster engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:09 >I worked on a boeing 727 which was built with JATO rockets installed. I don't >know who owned the aircraft before they were removed but it is now owned By >Royal Airlines out of Montreal Canada. As of about a year ago, Royal had six 727s, all -200 Advanced models. Two were built for CP Air, and one each for Singapore, Mexicana, Sterling, and Ansett (Australia). None of these seem likely to have ordered anything as exotic as you describe, and tracing the registry of these six aircraft turned up nothing notable either. (Another post in this thread seems to indicate the ex-Mexicana one.) -- 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 Jan 16 21:39:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Booster Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:09 In regards to using JATO bottles as boosters - Fairchild/Swearingen Metros have provision for a JATO bottle in the tail cone. The idea is to trigger it if you loose an engine on take off. I think that this is mainly for hot & high operations and I have yet to see a Metro with the JATO bottle actually installed. If you're ever in the cockpit of a Metro, look for the JATO switch - its there on the instrument panel, usually with a placard announcing that the JATO is not installed. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mon Jan 16 21:39:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dbaran@netcom.com (Dave Baran) Subject: Re: Booster engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:09 Keith Steele writes: >A solution already in use by some military transports is to use a jato bottle. >Essentially a small rocket strapped to the side of the aircraft with a very >high thrust to weight ratio. The problem is most passengers would probabaly >react unfavorably to the sight of flames and smoke pouring out just below the >window line. The EPA would probabaly not be impressed either because solid >fuel rockets produce some pretty hazardous chemicals when they are fired. I have seen pictures of a 727 that appeared to have JATO capabilities -- it was designed for use out of Mexico City. I believe the owner was Mexicana; there were only a couple that were built before the idea was discarded. The photo caption called it JATO -- sure looked like it from the picture! -- Dave From kls Mon Jan 16 21:39:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) Subject: Re: Booster engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:09 Keith Steele writes: >A solution already in use by some military transports is to use a jato bottle. >Essentially a small rocket strapped to the side of the aircraft with a very >high thrust to weight ratio. The problem is most passengers would probabaly >react unfavorably to the sight of flames and smoke pouring out just below the >window line. The EPA would probabaly not be impressed either because solid >fuel rockets produce some pretty hazardous chemicals when they are fired. Further, don't solid fuel rockets present a non-negligible danger of explosion? Regards, John -- John DiMarco Office: EA201B Computing Disciplines Facility Systems Manager Phone: 416-978-1928 University of Toronto Fax: 416-978-1931 http://www.cdf.toronto.edu/personal/jdd/jdd.html From kls Mon Jan 16 21:39:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) Subject: Re: Rear Engined Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Stanford University, Dept. of Aero/Astro Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:09 In article , pravelin@us.oracle.com (Paul Raveling) wrote: > Designing for a level floor seems a bit surprising. The two > main benefits of a positive deck angle in cruise are... > > -- The fuselage generates a nose-up pitch moment; this > reduces the usual download that the horizontal tail > must produce. That in turn decreases trim drag and > allows designing a smaller, lighter horizontal stabilizer. > > -- At a positive deck angle the fuselage generates some lift > and brings the spanwise pressure distribution over the > wing root area closer to the ideal elliptical distribution. > Designers can use deck angle to trade off lift over the > fuselage for lift generated on outer wing sections; the > latter necessarily adds structural weight. > > The best bottom line summary I know of are the excerpts below > from a 12-page letter that Lockheed wrote to Eastern Airlines > in 1974 when Eastern wondered why the L-1011 couldn't have > a level floor, or at least a lower deck angle. The logic given above is fine. Both trim drag and induced drag would be favorably affected by a higher fuselage angle of attack (i.e. less incidence). But I think the magnitudes in the Lockheed letter are much too hish. Total trim drag is only of the order of 2% so a small fractional saving would be much less than that. The lift of the fuselage due to 3 degrees is also small so the induced drag savings are minute especially when the fact that fuselage lift is very inefficient is considered. Tail weights are set by extreme maneuvering or gust conditions so reducing the cruise trim load may not count for much. The Lockheed values of 2.2% drag and 900 lb. of weight for each degree of fuselage angle are grossly high. Now, a confession: It's been a few years, like 25, since I did such an analysis and the above is a gut feeling, but I believe it is a good one. Perhaps more on this later. Also Torenbeek says, pg.259, "Wing setting during cruising flight ---is usually chosen such that the cabin floor will be horizontal." -- Richard Shevell Email: shevell@leland.stanford.edu From kls Mon Jan 16 21:39:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Ditching References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:10 In the late 1930's a United DC3 flying towards Los Angeles made a wrong turn at a radio range intersection and flew northwest over the Pacific. The captain, a WWI German veteran, reported all his instruments were defective. A new controller came on duty and asked directly for the magnetic compass heading. He then convinced the crew that they should make a 180 turn and follow the radio range back to shore. They ran out of fuel approaching the beach and made a perfect ditching a little way offshore, at night. The captain got everyone out the cockpit windows to the top of the plane. Everyone but the captain and one passenger were washed off and drowned before the plane was found. It was brought ashore with the cabin dry the next day. For years after that United crews were required to give their magnetic compass headings whenever they reported over a checkpoint. I suspect the aircraft was restored to service, but I don't know. Gerry From kls Mon Jan 16 21:58:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pete@ide.com (Peter Coe) Subject: Limitations of autoland systems Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:58:18 Reply-To: pete@ide.com A couple of weeks back we were talking about what was special about the Tristar on its debut. I mentioned that it was something to do with it's on delivery autoland ability, and I related a story about a landing in pretty bad conditions. Well I have something to add to this. I flew home to England for Christmas, and again did an autoland. Heathrow on 12/23 was in a really bad state. I had a window seat, and had at most a second's warning of touchdown. The captain came through the cabin later and said that he only saw the runway 7 seconds before touchdown. The landing though was the easy part. After leaving the runway, we moved to a parallel taxiway (very very slowly)and then parked for 2 hours. The problem was of course that the airport was completely congested. So after all that the question is what are the limitations when the weather gets this bad. The flight crew on my return flight left Heathrow on 12/23, and they were delayed for more than 3 hours for the same reason as us. According to them, in normal low visibility conditions, Heathrow puts a 2 minute separation on aircraft, on this day it was 3 minutes. In addition, many aircraft had to stay at the gates because they just did not have the technology to be able to safely fly in that weather. The conditions were really bad. I had a great opportunity to view the runway, and the fog varied in thickness, so that sometimes I could quite clearly see aircraft on the runway, and sometimes couldn't even see the outer engine of the 747. But I have a hard time translating these impressions into what ATC call acceptable. I would be really grateful if any of the professional aviation people here could give more details on the categories of autoland, and the limitations that they have. -- -- Peter Coe -- Interactive Development Environments -- 595 Market Street, 10th Floor, San Francisco CA 94105 -- +1 (415) 543-1314 x238 Fax: +1 (415) 543-0145 -- From kls Mon Jan 16 21:58:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pete@ide.com (Peter Coe) Subject: British Airways 747's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:58:18 Reply-To: pete@ide.com I was reading a copy of Aircraft Illustrated last week that had a list of all British airlines and there planes. I was very surprised to see that BA have more 747-400's on order. I presume that some of the list are options only, but if they are all taken up BA will soon have 50 747-400's. Now BA have three generations of 747's. 100's from the early 70's, 200's from late 70's to early's 80's (plus a few as late as about 1990), and then all the 400's they already have (something like 36). So has anyone come across what they are going to do with all these planes. The 100's must be about ready for retirement, so some of the 400's will be to replace those. Some of the 100's will probably be replaced by 777's, which just makes the 747 orders seem even more strange. So does anyone know about BA's retirement plans? It would seem that a whole bunch of the early 747's are going to be retired soon. BA seems quite rare in having hung onto it's original planes for so long. A final note on BA's 777's. The BA inflight magazine says they will be introduced on London-Paris routes before they go international. No ETOPS controversy for BA it would seem. -- -- Peter Coe -- Interactive Development Environments -- 595 Market Street, 10th Floor, San Francisco CA 94105 -- +1 (415) 543-1314 x238 Fax: +1 (415) 543-0145 -- From kls Mon Jan 16 21:58:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: British Airways 747's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Jan 95 21:58:18 >Now BA have three generations of 747's. 100's from the early 70's, >200's from late 70's to early's 80's (plus a few as late as about >1990), and then all the 400's they already have The last -200 appears to have been delivered in February, 1988, about 14 months before the first -400. >So has anyone come across what they are going to do with all these >planes. The 100's must be about ready for retirement I think they've already dumped quite a few of their -100s. >BA seems quite rare in having hung onto it's original planes for so >long. United sold their first five 747-122s to Pan Am in the early eighties, but kept the other thirteen, which had the newer, larger upper cabin (with lots of windows instead of three). Subsequently, after they had acquired Pan Am's Pacific Division, they acquired five ex-American -123s of comparable age to the five they had disposed of. Northwest still has a number of 747-100s, including some even more ancient than the ex-American ones in United's fleet, though quite a few of these are stored. Besides ancient 747s, United still has their first 737 (fifth off the line!), and it's only been a few years since they retired the very first 727 -- after around thirty years of service! While the airlines don't brag about it, I suspect you'd be surprised at how many of these ancient aircraft are still flying for their original owner. This is probably especially true for 747s, which have a relatively easy life (low cycles, well-maintained for overwater flights) and are particularly expensive to replace. -- 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 Jan 19 22:18:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia.org (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: British Airways 747's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Jan 95 22:18:55 Peter Coe (pete@ide.com) wrote: : I was very surprised : to see that BA have more 747-400's on order. I presume that some of : the list are options only, but if they are all taken up BA will soon : have 50 747-400's. I believe all the 50 -400's are firm orders. BA has the world's second largest B747 fleet (JAL has the largest). : So has anyone come across what they are going to do with all these : planes. The 100's must be about ready for retirement, In Karl's followup, he said that some of the 100's had been retired, but I'm not aware of it. Nevertheless, their days are numbered even if they are still in the fleet. : Some of the 100's will probably : be replaced by 777's, which just makes the 747 orders seem even more : strange. I don't know the answer, but BA has been doing quite well lately. After all, BA is the largest international airline in the world. If Singapore (about one-half the size of BA) can have bought/ordered 52 B747-400's, I don't see why BA cannot make use of the 50 -400's and 15 777's. : A final note on BA's 777's. The BA inflight magazine says they will : be introduced on London-Paris routes before they go international. : No ETOPS controversy for BA it would seem. For a new aircraft type, airlines always do route-proofing. For example, last November, Cathay Pacific introduced the A340 between Hong Kong and Bangkok, hardly an appropriate route for the A340. Actually, I believe BA is very eager to use the B777 for ETOPS, that's why GE is the only engine manufacturer which has a firm date (end of 96, I think) for the certification of a growth engine (90K or 92K of thrust, I think) for the "B-plus" B777. Right now, I think BA must be very unhappy with GE, since the GE90 has yet to be certified (or, as a British would say, certificated). It was supposed to be certified in Nov of last year, right now is scheduled to be certified in mid-Jan. (Trent is supposedly to be certified at the end of Jan.) I seriously doubt that BA's B777 can be in service by Sept, as originally planned. -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Thu Jan 19 22:18:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Subject: Oldest B747 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: 19 Jan 95 22:18:55 Braniff Intl flew a B747-100 on it's Hawaii route and then Houston to London. I believe the aircraft managed an incredible 15 hour per day usage during it's years with Branniff. It was later sold to a charter outfit I think, and now sits forlornly, stripped of engines, at an airport in New York. It may possibly be the highest time B747 around. Anyone know for sure? John -- "Negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full!" From kls Thu Jan 19 22:18:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Oldest B747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Jan 95 22:18:55 >Braniff Intl flew a B747-100 on it's Hawaii route ... A 747-127, to be precise. The Great Pumpkin, since it was all orange. Another one, which was built but not delivered, would have been The Great Watermelon, I think, as it was all green. I think it was actually painted before the order was cancelled. >It may possibly be the highest time B747 around. Anyone know for sure? It probably held that title for a while, though if it's been sitting a lot between owners it's probably fallen behind some other early 747s. Highest cycles probably goes to one of the Japanese domestic versions. Oldest, of course, goes to 747 #1, recently used by Boeing to flight test the PW4000 and RR Trent engines for the 777. The second 747, the former Clipper Juan T. Trippe, was flying for a South American outfit named Aeropostal for a while, or was supposed to, until they ran upon some hard times. -- 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 Jan 19 22:18:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: julian@gatwick.Geco-Prakla.slb.com Subject: Fate of civil VC10s Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Jan 95 22:18:56 The last civil VC10s flew in the early '80s. Were they all bought by the RAF to become tankers or military transports or did some end up elsewhere? I think BA and Air Malawi were the last to fly them with civilian pax. Anyone know their fate? From kls Thu Jan 19 22:18:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: about the 777 jet liner References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Jan 95 22:18:56 The "cables" that you saw are really tubes, for the trailing static sources. These are used in flight test to get a REALLY accurate measurement of the atmospheric static pressure. The idea is to measure the static pressure at the aircraft's altitude, but without the influence of the aircraft. In this way, the aircraft's airspeed and altimeter system can be calibrated and flight test data can be accurately reduced. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Thu Jan 19 22:18:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: scottk1204@aol.com (ScottK1204) Subject: 777 Question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: scottk1204@aol.com (ScottK1204) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Jan 95 22:18:56 A Boeing 777 came to Cheyenne on 1/17/95 for some high altitude testing and drew quite a crowd of interested observers including us in the control tower. Airplanes like that do not come to Cheyenne very often. Looking at the airplane I noticed that it seemed to have more dihedral than other low wing airliners. I know the reason for dihedral is for stability but can someone tell my why the 777 seems to have so much. Also we were wondering about the stall speed of the airplane (dirty and clean). When the airplane left he was airborne in about 4000 feet of runway. We were very impressed with the airplanes noise level (very quiet). SCOTTK1204@AOL.COM From kls Thu Jan 19 22:18:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: allard@iconz.co.nz Subject: Re: about the 777 jet liner. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: allard@iconz.co.nz Organization: Internet Company of New Zealand Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Jan 95 22:18:56 In , lgoodin@indirect.com (Richard L. Goodin) writes: >i noticed two >long wires trailing behind the plane. I think these are HF radio >antennas, but I am not shure. If they are HF radio antennas, then what >frequencys do they operate? They were probably not HF antennas. These days the HF antennas are in the structure of the fuselage. On the 747 for instance they are at the wingtips. A possible explanation is that the trailing wires were in place for some part of the flight testing program. Regards David Allard From kls Thu Jan 19 22:18:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ngupta@nano.mit.edu (Nitin Gupta) Subject: Re: Help on Concorde questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Jan 95 22:18:56 etlmhpl@etlxdmx.ericsson.se (Mukesh Patel 4531 ETL/XL/S MHPL TC ) writes: > 1. How much of the market is Concorde taking, if you're referring to the supersonic transport market, then all of it. > 2. What is the life expectancy of Concorde i.e. when it expires, BA expects to keep its last Concorde in the air until 2003 to 2005. > 4. How BA Concorde is doing compared to AF Concorde. BA claims to make money on Concorde. don't know about AF. seeing as how AF only has 2 scheduled flights/day and BA has 4, i would say BA is doing a better job keeping the fleet in the air. either that or AF is more interested in charter operations. don't know how many SSC BA and AF currently operate. blue skies --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nitin Gupta MIT NanoStructures Laboratory ngupta@nano.mit.edu NeXT Mail Encouraged 617 253 0722 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Thu Jan 19 22:18:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: swc@clem.uk.Sun.COM (Steve Cumming - Sun U.K.) Subject: Re: Limitations of autoland systems References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Jan 95 22:18:57 > The conditions were really bad. I had a great opportunity to view the > runway, and the fog varied in thickness, so that sometimes I could > quite clearly see aircraft on the runway, and sometimes couldn't even > see the outer engine of the 747. But I have a hard time translating > these impressions into what ATC call acceptable. I would be really > grateful if any of the professional aviation people here could give > more details on the categories of autoland, and the limitations that > they have. BA's 757 and 767's need 70m IRVR at touchdown. I don't know what their mid-point and stop-end requirements are. I believe that their autoland systems are certified to lower minima than 70m, it's BA's own operational procedures that stipulate 70m, presumably so that the aircraft can manoeuvre safely on the ground. -- Steve Cumming. Sun Microsystems. U.K. Answer Centre. Phone: +44 276 691974 From kls Thu Jan 19 22:18:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: expaero@aol.com (ExpAero) Subject: Re: Limitations of autoland systems References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: expaero@aol.com (ExpAero) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Jan 95 22:18:57 > I would be really grateful if any of the professional aviation people > here could give more details on the categories of autoland, and the > limitations that they have. Get yourself a copy of FAA Advisory Circulars 120-28C and 120-29. They describe the different reduced visibility landing categories, a means of achieving operational approval for each category, and required airplane equipment. Bear in mind that very few commercial aircraft (as a percent of the total) are equiped to land in the lower visibility conditions described in these AC's (CAT III). From kls Sun Jan 29 19:14:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dalden@legal.com Subject: Advisory Board Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:46 Organization: Legal Recourse(tm) Hello, I direct the Aviation Management degree program at Golden Gate University in San Francisco. The program is one of the few degree programs at Golden Gate that is operating without the benefit of an industry advisory board, and I feel that one should be organized this year. By this message, I am asking for recommendations of people who would be willing to offer their advice to the University at meetings held approximately 3 times per year, and who represent varied elements of the industry, e.g., airline operations, maintenance, airframe manufacturing, military, ATC and government/regulatory bodies. Golden Gate is studying ways to strengthen its Aviation Management program and needs feedback from industry regarding the skills and experiences that will be expected in graduates of its four year program as they enter the job market in the latter part of the decade. I would appreciate any recommendations (and volunteers) provided by readers of this group. Please e-mail replies to dalden@legal.com. I can mail a brochure and cover letter upon request. Thank you for your time and thoughts. David M. Alden, Director Aviation Management Degree School of Technology and Industry Golden Gate University 536 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2968 From kls Sun Jan 29 19:14:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: irksome@netcom.com (Ian Urquhart) Subject: Re: Boeing 737 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:46 Please excuse my ignorance but what is QNH and QFE? I hold a US commercial certificate and instrument rating and have not come across these terms. There is only one altimeter setting and that's it. Simple. Do Canadian pilots deal with this QNH and QFE business? Just interested. Ian Urquhart irksome@netcom.com From kls Sun Jan 29 19:14:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Colin Povey Subject: Re: Fate of civil VC10s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:46 writes: >The last civil VC10s flew in the early '80s. Were they all bought by the >RAF to become tankers or military transports or did some end up elsewhere? > >I think BA and Air Malawi were the last to fly them with civilian pax. > >Anyone know their fate? The RAF did buy up many of them to convert to tankers. I believe the Queens Flight still uses VC10's as well. I did a transatlantic on one, and liked the plane a lot. Very quiet. Colin Povey cpovey@delphi.com From kls Sun Jan 29 19:14:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: S.Tolboom@kub.nl (Stephan Tolboom) Subject: Re: Fate of civil VC10s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: S.Tolboom@kub.nl Organization: Tilburg University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:47 In Article "julian@gatwick.Geco-Prakla.slb.com" says: > > The last civil VC10s flew in the early '80s. Were they all bought by the > RAF to become tankers or military transports or did some end up elsewhere? If I am correct , alll VC-10's that are still flying serve with the RAF. Another similar question, are there still any Tridents in active service? CAAC still had them some time ago but I don't know if they are in active service at the moment. Stephan S.Tolboom@kub.nl From kls Sun Jan 29 19:14:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hazcam@ix.netcom.com (Juan Rivera) Subject: (Q) 777 Electronics architecture / Glass cockpit Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:47 I am currently involved in the systems design of a graphical user interface for a NASA research aircraft called SOFIA, (Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy). SOFIA will be a 747 flying laboratory with a 3-meter infrared telescope on board. I am looking for information on the Boeing 777 electronics systems architecture and glass cockpit implementation, as well as similar information on the F-22. I'd like to see if there is anything there that could be applied to my project. Any leads would be most appreciated! Juan Rivera - jrivera@cave.arc.nasa.gov NASA / Kuiper Airborne Observatory From kls Sun Jan 29 19:14:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bedluvil@iglou.iglou.com (B. E. Dankberg) Subject: Re: about the 777 jet liner References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IgLou Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:47 Regarding the wires trailing from the triple-7. In flight test we run what we call "trailing static cones" behind the airplane. The idea is to get your static pressure measurements from air that is some distance from the airplane and unaffected by airmass disturbances caused by the airplane. Hope this helps... Regards... Bruce D. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | b.dankberg | Opinions expressed here, mine. all mine | | bedluvil@iglou.com | If you don't like 'em, get yer own | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sun Jan 29 19:14:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ejstar@aol.com (EJstar) Subject: Re: 777 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ejstar@aol.com (EJstar) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:47 Dihedral also provides structural strength due to the caltilever effect of its geometry. With the 777, designed for the optimally efficient long-haul cruise possible, great span and wing area are is needed. Thus, a tremendous wing requiring great structural strength and flexibility. From kls Sun Jan 29 19:14:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: usai1035@servus12.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Ralf Sipple) Subject: Re: 777 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Comp.Center (RUS), U of Stuttgart, FRG Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:47 In article , scottk1204@aol.com (ScottK1204) writes: . Also we were > wondering about the stall speed of the airplane (dirty and clean). When > the airplane left he was airborne in about 4000 feet of runway. We were > very impressed with the airplanes noise level (very quiet). > SCOTTK1204@AOL.COM Consider that the aiplanes was supposed to be very light when performing these test flights. The equipment necessary for flight testing will be much less than the number of passengers the plane is designed for. -- Viele Gruesse / Best regards __|__ Ralf Sipple * FaVeVe * U Stuttgart --------(_)-------- Studierendenvertretung * Student Body O O O O From kls Sun Jan 29 19:14:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: swaka@leland.Stanford.EDU (Sean Wakayama) Subject: Re: 777 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:47 Besides stability, one reason for putting dihedral in a wing is to provide adequate clearance for the wing tips and engines should the aircraft land with some bank angle. The 777, with its very large diameter engines and large span probably has large amounts of dihedral because of this clearance issue. Extra dihedral gets the engines a little higher off the ground enabling the plane to meet clearance requirements with shorter, lighter landing gear. Sean Wakayama From kls Sun Jan 29 19:14:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: limerock@aol.com (Limerock) Subject: Re: 777 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: limerock@aol.com (Limerock) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:48 The apparently high dihedral is to provide nacelle/ground clearance. Much of the dihedral is actually wing shear (a variation of wing height with span) over the inboard wing. This is common (look at the DC-10 from the rear). Stall speeds of the 777 are similar to the 767 and other transports, around 130 to 140 kts for landing flaps. The 777 IS impressive, you'll not mistake it for a 767. Its BIG! From kls Sun Jan 29 19:14:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tmjackso@ix.netcom.com (Timothy Jackson) Subject: Re: Help on Concorde questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:48 In ngupta@nano.mit.edu (Nitin Gupta) writes: >BA claims to make money on Concorde. don't know about AF. seeing as how AF >only has 2 scheduled flights/day and BA has 4, i would say BA is doing a >better job keeping the fleet in the air. either that or AF is more >interested in charter operations. don't know how many SSC BA and AF >currently operate. I know that BA operates 7 Concorde aircraft; I had the opportunity to fly it twice before they pulled it from Dulles (our company worked out a Business Class upgrade deal). The only route they fly to the U.S. now is JFK-LHR daily, plus some selected flights to Bermuda and various charter flights. There was a very interesting article in the British Airlines magazine "BA Engineering" (or something like that) in October; talked about refurbishment that will add several years to the life of the aircraft. Tim. tmjackson@ix.netcom.com From kls Sun Jan 29 19:14:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: etxtebb@eos99.ericsson.se (Thomas Enblom) Subject: Re: Help on Concorde questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:48 Just to fill you in, Karl. According to a recent edition of Flight International BA has 7 SSC's and AF 6. I think I saw it in World Airliner Census in december. /Thomas ================================================================================ Thomas Enblom M.Sc. !\ /\ /\ /! Ericsson Telecom, Stockholm, Sweden ! \ / \ / \ / ! ALEA JACTA EST E-mail: etxtebb@eos.ericsson.se ! \/ \/ \/ ! From kls Sun Jan 29 19:14:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: etlmhpl@etlxdmx.ericsson.se (Mukesh Patel 4531 ETL/XL/S MHPL TC ) Subject: Help with Concorde info. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: etlmhpl@etlxdmx.ericsson.se Organization: Ericsson Telecommunications Ltd Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:48 Hi Please can you help me with the following questions, as I'm not sure where to find the info : 1. Then number of accidents Concorde has had since 1976, 2. and what's happening regarding Richard Branson (Virgin airlines), leasing of 2 Air France concordes. Thanks in advance From kls Sun Jan 29 19:14:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bjoern.brattland@fof.nft.no (Bjorn Brattland) Subject: Concorde economics Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:48 There has been quite a lot of discussion lately on rec.aviation.misc about the Concorde. The main controversy is whether Concorde operations are subsidized or not. Also, whether development costs have ever been covered by earnings. It might be reasonable to differentiate between British Airways and Air France in this case. Maybe the readers of this group can elaborate. -- Bjorn Brattland, avd F4B3, Norsk Forsvarsteknologi as. Postboks 1003, N-3601 Kongsberg, Norway Tlf: +47 327 39 802 E-Mail: bjb@fof.nft.no From kls Sun Jan 29 19:14:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Concorde economics References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:48 >There has been quite a lot of discussion lately on rec.aviation.misc about >the Concorde ... also, whether development costs have ever been covered >by earnings. I recall reading a few years ago that BA (and probably AF) had written off the acquisition costs of the Concorde. With that edge, they did turn a profit, but that was a big chunk of cash to write off, and the development costs were probably a bigger write-off yet. -- 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 Jan 29 19:14:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: polo@SEDS.LPL.Arizona.EDU (Tomasz Natkanski) Subject: Re: Configuration Warning Sys at T/O References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Arizona SEDS Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:48 Martin at Staffs University, UK (entmlf@cr41.staffs.ac.uk) wrote: : R. Solene wrote:- : >After all, didn't the cockpit crew of a Northwest MD-80 forget to : >extend the wing flaps (via mechanical actuation) just prior to take-off : >causing a crash and the deaths of some 160 passengers? : SURELY that can't happen any more! I thought that after the BA 747 crash : at Nairobi, in the 70's, full takeoff configuration warning systems : were mandatory, in all ICAO states? They would sound a siren if : anything was amiss (flaps, slats, speedbrakes, spoilers etc) when : the throttle was advanced for take-off? I was once on a Lufthansa flight from Warsaw to Frankfurt and the A 310 we flew in didn't extend flaps during take off. Nothing happened, we got airborn without any problems despite the fact that the plane was almost full. Does anyone know if this practice is common for A 310 and perhaps for other airliners? Thanx Tomasz Natkanski polo@seds.lpl.arizona.edu From kls Sun Jan 29 19:14:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: plisner@mti.mti.sgi.com (Peter Lisner) Subject: Long term storage Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:48 I was just reading the article in the latest issue of "Airliners" magazine, about storage of aircraft at a facility in the Mojave desert. In the article, they described how many airlines withdraw some of their older aircraft from service, and store them at these kinds of facilities. I can understand why this is done for older aircraft, but what didn't make sense was the fact that some current generation airliners were also stored in this way. The most striking example was a British Airways B767. Given that this aircraft is still in production, I don't understand why it was stored like this. One would think that it could be sold or leased instead of letting it sit idle. I'm sure there must be some good reason for this, but seeing my favourite airliner in mothballs was kind of sad. All opinions are mine, not SGI's. -- Peter Lisner e-mail: plisner@mti.sgi.com phone : (415)390-4419 Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA. From kls Sun Jan 29 19:14:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Long term storage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:48 >The most striking example was a British Airways B767. Given that this >aircraft is still in production, I don't understand why it was stored >like this. One would think that it could be sold or leased instead of >letting it sit idle. While the photo captions didn't say so, I'd guess they were 767-200s. As far as I can trace, BA only had 5 of those, and while quite new, their smaller size and oddball nature (to BA) relative to the 767-300 probably make them one of the first aircraft to be sidelined when the traffic levels are down. BA may not want to sell them in case they need them when business picks up, and the current abundance of extra aircraft probably doesn't make leasing a good option either. (The RR engines on the BA aircraft probably make them relatively undesireable lease candidates as well.) Beyond that, while the 767 is still in production, the vast bulk of new production is the larger -300 model, and the first -200s are not far from their 15th birthday. That's still not old, but they aren't young either, and with new -300s readily available, the market for a -200, especially an old one, is probably not great. -- 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 Jan 29 19:14:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: katie@physics2.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) Subject: Lockheed Constellation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Berkeley Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jan 95 19:14:49 I read a story set in the present where someone takes a Lockheed Constellation from London to New York. This is a huge anachronism, right? How long has it been since any Constellations were in service? (In the current issue of Airliners magazine there's an article on a midair collision between a Constellation and a DC-8 in 1960, which says "Subsequent to TWA placing 707s into service, the Connies were relegated to less prestigious routes such as Columbus to New York.") thanks, Katie katie@physics.berkeley.edu From kls Wed Feb 1 01:50:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bruno Wendler Subject: FOD to an engine of a Falcon 20 (fwd) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 01:50:19 Last week, at Le Bourget in Paris, a Falcon 20 crashed because of an FOD to his right engine (caused probably by birds in the area). It seems to me that this is still a problem which affects Airliners. Is there something which could be done concerning changes in the engine design in order to prevent that these situations become to dangerous ? Are there so many incidents to make worth a complete engine reconfiguration, at least for the heavies ? Greetings Bruno WENDLER Laboratoire d'Intelligence Artificielle EMAIL: wendler@lia.univ-savoie.fr From kls Wed Feb 1 01:51:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.conspiracy,sci.physics.electromag,rec.travel.air,sci.skeptic,sci.aeronautics,talk.rumors,sci.materials Path: bounce-back From: prophit@netaxs.com (christian hartleben) Subject: Hafnium & Critical Fusion conditions (was Mysterious plane crash) References: Organization: Netaxs Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Net Access - Philadelphia's Internet Connection Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 01:51:13 David Thomas (thomasdc@onramp.net) wrote: : I'm sure a lot of people remember the Indiana plane crash a while back where : the largest remnant of either human or plane was no larger than a softball. : Doesn't anyone find this the least bit odd? I mean this plane had engines : and people and chairs and wheels... : What *really* happened?? Here's an odd theory to go with your odd observation. Take: lightning, mysterious red & blue bolts discussed in the NYTimes. hafnium carbide (see below). Yields: one very nasty transition, resulting in an explosion in the engine, which reached a critical state as the sun's rays struck through the clouds. The hydraulics in the rudder did not cause the plane to roll; it was the torque of the explosion. Of course what do I know about the wreckage, the conditions during the crisis, the angle of the sunlight into the turbines... Find me the hafnium, & you'll know what happened to the "... engines and people and chairs and wheels." prophit --break-- From: jaybird@catt.ncsu.edu (Jay Cuthrell) Newsgroups: sci.materials Subject: Re: Indust. uses of Hafnium? Date: 24 Jan 1995 12:55:41 GMT Message-ID: <3g2tcd$6f1@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> References: <3g08urINNt41@oasys.dt.navy.mil> Gerald Katz (katz@oasys.dt.navy.mil) wrote: : In sci.materials, ADEVICE@ix.netcom.com (Robert Nelson) writes: : >Can anyone inform me of the industrial uses of high purity hafnium? Who : >uses this material and for what... : One major use of hafnium is coatings and alloys for gas turbine engines : for hot corrosion resistance. Although hafnium is used as only a small : % of the aloy, I would imagine they start out with pure hafnium to make : the alloys Hmmmm... pure Hafnium? Hafnium is more important in the form of a carbide. These materials are potential candidates for scram-jet engine components and rocket nozzels. The way in which the carbon is introduced to the reaction to form Hafnium carbide can also serve to increase the porosity (i.e. lower the desity) making for a more aerospace quality material. I think that the Russians were were playing with Hafnium carbides at the turn of the century... this is not a "new" material... Latra, Jay --break-- From kls Wed Feb 1 02:16:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: prl3546@aw101.iasl.ca.boeing.com (Philip R. Lindberg) Subject: Re: 777 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplanes Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 02:16:19 usai1035@servus12.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Ralf Sipple) writes: >In article , scottk1204@aol.com (ScottK1204) writes: >. Also we were >> wondering about the stall speed of the airplane (dirty and clean). When >> the airplane left he was airborne in about 4000 feet of runway. [...] >Consider that the aiplanes was supposed to be very light when performing >these test flights. The equipment necessary for flight testing will be >much less than the number of passengers the plane is designed for. This is not necessarily the case. Much of flight test is done at both ends of the envelope. Large barrels of water are used to simulate a full airplane. It's just as possible (though unlikely in this case) that the airplane was at max. weight. Phil | Phil Lindberg "America is great because she is morally good, and | | if America ceases to be good America will cease to| | be great." Alexis de Tocqueville | | Disclaimer: I don't speak for my employer (French Historian) | From kls Wed Feb 1 02:16:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: danjet@aol.com (DANJET) Subject: Re: 777 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: danjet@aol.com (DANJET) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 02:16:19 >Stall speeds of the 777 are similar to the 767 and other >transports, around 130 to 140 kts for landing flaps. Is this correct? When I follow a 767/757 into MDW in our little GIV he slows way back to our lnding speed of max138 full flaps (1.3vso) From kls Wed Feb 1 02:16:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: Christopher Davis Subject: AW&ST Automated Cockpits Special Report (Jan. 30, 1995) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 02:16:20 The 1995/01/30 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology contains the first part (of two) of a special report on cockpit automation and pilot-computer interface problems. Since this has been a perennial topic of discussion on sci.aeronautics.airliners, rec.travel.air, and RISKS, the following summaries and notable points may be of interest. [The original articles are, as usual for AW&ST, quite interesting, and I highly recommend interested readers seek them out. --ckd] The first article is "Accidents Direct Focus on Cockpit Automation". Despite what some posters may think, the article is not solely focused on Airbus Industrie products ;-) - "A top Airbus official [senior VP of engineering Bernard Ziegler] acknowledged that man-machine interface has been a factor in one recent accident [Nagoya A300-600 crash] and two incidents [Interflug A310 at Moscow and Tarom A310-300 at Orly]." - "Ziegler explained that Airbus never expected both the pilot and autopilot to be flying the airplane at the same time." - Ohio State University human factors researchers are focusing on "mode confusion" as a cause of problems. [Apparently the cockpit designers have never bothered to read Donald Norman's books. --ckd] - Kenneth Smart, chief inspector of air accidents in Great Britain, says the Kegworth 737-400 crash (the "M1" crash) was due to badly designed "glass cockpit" engine displays. - The three manufacturers' approaches to FBW are also contrasted; where Airbus has a "hard" flight envelope, Boeing's 777 FBW system will allow the pilot to bypass the "soft" limits by applying additional force to the controls. (McDD's MD-11 system is similar to Boeing's.) [This is the "if I HAVE to bend the plane, LET ME BEND IT" approach. Past discussion of FBW on comp.risks has specifically mentioned the case where exceeding limits may be necessary to avoid a crash. --ckd] The second article, "Incidents Reveal Mode Confusion," discusses an MIT study that used anonymous Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) data to find that 74% of 184 mode awareness incidents involved vertical navigation, while only 26% were related to horizontal navigation. The third article, "Dramatic Incidents Highlight Mode Problems in Cockpits," covers several recent accidents and incidents (China Air Lines A300-600R, Nagoya; Airbus Industrie A330, Toulouse; Tarom A310, Orly) and also includes flight recorder data graphs from the Orly incident as well as a table of incidents and accidents with a number of aircraft types from all three manufacturers. The table includes the well-known Airbus accidents (Warsaw, Bangalore, Strasbourg, Habsheim, Nagoya, and Toulouse) as well as a number of other incidents. The fourth article, "Modern Cockpit Complexity Challenges Pilot Interfaces," suggests that the proliferation of modes, especially with automatic transitions from one mode to another, has caused safety problems and should be avoided. The fifth article, "NTSB: Mode Confusion Poses Safety Threat," is summarized quite well by the title. The sixth article, "Airbus Seeks to Keep Pilot, New Technology in Harmony," is primarily composed of quotes from Airbus Industrie officials, though it also discusses the psychological impact and causative factors of the A330 crash. The seventh and final (of this first part) article, "Certification Officials Grapple With Flight Deck Complexity," discusses the issues (and difficulties) inherent in certifying these designs as well as covering certification officials' views of different approaches to automation. -- Christopher Davis, From kls Wed Feb 1 02:16:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: katie@physics2.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) Subject: Re: Long term storage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Berkeley Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 02:16:20 Karl Swartz wrote: [British Airways 767s stored in Mojave Desert] >(The RR engines on the BA aircraft probably make them relatively >undesireable lease candidates as well.) What is undesireable about the Rolls Royce engines? Katie katie@physics.berkeley.edu From kls Wed Feb 1 02:16:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Long term storage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 02:16:20 >What is undesireable about the Rolls Royce engines? It's not so much that the RR engines are undesireable as that a 767 equipped with them is rather an oddball, which as another poster points out tends to increase maintenance and spares costs, making for a less desireable aircraft. As for the engines themselves, the RB.211 is a very respectable engine. It's worth noting that RR has been the clear winner on the 757, with about two-thirds of the 757s having RR RB.211 engines (the remainder have P&W PW2000s). Counting by customers, RR is probably even further ahead, since a few big customers (Delta, United, and Northwest) account for most of the PW2000 installations. Notable, United Parcel Service started with the PW2000 but has switched to RR for later 757 orders. -- 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 Feb 1 02:16:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jackson@merlion.singnet.com.sg Subject: Re: Long term storage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 02:16:20 Karl Swartz is undoubtably correct with regard to the BA 767. The RR- engined aircraft is not going to be popular with many airlines. The same will apply to the RR-engined 747-400 aircraft in the near future. Only a few airlines operate this version and therefore maintenance and spares become a major factor in the second-hand market. From kls Wed Feb 1 02:16:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: danjet@aol.com (DANJET) Subject: crew duty on long hauls Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: danjet@aol.com (DANJET) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 02:16:20 As a corporate pilot we may fly to India, Moscow, Oman and points in between from Chicago with only fuel stops. It's not fun after 18- 24 hours of duty time and 2 or 3 pilots on deck. I am interested in company policies/research studies on crew rest during flight with augmented crews, additional pilots at intermeadiate stops etc... Thank you in advance. Dan McDaniel From kls Wed Feb 1 02:16:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Lockheed Constellation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 02:16:20 In article katie@physics2.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) writes: I read a story set in the present where someone takes a Lockheed Constellation from London to New York. This is a huge anachronism, right? How long has it been since any Constellations were in service? (In the current issue of Airliners magazine there's an article on a midair collision between a Constellation and a DC-8 in 1960, which says "Subsequent to TWA placing 707s into service, the Connies were relegated to less prestigious routes such as Columbus to New York.") ---- Regarding TWA's use of Constellations over the North Atlantic, they stopped flying the 1049 Super G model over the Atlantic by about 1962. I believe that the 1649 model may have been used after that, but there were few of these built. TWA flew the last Connie pax flight on April 6, 1967. The last scheduled passenger Connie flight on a US airline was Western Airlines from Juneau to Fairbanks, Alaska, on 11/26/68. Given the superior performance of jets, I doubt any survived past the late 60's on any passenger transatlantic route by any airline. The above information is from: Stringfellow & Bowers, _The_Lockheed_Constellation_, Motorbooks International, Osceola, WI, 1992. From kls Wed Feb 1 02:16:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: Lockheed Constellation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISFSI Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 02:16:20 In article , katie@physics2.berkeley.edu says... >I read a story set in the present where someone takes a Lockheed >Constellation from London to New York. This is a huge anachronism, >right? How long has it been since any Constellations were in service? Actually there are a few Connies in service, mainly in the Carribean, as freighters; in addition, there are several that are being restored or have been recently, including one that will be flying with Qantas colours in Australia. From kls Wed Feb 1 02:16:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) Subject: Re: Lockheed Constellation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Stanford University, Dept. of Aero/Astro Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 02:16:20 In article , katie@physics2.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) wrote: > I read a story set in the present where someone takes a Lockheed > Constellation from London to New York. This is a huge anachronism, > right? How long has it been since any Constellations were in service? > (In the current issue of Airliners magazine there's an article on a > midair collision between a Constellation and a DC-8 in 1960, which says > "Subsequent to TWA placing 707s into service, the Connies were > relegated to less prestigious routes such as Columbus to New York.") The Constellations, DC-6's and DC-7's were relegated to shorter routes by the early 1960's. Some were converted to cargo service. The DC-6's lasted longer because they had lower operating costs and 30 % of them were still in service in the mid-70's, as cargo planes, with the air forces, government agencies, as fire-fighting tankers. By then all but 4 Super-Constellations had been retired. -- Richard Shevell Email: shevell@leland.stanford.edu From kls Wed Feb 1 02:16:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: corpilot@aol.com (Corpilot) Subject: Re: Lockheed Constellation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: corpilot@aol.com (Corpilot) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 02:16:21 There are presently, as far as I'm aware, 3 or 4 Connies in the U.S. that are flying - all museum pieces, restored by enthusiast groups. Growing up in Columbus, I remember the last of the Connies flying on a regular basis (TWA) mostly CMH to PIT, DAY, ORD, LGA etc. Corpilot From kls Wed Feb 1 02:16:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dey@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Michael E. Dey) Subject: Re: Lockheed Constellation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 02:16:21 In article , Katie Schwarz wrote: >I read a story set in the present where someone takes a Lockheed >Constellation from London to New York. This is a huge anachronism, >right? How long has it been since any Constellations were in service? What do you mean by 'in service'? Certainly no U.S./European airlines use Constellations, but there are at least a couple still flying, and perhaps the people in the story chartered a Connie for that glamorous feel of yesteryear (although it would take quite a bit longer to go from London to New York in one than in a 747)! You can even fly a Constellation yourself through a course which I believe is offered in Arizona, but I forget the name of the company or people who run it. -- Michael Dey School of Engineering and Applied Scince National Center for University of Colorado at Boulder Atmospheric Research dey@rintintin.colorado.edu dey@ncar.ucar.edu From kls Wed Feb 1 02:16:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) Subject: Re: Boeing 737 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 02:16:21 In article irksome@netcom.com (Ian Urquhart) writes: Please excuse my ignorance but what is QNH and QFE? I hold a US commercial certificate and instrument rating and have not come across these terms. There is only one altimeter setting and that's it. Simple. Do Canadian pilots deal with this QNH and QFE business? Just interested. QNH is what is called "altimeter setting" in the US. "QNH" is actually the term that is used, at least in Europe, for this information. To be precise, QNH is defined as the altimeter setting that will make the altimeter show the airport elevation on the ground at the airport. QFE is the actual air pressure at the airport, so that an altimeter with a QFE setting will (except for temperature effects) show the altitude over the airport. Formally, QFE is the altimeter setting that will make the altimeter show zero when on the ground at the airport. Or, to be precise, to make the altimeter show its own height over the "QFE datum". The QFE datum is typically the official airport elevation, but at least when precision approaches are being made, it should be the threshold elevation of the landing runway. Note that the difference between QFE and QNH is fixed for any particular QFE datum, so the QNH is computed by simply measuring the air pressure at the airport (QFE) and adding the fixed offset. There is also a third pressure code that is used in meteorological contexts, namely QFF. QFF is, informally, the pressure that would have been measured if the measuring station was located at sea level. QFF is different from QNH, because it is not computed by adding a fixed offset to the QFE, but an offset varying with air temperature. The air pressure which is given by isobars on meteorological charts is QFF. Sometimes the code QNE is also used. This is simply the standard setting - 1013.23 hPa (don't know what it is in inches of mercury). -- 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 Wed Feb 1 02:16:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "P.J. Bunyon" Subject: Re: Boeing 737 crash Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 02:16:21 On 29 Jan 1995, Ian Urquhart wrote: > Please excuse my ignorance but what is QNH and QFE? I hold a US > commercial certificate and instrument rating and have not come across > these terms. There is only one altimeter setting and that's it. > Simple. Do Canadian pilots deal with this QNH and QFE business? > Just interested. QFE is the atmospheric pressure at AERODROME level. With this set, the altimeter shows your HEIGHT above the aerodrome. QNH is the atmospheric pressure at MEAN SEA LEVEL. With this set, the altimeter shows your ALTITUDE above MEAN SEA LEVEL. On a normal flight, you would take off with QNH set as this would give your altitude above sea level. The exception to this is if you're staying in the circuit, when your height above the aerodrome is more important. When approaching your destination aerodrome, if flying visually, you would change to the QFE when the field was in sight and then let down. Hope this helps, Pete. From kls Wed Feb 1 02:16:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cjd@mround.british-telecom.co.uk (Chris Durrant) Subject: Re: Boeing 737 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: cjd@mround.british-telecom.co.uk Organization: BT Labs Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 02:16:21 Ian Urquhart wrote; >Please excuse my ignorance but what is QNH and QFE? I hold a US >commercial certificate and instrument rating and have not come across >these terms. There is only one altimeter setting and that's it. >Simple. Do Canadian pilots deal with this QNH and QFE business? >Just interested. QNH and QFE are relics of the old 'Q' code used as abbreviations in the days of wireless telegraphy (morse code). QNH is airfield or area pressure adjusted to a sea-level equivilant QFE is actual pressure at the airfield reference point Civil approaches may be flown either on QNH throughout with due allowance being made for threshold elevation or initially on QNH but changed to QFE inside the final approach fix (typically). Out of interest other survivors in common use in the UK include; QNE is standard pressure of 1013.25 mb QSY is 'I am changing frequency to' QDR is magnetic bearing from (radial) QTE is true bearing from QUJ is true bearing to QDM is magnetic bearing to All I can think of right now Chris (UK CPL) -- Chris Durrant Email: cjd@mround.bt.co.uk BT Laboratories durrant_c_j@bt-web.bt.co.uk Martlesham Heath Ipswich UK From kls Wed Feb 1 02:16:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nolanm@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Michael Nolan) Subject: Re: Boeing 737 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 02:16:21 irksome@netcom.com (Ian Urquhart) writes: >Please excuse my ignorance but what is QNH and QFE? I hold a US >commercial certificate and instrument rating and have not come across >these terms. There is only one altimeter setting and that's it. >Simple. Do Canadian pilots deal with this QNH and QFE business? Exuse my butting in, but American Airlines in particular uses both settings. Two altimeters are set to read field elevation upon landing, but the third altimeter is always set to read 0 feet upon landing. This supposedly makes it easier to tell at a glance how high you really are above the ground. American claims it works since they claim never to have had an accident in recent years where a pilot ducked below minima. Personally, I think it's a great idea. mike...... From kls Wed Feb 1 02:16:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jackson@merlion.singnet.com.sg Subject: Re: Configuration Warning Sys at T/O References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 02:16:21 Note: "the BA crash at Nairobi" is incorrect. It was Lufthansa who suffered that unfortunate accident. Peter Jackson (jackson@singnet.com.sg) From kls Wed Feb 1 08:24:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ryan75@PrimeNet.Com (Ryan Michael Stevens) Subject: Re: Long term storage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Primenet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 08:24:37 In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>The most striking example was a British Airways B767. Given that this >>aircraft is still in production, I don't understand why it was stored >>like this. One would think that it could be sold or leased instead of >>letting it sit idle. >While the photo captions didn't say so, I'd guess they were 767-200s. >As far as I can trace, BA only had 5 of those, and while quite new, >their smaller size and oddball nature (to BA) relative to the 767-300 >probably make them one of the first aircraft to be sidelined when the >traffic levels are down. BA may not want to sell them in case they >need them when business picks up, and the current abundance of extra >aircraft probably doesn't make leasing a good option either. (The RR >engines on the BA aircraft probably make them relatively undesireable >lease candidates as well.) >From what I recall of my last visit to Mojave, these were indeed the RR powered -300 models. The -200s that have been spotted in BA livery are CF6 powered variants from USAir, some of which are leased and some owned. These aircraft are scheduled to be sold (or returned to lessors) by USAir in a fleet rationalization move, along with all 727s and some 737s. On a somewhat ironic note, these aircraft are at the same storage area that also hold several ex-BA L-1011s. These L-1011s were used as partial payment to Boeing towards the purchase of previously mention 767-300s, a sort of trade in, if you will... Recently, RR did get another customer for the RB-211H as a powerplant for the 767. Flight International notes that China Yunnan have ordered three RR-powered 767-300s, with deliveries to start in May 1996. It seems that this was a change of order from a previously unannounced order for three 757s, and was prompted by the need for a widebody aircraft. There was also the matter of paying penalties to both Boeing and Rolls Royce, particularly in the event they switched to another manufacturer's product (in this case, the A300-600 was in the running for this order). Best regards, Ryan Stevens From kls Wed Feb 1 08:24:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) Subject: Re: Configuration Warning Sys at T/O References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Stanford University, Dept. of Aero/Astro Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 08:24:37 In article , polo@SEDS.LPL.Arizona.EDU (Tomasz Natkanski) wrote: > Martin at Staffs University, UK (entmlf@cr41.staffs.ac.uk) wrote: > : R. Solene wrote:- > > : >After all, didn't the cockpit crew of a Northwest MD-80 forget to > : >extend the wing flaps (via mechanical actuation) just prior to take-off > : >causing a crash and the deaths of some 160 passengers? > > : SURELY that can't happen any more! I thought that after the BA 747 crash > : at Nairobi, in the 70's, full takeoff configuration warning systems > : were mandatory, in all ICAO states? They would sound a siren if > : anything was amiss (flaps, slats, speedbrakes, spoilers etc) when > : the throttle was advanced for take-off? The Northwest MD-80 had a previous flight that day with a prolonged taxi after landing. Every time they had to advance the throttle to taxi further, the siren (or horn) sounded. Annoyed, one of the pilots reached up and pulled the flaps-up warning circuit breaker, and forgot to reset it later. On the subsequent takeoff (I do not know if it was the same crew) a tower communication interrupted the check list routine just before the flap setting item. When the crew got back to the check list, they returned too far down the list and missed the flaps. And the warning horn had been disabled. As with most accidents a double failure plus fate was responsible. The horn check had been a checklist item only for the first flight of the day. I believe that after this accident Northwest added the horn to the standard pre-takeoff list. > I was once on a Lufthansa flight from Warsaw to Frankfurt and the A 310 > we flew in didn't extend flaps during take off. Nothing happened, we got > airborn without any problems despite the fact that the plane was almost full. > Does anyone know if this practice is common for A 310 and perhaps for > other airliners? Many twin engine transports with leading edge slats at high takeoff weights use small or zero flap angle for takeoff. The slat is a powerful tool for increasing the maximum lift coefficient, and thereby reducing the stall speed, all by itself. -- Richard Shevell Email: shevell@leland.stanford.edu From kls Wed Feb 1 08:24:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.products Path: bounce-back From: 91406723@brt.deakin.edu.au Subject: Help - GPWS Contact Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deakin University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 08:24:37 David Palmer 91406723@brt.deakin.edu.au Melbourne Australia From kls Wed Feb 1 08:24:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark.Brown@dcs.qmw.ac.uk Subject: Re: FOD to an engine of a Falcon 20 (fwd) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 08:24:37 > Last week, at Le Bourget in Paris, a Falcon 20 crashed because of an FOD > to his right engine (caused probably by birds in the area). > > It seems to me that this is still a problem which affects Airliners. > > Is there something which could be done concerning changes in the engine > design in order to prevent that these situations become to dangerous ? > Are there so many incidents to make worth a complete engine > reconfiguration, at least for the heavies ? I think this is less of a problem with "heavies" because they have a large bypass duct. The gas generator core intake only presents a small part of the total frontal area of, say, an RB211 or a CF6, and the engines are designed that the flow takes objects into the bypass duct instead of through the core. However, in a small engine like on the Falcon, the proportion of the area occupied by the gas generator intake is larger and the bypass duct smaller, so greater chance of damage due to FOD. Mark. -- Mark A. Brown; Dept. of Computer Science; QMW College (University of London); Mile End Road; London E1 4NS; UK. Tel: +44 (71) 975 5220. From kls Wed Feb 1 08:24:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mostafa.Amin@mailbox.uq.oz.au Subject: Request Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Mechanical Engineering Department QLD Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 08:24:38 Hello I need the standard static Pressure distribution graph for a NACA 0012 Aerofoil to compare my experimental results with them. Any information regarding this will be gratefully recieved. My e-mail address : amin@sun.mech.uq.oz.au phone number (Australia) : (07) 3654067 (07) 8708074 Regrads Amin From kls Wed Feb 1 08:24:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: markymoe@aol.com (MarkyMoe) Subject: Re: Configuration Warning Sys at T/O References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: markymoe@aol.com (MarkyMoe) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Feb 95 08:24:38 If the circuit breaker to the CAWS system is pulled, as the Northwest crew had done, this could happen. The crew had pulled it because Northwest's operating procedures did not allow aircraft to taxi with flaps/slats extended. Therefore, every time the crew advanced the throttles to move, they got the "flaps" & "slats" takeoff warning from the CAWS system. They pulled the breaker, but got distracted during the takeoff checklist (stew in cockpit). The rest is history. Let me know if this answers your question. Mark == Mark Mehren mehren@aludra.usc.edu From kls Fri Feb 3 01:47:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: muss@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () Subject: Airframe Fatigue Monitoring Systems Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 01:47:28 Organization: Edmonton Freenet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada I am interested in learning how the commercial airline industry and military monitor and manage fatigue in airframes. Is it an on-going procedure (while airborne) or is it done on the ground at pre-determined intervals? Thanking you in advance.... Bill Musselman From kls Fri Feb 3 01:47:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Brett Wakeman Subject: Aging Aircraft literature Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 01:47:28 Organization: National Research Council, Canada Hi, I was wondering if anyone could direct me to some literature on the subject of aging aircraft. I am currently embarking on a project involving multiple site cracking and corrosion in aircraft fuselage lap joints (remember Aloha Airlines B-737 crash - April 1988 ?). Any information would be appreciated. Brett Wakeman (bw@m14challenge.iar.nrc.ca) Institute for Aerospace Research National Research Council Ottawa, Ontario, Canada From kls Fri Feb 3 01:47:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lesbell@ibm.net (Les Bell) Subject: Re: British Airways 747's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: lesbell@ibm.net Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 01:47:28 In , chuanga@iia.org (Andrew Chuang) writes: >the GE90 has yet to be certified (or, as a British would say, certificated). Just FYI: "To "certify" is to make a formal declaration in writing. To "certificate" (the verb) is to issue a certificate, licence or similar document. Thus an aircraft, in terms of its acceptance by a regulatory authority for in-service use, is certificated rather than certified." --- From the Australian CAA "Foreign First-of-type Aircraft Introduction Procedures" --- Les -- | Les Bell Tel: +61 2 953 7619 | | lesbell@ibm.net Fax: +61 2 953 0602 | | lesbell@syd.interconnect.com.au PO Box 297 | | lesbell@acslink.net.au Neutral Bay NSW 2089 | | CIS: 71210,104 Australia | From kls Fri Feb 3 01:47:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ameehan@nmrc.ucc.ie (Alan Meehan) Subject: Re: Oldest B747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: National Microelectronics Research Centre, Ireland. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 01:47:28 John Dill (ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote: : Braniff Intl flew a B747-100 on it's Hawaii route and then Houston : to London. I believe the aircraft managed an incredible 15 hour per day : usage during it's years with Branniff. It was later sold to a charter : outfit I think, and now sits forlornly, stripped of engines, at an : airport in New York. : It may possibly be the highest time B747 around. Anyone know for sure? I have read that Sabena's 747-129 OO-SGA was the highest-time 747 on its retirement last year. The big orange went to Tower Air and was stored at JFK where I saw it in June 1992. I believe it has been scrapped, although I'm not sure of this. From kls Fri Feb 3 01:47:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Oldest B747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 01:47:28 A quick note - last night I drove past Boeing Field and noted that the #1 747 is up in the Boeing area again, after having been down in the Museum of Fright's (er.. Flight) parking area for a while. I would guess that they are getting it ready to fly the Trent that will go on the 777 eventually. BTW - the Boeing News recently had pictures of the first BA 777 (and first GE90 777) coming out of the paint shop. Should fly soon. -- 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 Feb 3 01:47:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rfphilpo@ra.lib.ucalgary.ca (Robin Frederick Philpotts) Subject: What happened to structural failures? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Calgary Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 01:47:28 Canadian Airlines is one of two major airlines in Canada and the backbone of there fleet are about 30 Boeing 737-200's that are on average 20 years old. After the accident involving a similar Aloha Airlines flight in Hawaii involving the structural failure of their fuselage it was forecast that disaster would strike all similar aircraft. Out of caution I switched flying Canadian and started flying on Air Canada which have amuch more modern fleet consisting mainly of A320's. It turns out that this caution was wrong as the 737's are still flying safe and sound. With such venerable aircraft, such as the 737-200, flying heavily all over the world shouldn't there be concern for structural safety? Or can we thank modern inspection techniques for providing safety? Rob Philpotts From kls Fri Feb 3 01:47:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: olesen@metronet.com (Eric Olesen) Subject: Re: [Q] normal practice if an engine fail @ t.o.? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Texas Metronet, Internet for the Individual 214-705-2901 (info) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 01:47:29 Peter J. Coe (petercoe@netcom.com) wrote: : The second was an aborted take off at Harare in a 747, which in many ways was : far more dramatic. That was a problem with the number 4 engine just not : coming up to speed. I have no idea how close we were to V1 (the speed at : which the plane cannot safely abort take-off), but we were certainly clocking : along. More curious with that one, was as there was not a lot of traffic at : that airport, the pilot was allowed to stay on the runway whilst he tried : reving the engine. We must have been there for the best part of an hour : before we returned to the terminal. I think that the real reason you stayed on the runway (or taxiway) was the brakes... on an aborted takeoff, you run the risk of overheating the brakes from the high speed, and more importantly, blowing tires from the exposure to the heat from the brakes... The norm that I've seen is to leave the aircraft parked for at least 30 minutes to allow the pads to cool down. Then the aircraft either returns on its own or is towed back to the terminal. E -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Eric Olesen | olesen@metronet.com | Oskee-Wow-Wow! | | "Views expressed here do not represent the airline that I work for! | ---------------------PeoplExpress...Gone But Not Forgotten------------------- From kls Fri Feb 3 01:47:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: perlman@winnie.fit.edu (Marshal Perlman) Subject: Captain Al Haynes To Speak at the Florida Institute of Technology Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: School of Aeronautics/Florida Tech Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 01:47:29 The School of Aeronautics at the Florida Institute of Technology (in Melbourne, Florida) will be hosting an aviation safety seminar given by Captain Al Haynes of the United Airlines flight 232 crew. The seminar, sponsored by Alpha Eta Rho, will be held in the Gleason Auditorium on the University's main campus at 1930 [7:30 PM] on Tuesday February 7, 1995. Reservations are not required, but a courtesy call to the School of Aeronautics at (407) 768-8000 extension #8120 would help determine how much seating is needed. All are welcome. See you there! Marshal Perlman (perlman@fit.edu) Dr. Nat Villaire (villaire@fit.edu) >>Directions<< #1 VIA I-95 Take I-95 (North or South, depends where you are coming from) to EXIT #71 (US 192). Proceed eastbound on US 192 for approximately 5 miles. You will pass AIRPORT ROAD (and a golf course on your right). The NEXT light is COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. Make a RIGHT here and proceed 1/2 mile. The CAMPUS will be on your left with parking to your right. #2 VIA US1 Take US1 (North or South, depends where you are coming from) to US 192. Proceed westbound on US 192 for approximately 2 miles. You will pass BABCOCK STREET. The NEXT light is COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. Make a LEFT here and proceed 1/2 mile. The CAMPUS will be on your left with parking to your right. #3 VIA MLB (Melbourne International Airport) Land at Melbourne International Airport and be sure to come to our FBO, F.I.T. Aviation. The service desk people will tell you how to get here. F.I.T. UNICOM is 122.95 MHz =8) >>Maps << * If you have access to the World Wide Web, check out this URL to get a campus map showing you were to go once you get here: http://www.fit.edu/~perlman * This lame ASCII map I made... [goes w/ the directions above] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |*I-95 MLB Airport -> X |*Airport Road | ^N^ | | | | ^O^ | | | | ^R^ | | | | ^T^ | | *US 192 [Exit 71] | | ^H^ | |-------------------------|--------|-----------------------|-----------| | [Golf Course] | | | | |*Country Club Road |*Babcock |*US1 | | | Street | | | | | | | X <- Campus | | |*I-95 | | | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- Marshal Perlman Internet/MIME: perlman@fit.edu Florida Institute of Technology ICBM Mail: 28.06N 80.38W IRC: Squawk School of Aeronautics FAA: Commercial/Instrument/ASEL/AMEL Melbourne, Florida 32901-6988 Member: AOPA/AAAE/Goodyear Blimp Club Telephone: (407) 455-4809 URL: http://sci-ed.fit.edu/~perlman ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From kls Fri Feb 3 01:47:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia.org (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: FOD to an engine of a Falcon 20 (fwd) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 01:47:29 Bruno Wendler (wendler@lia.univ-savoie.fr) wrote: : Last week, at Le Bourget in Paris, a Falcon 20 crashed because of an FOD : to his right engine (caused probably by birds in the area). : It seems to me that this is still a problem which affects Airliners. : Is there something which could be done concerning changes in the engine : design in order to prevent that these situations become to dangerous ? For each engine certification, an engine must pass two major tests related to FOD (Foreign Object Damage). The following is a brief list of tests required for the B777 engines (PW4084, GE90, and Trent 800). The tests required for different sizes of engines will be different. 1. Bird ingestion test: a. 4 2.5lb birds in 1 second, the engine must: * not lose more than 25% of the thrust * be operating for another 20 minutes after the strike b. 1 8lb bird, the engine must: * contain any fragments * no excess load * be able to shutdown * not start a fire 2. Blade-off test: the fan case must be able to contain all fragments in a blade-off test. -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Fri Feb 3 11:16:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: 777 rapid decompression incident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 11:16:37 The Seattle local TV stations have been reporting an incident this afternoon involving a 777. According to those reports the 777 (WA002, the second built) had to land in an emergency at Boeing field after experiencing decompression problems at 43,000 feet. Three people were transported to the hospital. One was released and the other two were transferred to another hospital equipped with decompression chambers. Apparently there were between 10 and 20 people on board including FAA personnel. The 777 was performing a planned test using battery power only when the decompression occurred. Ken Higgins, Boeing's Flight Test Director, suspects a faulty air conditioning duct, but didn't say that definitively. Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud bcstec!bcsaic!Stephen.Nicoud This message does not represent the views of The Boeing Company. I am not a spokesperson for The Boeing Company. All rights reserved. From kls Fri Feb 3 11:16:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: flirman@NetVision.net.il (flirman) Subject: MIDEAST AVIATION INFO Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 11:16:37 Organization: FRONT LINE INFORMATION RESOURCES LTD. "THE TEL AVIV COMMERCIAL AVIATION REPORT" seeks information or announcements pertaining to commercial aviation in the burgeoning markets of Middle East. Article or interviw queries from journalists are also welcomed. TACAR is a new, monthly business newsletter on commercial aviation -related news, policy developments, aviation agreements, airport construction, airline industry developments, maintance and aerospace industry news, etc., focusing on the Israeli and Mideast markets. Contact us via Internet at: flirman@netvision.net.il. Or by mail at: The Tel Aviv Commercial Aviation Report, c/o. Front Line Information Resources Ltd., P.O. Box 22051, Tel Aviv, 61223, Israel Phone: 972-3-510-3952 Or in the USA at our Washington Bureau via fax (301) 649-6810. Thanks, and happy landings. From kls Fri Feb 3 11:16:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: "P.J. Bunyon" Subject: British Airways pilot sponsership scheme Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: poster Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 11:16:37 I realise that this probably isn't the best list to post this to but it's only short, and I know that there are many people in the UK who subscribe. Basically, does anyone (working for BA or not) know the current situation of BA's policy on pilot sponsership. I've written, 'phoned on many occasions and the answer has always been 'well, we're not recruiting at the moment'. I've been contacting them from time to time now for nearly 5 years but the reply is always the same..... I realise that commercial pilot positions have been difficult to come by because of the recession etc... but would appreciate any information on the subject. Also, does anyone know if any other UK based airline run a similar scheme - I don't believe they do but tell me I'm wrong! Thanks very much, Pete. P.S. If there is a better list to which I can direct my questions, please e-mail me with the address. -- Peter Bunyon, Tel : (0191) 2811238 Dept. of Physics, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, England. From kls Fri Feb 3 11:16:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia.org (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Long term storage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 11:16:37 Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : While the photo captions didn't say so, I'd guess they were 767-200s. : As far as I can trace, BA only had 5 of those, and while quite new, : their smaller size and oddball nature (to BA) relative to the 767-300 : probably make them one of the first aircraft to be sidelined when the : traffic levels are down. This is probably not true. BA's first B767 was delivered in 89, it was a -300ER. BA's first -200ER was delivered around 92. If BA has 5 -200s, that means they have received 2 new -200s in 1994. Then, I doubt the -200s are in long term storage. -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Fri Feb 3 11:16:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Long term storage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 11:16:37 >Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: >: While the photo captions didn't say so, I'd guess they were 767-200s. >: As far as I can trace, BA only had 5 of those, and while quite new, >This is probably not true. BA's first B767 was delivered in 89, it was >a -300ER. BA's first -200ER was delivered around 92 ... It's been a *long* two weeks -- an intruder got into one of our systems at work and my team has been working 12-18 hour days beefing up security now that people are willing to devote the resources to it. Hazy eyes and mind saw three groups, 757-236 757-236(ER) 767-336(ER) each with only slightly different RB.211-series engines and different registration series and saw 767s in the second group. Looking a bit more carefully, I don't see *any* 767-200s in BA's fleet, just -300s. (I'm not counting the USAir ones, which are still USAir planes.) -- 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 Feb 3 11:16:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia.org (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Long term storage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 11:16:38 Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : >What is undesireable about the Rolls Royce engines? : It's not so much that the RR engines are undesireable as that a 767 : equipped with them is rather an oddball, which as another poster : points out tends to increase maintenance and spares costs, making : for a less desireable aircraft. China's Yunnan Airlines will become the second operator for the R-R powered B767. However, they ordered the R-R engines for the B767 most likely because they wanted to avoid paying penalty for converting 3 R-R powered B757s to 3 B767s. : As for the engines themselves, the RB.211 is a very respectable : engine. It's worth noting that RR has been the clear winner on the : 757, with about two-thirds of the 757s having RR RB.211 engines (the : remainder have P&W PW2000s). Two-thirds? No, that's an exaggeration. R-R has around 55% of the market. : Counting by customers, RR is probably : even further ahead, By customer count, R-R probably has 80-85% of the customers. -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Fri Feb 3 11:16:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: 757 engines (was Re: Long term storage) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 11:16:38 >: RR has been the clear winner on the 757, with about two-thirds of >: the 757s having RR RB.211 engines (the remainder have P&W PW2000s). >Two-thirds? No, that's an exaggeration. R-R has around 55% of the market. Given how large the Delta, Northwest, United, and PW2000-equipped UPS fleets are, that does make sense in retrospect. But what about door number 3? A few months ago, either Airliners or Airways had an article comparing the 757 and Tu-204. Don't laugh, the Russians build a good airframe, and with western engines, avionics, and interior, it's a fare more formidable competitor to the 757 than the A321, at least on technical merits. Anyway, the article mentioned that one airline in the former Soviet Union asked Boeing if they would put PS90 engines on the 757. Boeing obviously said no and the airline wound up buying the Tu-204, but it was an amusing thought. God knows why anyone would actually want such a mutt. -- 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 Feb 3 11:16:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia.org (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Long term storage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 11:16:38 jackson@merlion.singnet.com.sg wrote: : Karl Swartz is undoubtably correct with regard to the BA 767. The RR- : engined aircraft is not going to be popular with many airlines. The same will : apply to the RR-engined 747-400 aircraft in the near future. Only a few : airlines operate this version and therefore maintenance and spares become a : major factor in the second-hand market. If you are talking about the B767 or the B747-200/300, I will agree with you. R-R engines are on 5-15% of the aforementioned aircraft. However, on the 747-400, R-R actually has a very respectable market share. Roughly, the market shares for P&W, GE, and R-R on the -400 are 35%, 40%, and 25%, respectively. Most importantly, R-R's customers are very healthy (British Airways, Qantas, Cathay Pacific, Air New Zealand, and South Africa). BA and CPA are the no. 2 and no. 3 most profitable airlines in the world. None of the five airlines have cancelled any -400 orders. The same cannot be said for P&W's and GE's customers. -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Fri Feb 3 11:16:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: frbrown@csupomona.edu Subject: NACA 0012 answer to request References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Feb 95 11:16:38 I believe that "Theory of Wing Sections" by Abbott and Van Doenoff has a pressure distribution graph for the NACA 0012 airfoil. I'ld give you the page number but I don't have my copy with me. -- Frank Brown Email: frbrown@csupomona.edu From kls Mon Feb 6 02:45:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: B777 and engine manufacturers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 02:45:19 A week or two ago, when I was preparing the B777 order list for the rec.travel.air group, I have noticed that most of the airlines which ordered the B-market model selected the GE90. Today (Feb 5), Hartford Courant started a three-part report on the B777. (United Technologies' headquarters is in Hartford, and Pratt & Whitney is located across the Connecticut River in East Hartford.) In the report, my earlier observation was confirmed. Even though GE had captured only 31% of the total B777 orders (49% for P&W and 20% for R-R), GE's share for the B-market model was 60%. It was reported in the article that P&W was betting on Boeing's estimation that out of the 1,100 B777s forecasted to be sold, only 200 would be the long-range (I assumed it meant the C-market) model. I'm a little surprised by the estimation. IMHO, I really think the future for the B777 is the B747-100/200 replacement market, yet, it was not really mentioned in the article. I would think the C-market model and a medium-range stretched B777 will require the same engine thrust (>100K lb of thrust). If the market prediction by Boeing is way off, then P&W may face the same dilemma it had at the end of the JT9D development. In the article, it was reported that the PW4804 was well-suited for short-haul operations, the Trent 800 for medium-haul, and the GE90 for long-range operations. It was also reported that P&W had spent $500 million in developing the PW4084, while GE had spent $1.5 billion in developing the GE90. Lastly, I have heard several times that the P&W management thought that the market was simply not large enough for three competitors, and a consolidation was inevitable. However, it's hard for me to envision any of the three engine manufacturers folded or be absorbed. -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Mon Feb 6 02:45:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Temporary halt in MD-11 production next year? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 02:45:19 Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Today's Wall Street Journal has an article which described a possible shutdown of MD-11 production in 1996 of up to six months. Currently, only ten MD-11s are scheduled for delivery next year (a measly 17 were delivered in 1994) although the article says at least 45 firm orders are on the books. The continuing delays in completing the Saudi order are complicating matters since Douglas had expected that deal to include at least ten MD-11 orders, many for delivery in 1996. The article also notes American's sale of most of its MD-11 fleet to FedEx, and alleges talks between Delta and other manufacturers about trade-ins of the Delta MD-11 fleet on competing aircraft. Given the moves by Delta to get rid of their Airbus A310s in order to simplify their fleet, this would seem to suggest interest in the 777. -- 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 Feb 6 02:45:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: slbloom@netcom.com (Dr. Stuart L. Bloom) Subject: Re: Boeing 737 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 02:45:19 Regarding American Airlines procedures on altimeter settings, the previous post had the right idea, but backwards. Their procedures call for setting both pilot's main altimeters to read 0 while on the ground. The third altimeter is set to QNH, i.e. altitude above sea level. These settings are used during the takeoff and landing phases. After takeoff, during the cleanup phase (1500-3000'), the main altimeters are reset to QNH. Out of 18000, the altimeters go to QNE, (29.92"). -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Stuart L. Bloom ATP/B-737 slbloom@netcom.com Dept. of Anesth. N1016T 70322.3712@compuserve.com Northridge Hosp. Med. Ctr. W8QVH Northridge, Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Feb 6 02:45:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Radovich Subject: Re: Boeing 737 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 02:45:20 irksome@netcom.com (Ian Urquhart) wrote: >Please excuse my ignorance but what is QNH and QFE? I hold a US >commercial certificate and instrument rating and have not come across >these terms. There is only one altimeter setting and that's it. >Simple. Do Canadian pilots deal with this QNH and QFE business? Ummm.... try three alitmeter settings in current usage: 1. QNH The atmospheric pressure corresponding to mean sea level pressure at a particular place. Used by most aircraft operating below the transition layer. 2. QFE The atmospheric pressure at the level of an aerodrome reference point. It will read zero feet if the aircraft is on the ground. Used mostly by gliders. 3. QNE QNE is the Q-code abbreviation for the reading on the altimeter when the subscale is set to the standard pressure of 1013.2 hpa or 29.92in. Used by all aircraft when flying above the transition layer. Surely you cover such subjects whilst doing your US CPL?? Mark Radovich Wattle Lake Air Services mradovic@ozemail.com.au From kls Mon Feb 6 02:45:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: Vance F Burton Subject: Re: British Airways pilot sponsership scheme References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Vance@burtn.demon.co.uk Organization: Not a lot Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 02:45:20 In article , P.J.Bunyon@newcastle.ac.uk ("P.J. Bunyon") wrote: > I realise that this probably isn't the best list to post this to > but it's only short, and I know that there are many people in the UK who > subscribe. Basically, does anyone (working for BA or not) know the current > situation of BA's policy on pilot sponsership. I've written, 'phoned on > many occasions and the answer has always been 'well, we're not recruiting > at the moment'. I've been contacting them from time to time now for nearly > 5 years but the reply is always the same..... I realise that commercial > pilot positions have been difficult to come by because of the recession > etc... but would appreciate any information on the subject. Sorry, Pete... That's exactly the current situation. We're not recruiting and haven't been for a few years. We still have about 50 (I think) ex-Prestwick cadets waiting for a job but once they've been found seats, we'll start the scheme again. Best guess... sometime in 1996... but that IS a guess and I'm only a footsoldier. Best advice is just keep on applying. Good luck. -- Vance F Burton Capt, BA757, LGW Internet: vance@burtn.demon.co.uk Compuserve: 72046,21 Phone: +44 (0)1273 706545 Fax: +44 (0)1273 706546 From kls Mon Feb 6 02:45:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: schuler@shell.portal.com (Carlos Alejandro Schuler) Subject: fire suppression in-flight Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Aerometrics, Incorporated. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 02:45:20 I am not sure whether this question has been asked here before, but here I dare: with Halon being discontinued from production given its ozone-unfriendliness, what alternate fire suppression systems are being considered to replace existing technology? Sorry for the waste of bandwidth if the question has been discussed here before. Carlos. -- Carlos A. Schuler Aerometrics, Incorporated Scientist 550 Del Rey Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94086 schuler@shell.portal.com Voice:(408)738 6688 Fax:(408)738 6871 From kls Mon Feb 6 02:45:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: rna@GSB-Pound.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: A positive aspect of the DC-10? References: <3gr0b2$1k0a@ns1.CC.Lehigh.EDU> <3gtj72$gr2@news.bu.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 02:45:20 I had heard about a similar incident at Minneapolis, between two DC-10s. Apparently the pilot who was taking off had received special training about just this feature of the 10, and rotated early, again clearing the aircraft in his way. Followups to sci.aeronautics.airliners. I'd like to hear more about this aspect of the DC-10. It's not generally thought to be a very safe airplane, so hearing more about it would be interesting. In article <3gtj72$gr2@news.bu.edu>, Lourdes Alvarez wrote: >David Heimbach (heimbach@u.washington.edu) wrote: >: My question is, can a >: > fully loaded DC-10 takeoff from OGG and fly back to the mainland? > The runway length there is only about 7000 ft. > Or are all mainland-bound DC-10's routed to HNL first? > >: We are flying back to SFO 2/17 on a fully loaded DC-10. Now you've made >: me nervous. I'll jump up a little just before wheels up. > >Don't be nervous...one of the positive features of the DC-10 is its ability >to lift off with less runway than necessary. That characteristic actually >avoided a runway collision in Detroit several years ago. A 727 happen to >be crossing the runway in front of a DC-10 approaching take-off speed. The >pilot of the 10 remembered this fact and rotated the nose and managed to >clear the 727 by about 75 ft. Not much of a margin but the captain was >thankful about the feature. >P.S. St. Thomas, V.A. has a much shorter runway and they used to take 707s >as well has DC10s and L1011s (still do) From kls Mon Feb 6 02:45:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A positive aspect of the DC-10? References: <3gr0b2$1k0a@ns1.CC.Lehigh.EDU> <3gtj72$gr2@news.bu.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 02:45:21 Robert Ashcroft wrote: >I'd like to hear more about this aspect of the DC-10. Several of the comments in the original article just don't make sense, though maybe there is something to the story. Lourdes Alvarez wrote: >Don't be nervous...one of the positive features of the DC-10 is its >ability to lift off with less runway than necessary. Is this some new definition of "necessary?" Ignoring engine-out and rejected takeoff considerations, it seems to me that the amount of runway that's necessary is the amount needed to get off the ground. It doesn't make any sense to say that any aircraft can get off the ground with less runway than it needs to get off the ground! >P.S. St. Thomas, V.A. has a much shorter runway and they used to take >707s as well has DC10s and L1011s (still do) Sure, but from St. Thomas you're probably talking (relatively) short flights in such planes, to cities on the east coast of the US or the like. Maui to San Francisco is a *long* flight, which means more fuel, which means more weight, which means a longer runway is needed. From kls Mon Feb 6 02:45:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ericrood@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Eric Rood) Subject: Re: NACA 0012 answer to request References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 02:45:21 frbrown@csupomona.edu wrote: : I believe that "Theory of Wing Sections" by Abbott and Van Doenoff : has a pressure distribution graph for the NACA 0012 airfoil. I'ld give you : the page number but I don't have my copy with me. : -- "THEORY OF WING SECTIONS" NACA 0012 graphs found on pages 462-463 NACA 0012-64 graphs on pages 464-467 page 462... Section angle of attack, alpha sub zero, degrees page 463... Section lift coefficient, C sub L page 464... Section angle of attack, alpha sub zero, degrees page 465... Section lift coefficient, C sub L page 466... Section lift coefficient, C sub L alpha = 0.8 (modified), C sub Li = 0.2 page 467... Section angle of attack, alpha sub zero, degrees alpha = 0.8 (modified), C sub Li =0.2 (continued) Regards, Eric -- Eric Rood / 170 Monterey Drive / Dublin OH 43017-1329 / 614-761-7461 ericrood@freenet.columbus.oh.us opinions are my own, subject to change by sound arguement From kls Mon Feb 6 02:45:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jkonecn@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu (Joe Konecny) Subject: Parachutes on passenger jets? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bowling Green State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 02:45:21 This isn't a joke. Don't take it the wrong way. But I have been wondering... why can't there be some type of massive emergency parachute on todays jets? It seems that with some of the new high tech fibers that are available that this would be possible. Maybe something like those that slowed the re-entry modules in space craft. Even if at least you slow the plane down during a crash the passengers would have a better chance. I might even risk flying then! ;) Jowe oops! Joe -- ************************************************************* * Joe Konecny - Computer Science Student, BGSU * * Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green Ohio * * Internet - jkonecn@andy.bgsu.edu * From kls Mon Feb 6 02:45:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rlorenz@lpl.arizona.edu (Ralph Lorenz) Subject: Re: Fate of civil VC10s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Arizona, CCIT Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 02:45:21 Colin Povey (cpovey@delphi.com) wrote: : writes: : : >The last civil VC10s flew in the early '80s. Were they all bought by the : >RAF to become tankers or military transports or did some end up elsewhere? : : The RAF did buy up many of them to convert to tankers. : I believe the Queens Flight still uses VC10's as well. : I did a transatlantic on one, and liked the plane a lot. Very quiet. I had a flight in one Brize Norton-Dulles. Was really rather fun, differing somewhat from regular airline service, like 1. full of military personnel and diplomats, etc. 2. orange squash (as opposed to Gin and Tonics, or even Orange Juice) served on board 3. little paper printout map passed around cabin (as opposed to big real-time colour screen at front of cabin) and most of all 4. front of cabin wasn't. Specifically, the seats face backwards for improved crash survival. Felt wierd on takoeff/landing, and slightly disorientating when boarding, but no big deal. If commercial airlines were to seat this way, it wouldn't be a problem for me. How do others feel about this Ralph Lorenz Lunar and Planetary Lab University of Arizona From kls Mon Feb 6 02:45:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gbb@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Graham Bird") Subject: Re: Fate of civil VC10s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Graham Bird, Director of Branding, X/Open Company Ltd. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 02:45:21 > The RAF did buy up many of them to convert to tankers. > I believe the Queens Flight still uses VC10's as well. > I did a transatlantic on one, and liked the plane a lot. Very quiet. No the QF is all Ba 146s From kls Mon Feb 6 02:45:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: casner@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Steve Casner) Subject: Re: crew duty on long hauls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr, Calif. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 02:45:22 Contact the Fatigue Countermeasures Program at NASA Ames Research Center. Mark Rosekind is the contact. Internet: rosekind@eos.arc.nasa.gov From kls Mon Feb 6 02:45:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cagtec@aol.com (CAGTEC) Subject: Inflight entertainment Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: cagtec@aol.com (CAGTEC) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 02:45:22 Does anyone have any experience with multimedia inflight entertainment systems. Are they as good as they say they are? I would especially be interested in hearing about products built by Matsushita, Philips, B/E Aerospace and Hughes. Fred Ackourey From kls Mon Feb 6 02:45:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Vicky Crone Subject: Airline Flight Crew Operations Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Washington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 02:45:22 I'm doing a research study to compare airline pre-flight operations vs military C-141 preflight operations. While I'm intimately familiar with C-141 ops, I don't know a whole lot about airline ops. Specifically, I need to know what an airline crew does to prepare for flight from the time they are informed of their flight until takeoff. i.e. preflight planning, aircraft preflight, cockpit preflight and timelines for these items. Also, are there any other news groups that might be of value to me on this project. Please respond directly to vcrone@u.washington.edu Thanks for any assistance you can provide From kls Mon Feb 6 02:45:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Kit.Linder@ebay.sun.com (Kit Linder) Subject: Biggest Jumbo? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Kit.Linder@ebay.sun.com Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 02:45:22 A friend and I were having a discussion about jumbo jets this morning. I stated that, to the best of my knowledge, the 747 is the largest commercial airliner in the world. He opined that the largest was either the DC-10 or the L-1011. After a polite skirmish, we decided to put the question to the experts -- the folks on r.a.a. Because "biggest" is a subjective term, we agreed to average the largest of the following parameters: 1. Wingspan 2. Length 3. Max TOW 4. Number of passengers Any other useful criteria volunteered will be included in our determination and I will post a summary of our results. I sure hope I'm right on this; I've got a breakfast riding on it! As typical work duties preclude reading this group with any regularity, I'd appreciate replies sent directly to my e-mail address below. Many thanks! Kit Linder + left@thecurb.ebay.sun.com + Sun Microsystems, Milpitas, CA From kls Mon Feb 6 02:45:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Biggest Jumbo? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 02:45:22 >A friend and I were having a discussion about jumbo jets this morning. I >stated that, to the best of my knowledge, the 747 is the largest commercial >airliner in the world. He opined that the largest was either the DC-10 or >the L-1011. The 747 wins hands down in just about any comparision you could think of between these three, even the original 747-100 versus the latest models from the other manufacturers. Here's some data from an AW&ST chart three years ago, including the MD-11, the current DC-10, more or less, and the A340. The list is sorted by MGTOW by the 747-400 wins on all counts no matter how you look at it. (The 747-100 does not quite have the wingspan of the A340-300, though, and the A340-200 beats all of them in range.) aircraft MGTOW span length passengers -------- ----- ---- ------ ---------- 747-400 870000 211.0 231.9 412-509 747-100 750000 195.7 231.9 366-452 MD-11 618000 169.5 200.8 293-410 DC-10-30 572000 165.3 181.6 250-380 A340-300 558900 197.8 209.0 280-440 L-1011-500 504000 164.3 164.2 230-330 L-1011-250 496000 155.3 177.7 250-400 DC-10-10 440000 155.3 182.3 250-380 >I sure hope I'm right on this; I've got a breakfast riding on it! Bon apetit! -- 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 Feb 6 03:15:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A positive aspect of the DC-10? References: <3gr0b2$1k0a@ns1.CC.Lehigh.EDU> <3gtj72$gr2@news.bu.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Feb 95 03:15:49 Robert Ashcroft wrote: >I'd like to hear more about this aspect of the DC-10. Several of the comments in the original article just don't make sense, though maybe there is something to the story. Lourdes Alvarez wrote: >Don't be nervous...one of the positive features of the DC-10 is its >ability to lift off with less runway than necessary. Is this some new definition of "necessary?" Ignoring engine-out and rejected takeoff considerations, it seems to me that the amount of runway that's necessary is the amount needed to get off the ground. It doesn't make any sense to say that any aircraft can get off the ground with less runway than it needs to get off the ground! >P.S. St. Thomas, V.A. has a much shorter runway and they used to take >707s as well has DC10s and L1011s (still do) Sure, but from St. Thomas you're probably talking (relatively) short flights in such planes, to cities on the east coast of the US or the like. Maui to San Francisco is a *long* flight, which means more fuel, which means more weight, which means a longer runway is needed. >From San Jose, American has no problem flying DC-10s across the US. Same airport, same runway, a DC-10-30 with a full load to Tokyo does not have enough runway, so American flew across the bay to Oakland, which has a longer runway, to take on fuel. Once they got their MD-11s into service they could fly non-stop because of the MD-11s better performance, hence shorter runway requirement. With regard to the original poster's question, I've never heard of United pulling a stunt like American's pseudo-non-stop on a regular basis, and UA 48 is listed as an OGG-SFO non-stop without enough time in the schedule for such foolishness, so I'd guess they do have enough runway at Maui to get a full load on its way to California. -- 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 Feb 8 01:21:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Biggest Jumbo? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 95 01:21:18 Kit Linder writes 06 Feb 95 02:45:22:- > Because "biggest" is a subjective term, we agreed to average the largest of > the following parameters: > > 1. Wingspan 2. Length 3. Max TOW 4. Number of passengers Mmm ... To start with, how can you average the "largest" of four numbers, since that is, by definition, a single number? Also (assuming that you actually intend to sum all four quantities and divide by four), what would the resulting "average" figure actually *mean*? It would tell you nothing about any useful characteristic of the aircraft whatsoever, whereas the individual statistics are quite informative. Beware of averaging apples and oranges and thinking it tells you something about fruit! For comparison, consider the following arguments:- A. Because "complexity" is a subjective term where software is concerned, we agreed to average the following parameters:- 1. No. of display screens 2. No. of files 3. No. of inputs 4. No. of outputs B. Because "safety" is a subjective term where aircraft are concerned, we agreed to average the number of fatal accidents since each model was first delivered over the number of examples currently in service. I am not offering any free breakfasts for guessing that A) I think Function Point Analysis is a load of crap, and B) I don't think the A320 is the safest airliner ever built! :-) Kung hoi fat choi! Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax.: +44 (171) 477-8585, E-mail (JANET): p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Feb 8 01:21:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: Boeing 737 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 95 01:21:19 In article , Mark Radovich wrote: >1. QNH... > >2. QFE... > >3. QNE... > >Surely you cover such subjects whilst doing your US CPL?? We don't commonly hear about the Q-codes here in the U.S. We refer to QNH as the "local altimeter setting", and QNE as "pressure altitude" I have never seen an altimeter set to QFE (Glider or otherwise), but that may be because I live in Colorado (home airport elevation is 5657), and I doubt the altimeter could be set to "0" (would probably require something like 24.40"). _____________________________ _____ | Keith Barr \ \ \__ _____ | barr@netcom.com \___________\ \/_______\___\_____________ | COMM/AS&MEL/IA/A&IGI / { /_/ ....................... `-. |_____________________________/ `-----------,----,--------------' home page URL: http://chinook.atd.ucar.edu/~barr/ _/____/O From kls Wed Feb 8 01:21:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk ("Niels M. Sampath") Subject: Re: A positive aspect of the DC-10? (fwd) References: <3gr0b2$1k0a@ns1.CC.Lehigh.EDU> <3gtj72$gr2@news.bu.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 95 01:21:19 >>P.S. St. Thomas, V.A. has a much shorter runway and they used to take >>707s as well has DC10s and L1011s (still do) >Sure, but from St. Thomas you're probably talking (relatively) short >flights in such planes, to cities on the east coast of the US or the >like. Maui to San Francisco is a *long* flight, which means more >fuel, which means more weight, which means a longer runway is needed. Having lived on St. Thomas, I have not heard of 707 service to STT. I think it was 727s/ DC-9s right up until the runway extension/realignment by which time the `new generation' had already replaced 707s on sched. service. But I remember 727s landing on the unextended old 4600 foot runway there in the `60s (with a big hill at the end).. They could then only take-off, unrefueled (I wonder if they had fuel -removed-?) for nearby St. Croix which is what? ~20 miles away? -- From kls Wed Feb 8 01:21:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bogart@sabre.larc.nasa.gov (Ed Bogart) Subject: Re: Inflight entertainment References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: bogart@sabre.larc.nasa.gov (Ed Bogart) Organization: NASA LaRC HEMlab Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 95 01:21:19 In article , cagtec@aol.com (CAGTEC) writes: > > Does anyone have any experience with multimedia inflight entertainment > systems. Are they as good as they say they are? I would especially be > interested in hearing about products built by Matsushita, Philips, B/E > Aerospace and Hughes. I flew one leg of a USAir flight on a new 737-400(?) last November. It had the latest in multimedia phone/FAX/TV/videogame system in the seatbacks. I didn't try any of it because it was EXPENSIVE. Every function was $1 or more. Even on a short flight, I think you could blow more than the price of your ticket. Ed From kls Wed Feb 8 01:21:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: Parachutes on passenger jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Manitoba Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 95 01:21:19 jkonecn@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu (Joe Konecny) wrote: > > This isn't a joke. Don't take it the wrong way. But I have been > wondering... why can't there be some type of massive emergency parachute > on todays jets? It seems that with some of the new high tech fibers that > are available that this would be possible. Maybe something like those that > slowed the re-entry modules in space craft. Even if at least you slow the > plane down during a crash the passengers would have a better chance. I > might even risk flying then! ;) Besides being a mechanical nightmare to configure and ensure deployment, the structural requirements for the "modified" airframe would be prohibitively heavy and probably reduce significantly the allowable payloads (if not the ability of the airplane to fly). ie- it might be feasible to employ but very little payload could be carried:-) Besides, statistics show time and time again that air travel is the one from of transportation least likely to incur accidents. IMHO, the cause fear may lie more in the catastrophic results of many incidents. Ernie Fidgeon fidgeon@mbnet.mb.ca From kls Wed Feb 8 01:21:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ericrood@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Eric Rood) Subject: Re: Parachutes on passenger jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 95 01:21:19 Joe Konecny (jkonecn@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu) wrote: : This isn't a joke. Don't take it the wrong way. But I have been : wondering... why can't there be some type of massive emergency parachute : on todays jets? It seems that with some of the new high tech fibers that : are available that this would be possible. Maybe something like those that : slowed the re-entry modules in space craft. Even if at least you slow the : plane down during a crash the passengers would have a better chance. I : might even risk flying then! ;) Yeah, kinda like a gigantic ballistic recovery system. I don't think the airlines would buy it though, I doesn't exude the confidence the system requires to provide the passenger stream/revenue necessary to be profitable (?). (Show me another industry that can continue to lose billions of dollars annually an still stay in business). The ballistic recovery systems available on light aircraft cost $5000, not really cost effective unless the type of flying you're doing involves trying to break the airframe. Regards, Eric. -- Eric Rood / 170 Monterey Drive / Dublin OH 43017-1329 / 614-761-7461 ericrood@freenet.columbus.oh.us opinions are my own, subject to change by sound arguement From kls Wed Feb 8 01:21:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Joe Diederichs Subject: Recoverable flight attitudes? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 95 01:21:19 Aviation experts: I would be interested in comments on the subject of airliners and their safe flight envelope, in particular with regard to recoverable flight attitudes. I am not a full-size pilot, but have some experience with model aircraft, which in general have much more relative power and control authority than their full-size counterparts. Originally I assumed, without much thought, that airliners, given a reasonable altitude, were, like models, recoverable from any flight attitude they happened to get into. Based on the sketchy technical details the public gets about airliner crashes, I am starting to see that this may not be the case. (Either the press wrongly assumes we aren't interested in the technical, or they don't understand it well enough to write about it, but that's another subject.) So my question is, if an airliner somehow gets into an unusual attitude, say straight nose down, at a reasonable altitude, say 15,000 feet, is it recoverable, or is crash at that point the only possible outcome? General comments about the recoverable flight envelope of airliners would also be of interest, as would any knowledgeable comments relating to this subject in any way. In reading about the USAir 427 crash, in the January 30 Aviation Week, an expert is quoted as saying, "the aircraft was unrecoverable" after the left wing stalled about 13 seconds after the initial wake vortex encounter. Why was it "unrecoverable"? Was it because it did not have enough altitude to recover, or had it gotten into an attitude that, assuming the rudder wasn't stuck and given any altitude, was out of its recoverable flight envelope? I have similar questions about the Lauda 767 on which the thrust reverser deployed climbing at 24,000 feet. Thanks in advance, Joe Diederichs joed@lsid.hp.com From kls Wed Feb 8 01:21:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Recoverable flight attitudes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 95 01:21:19 >Originally I assumed, without much thought, that airliners, given a >reasonable altitude, were, like models, recoverable from any flight >attitude they happened to get into. Based on the sketchy technical >details the public gets about airliner crashes, I am starting to see >that this may not be the case. Keep in mind that airliners are working with far greater speeds and weights, and thus energy levels. I suspect most people would be surprised at the real abilities of a modern jetliner, but you need a *LOT* of room in which to work. >So my question is, if an airliner somehow gets into an unusual attitude, >say straight nose down, at a reasonable altitude, say 15,000 feet, is it >recoverable, or is crash at that point the only possible outcome? THY 981 (the DC-10 which crashed near Paris on March 3, 1974) was at about that altitude, give or take a couple thousand feet at most, when its aft cargo door blew, severing all controls to the empenage. The pilots tried to use a fighter trick of firewalling the (remaining) engines to pull out of the ensuing dive without benefit of elevators, and the investigation showed that their efforts were met with some success. They would have needed many more thousands of feet of altitude to work with to have pulled it off, though. A more recent crash, the A330 test flight crash, illustrates what an airliner is capable of with full control authority. At about 19.5 seconds after takeoff, the autopilot had increased pitch to 31.6 degress, at about 1700 ft. altitude and only 100 kts. airspeed. 12 seconds later, pitch was nearly -45 degrees (note the sign -- the nose was now aimed *down*) and the aircraft had rolled 110 degrees to the left (i.e., wings had passed vertical) with an altitude of about 1200 ft. In the 7.5 seconds before impact, the pilots got the pitch back to only -15 degrees, and roll to 18 degrees left. Clearly they might have recovered and landed safely had they had a bit more altitude to work with. In the case of USAir 427 (Pittsburgh), they only had about 5000 ft. of vertical to work with (they were at about 6000 ft. when the initial upset occurred but the ground elevation was about 1000 ft.) and had a lot of airspeed, 190 kts. accelerating to 260 kts. at impact. Even if they had full control, and it seems they didn't, that doesn't leave a whole lot of margin for figuring out what's going on then doing some- thing about it. >I have similar questions about the Lauda 767 on which the thrust reverser >deployed climbing at 24,000 feet. I've never seen a model of the thrust reverser theory (officially, no cause was identified for that crash) but it may again have been too little recovery time. I think, though, the aircraft broke up in flight, which is difficult to recover from in any aircraft. (!) -- 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 Feb 8 01:21:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dey@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Michael E. Dey) Subject: Re: Parachutes on passenger jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 95 01:21:20 In article , Joe Konecny wrote: > This isn't a joke. Don't take it the wrong way. But I have been >wondering... why can't there be some type of massive emergency parachute >on todays jets? It seems that with some of the new high tech fibers that >are available that this would be possible. Maybe something like those that >slowed the re-entry modules in space craft. Even if at least you slow the >plane down during a crash the passengers would have a better chance. I >might even risk flying then! ;) The type of parachute you're talking about, a ballistic parachute, has recently come onto the market for light piston singles like the Cessna 152. The parachute is pretty large when open and packs into something that looks a bit larger than a gallon can of paint, but is only designed to help the passengers survive and not the airframe; read: you hit the ground hard. This type of airplane weighs about 1400-1500 lbs. Compare that to an airliner that weighs a couple hundred thousand lbs, and you can see that it isn't technically feasible, as far as the added weight and volume of such a 'super chute.' -- Michael Dey School of Engineering and Applied Scince National Center for University of Colorado at Boulder Atmospheric Research dey@rintintin.colorado.edu dey@ncar.ucar.edu From kls Wed Feb 8 01:21:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ld1bstue@kommsrv.RZ.UniBw-Muenchen.de (Peter Stuetz) Subject: HELP: TCAS ALGORITHM NEEDED Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of the Federal Armed Forces Munich Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 95 01:21:20 We try to equippe our research simulator with TCAS. How can we get access to the current valied, FAA-approved TCAS-Logic. Also any information about how traffic is declared a threat and how resolution advisories are calculated would be very helpful. Thanks for help! Peter -- /* PETER STUETZ Univ. of the German Armed Forces, Munich */ /* Dept of Flight Mechanics TEL: ++49-89-6004-2590 */ /* and Systemdynamics FAX: ++49-89-6004-2082 */ /* 85577 NEUBIBERG, GERMANY E_MAIL: ld1bstue@rz.unibw-muenchen.de */ From kls Wed Feb 8 01:21:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: trw-okc@qns.com (TRW) Subject: Re: Airframe Fatigue Monitoring Systems References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Questar Network Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 95 01:21:20 Fatigue monitoring in the Air Force is done a per Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM). For EC/KC/C-135 airframes, PDM must be performed every 48 months +/- 4 (I think) months. The aircraft is flown to the depot, and skin panels removed, interior work, floors, etc. Visual (staining), X-Ray, and other inspection techniques are performed on areas of know corrosion and fatigue cracking. Scopes are used to get to hard-to-reach areas. It takes about 4 months in depot to get the bird flying again (they can also do other mods in the process, as well). Other airframes have different intervals. The E-4B (a 747-200) PDM is 8 years (to the best of knowledge). That's all I know on the subject. I'm sure the airlines have a similiar program. Cheers, Bill Hensley bhensley@oceo.trw.com From kls Wed Feb 8 01:22:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: petera@bcars630.bnr.ca Subject: Re: Parachutes on passenger jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Feb 95 01:22:45 In article , jkonecn@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu (Joe Konecny) writes: |> This isn't a joke. Don't take it the wrong way. But I have been |> wondering... why can't there be some type of massive emergency parachute |> on todays jets? It seems that with some of the new high tech fibers that |> are available that this would be possible. Maybe something like those that |> slowed the re-entry modules in space craft. Even if at least you slow the |> plane down during a crash the passengers would have a better chance. I |> might even risk flying then! ;) Ok, I'll bite. One of the problems with trying to make something "safer" is that very often we wind up making it more dangerous only in a different way. (There was serious talk about suing Boeing for not making the 747 bomb resistant after the Pan Am (or was it Air India) incident several years ago). The bottom line is that ANYTHING added to a plane makes it heavier. This increased weight makes it more dangerous to fly because it stalls more easily and as a result has to land faster, take-off faster etc. Since most accidents are take-off or landing related this means more people would die as a result of the increased weight. If the airlines tried to put less people and cargo on board the cost of flying would increase dramatically which would result in less people flying. This would force lower air fares which would be achieved by cutting down on things such as maintenance ... its a vicious circle. You really have to carefully weight both sides of the equation before adding "safty features" to anything, especially planes. For example: you add thrust reversers to a plane to allow it to stop quickly and hence reduce the danger of running off the end of a slipery runway. Unfortunately if a thrust reverser pops open in flight or fails to close after an overshoot a lot of people will and have died. You turn an overrun at 70-80kts with some probability of fire and fatality into stall and spin with 100% probability of total loss. Peter From kls Thu Feb 9 02:22:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: B777/GE90 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Feb 95 02:22:19 BTW - I saw in the Seattle Times that the first 777 for British Airways and the first with GE90s flew last week for the first time. I guess take-off occured with minutes of the emergency landing of 777 WA002 due to the ECS blowout. The paper indicated that the first flight was at Boeing Field, but this is impossible, as the aircraft are built at Paine Field and they sure as hell don't taxi them through downtown Seattle. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Thu Feb 9 02:22:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ericrood@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Eric Rood) Subject: FAA Safety Meeting Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Feb 95 02:22:19 Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet Is/Are there anyone out there who attended the 9-10 January 1995 Safety Meeting in Washington DC? I am looking for information/opinions/feelings/etc about what was discussed in the various workgroups. I was briefed on both the Training and Emerging Technology sessions but am courious about the others (Air Traffic Control, Operations, Maintenance, etc.) Anything you can add will be enlightening. I have a copy of some of the prepared remarks that the ATA put together, but that is all preprinted material. Regards, Eric. -- Eric Rood / 170 Monterey Drive / Dublin OH 43017-1329 / 614-761-7461 ericrood@freenet.columbus.oh.us opinions are my own, subject to change by sound arguement From kls Thu Feb 9 02:22:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BGOODIN@UNEX.UCLA.EDU (William R. Goodin) Subject: UCLA short course on Modular Avionics Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Feb 95 02:22:20 Organization: UCLA Extension On April 24-28, 1995, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Modular Avionics", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Erwin A. Ulbrich, MSEE, PE, McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, Henry M. Daghighian, MScE, Teledyne Electronic Technologies, Roy Farmer, MBA, Delco Systems, Mark E. Johnson, MIM, Honeywell, William F. Kiczuk, Texas Instruments, Albert A. Marcantonio, Raytheon, Kenneth J, Nerius, Harris Aerospace Systems, John R. Newport, PhD, Systems Analysis Group, and Mohammed M. Tafreshi, MSEE, Boeing. This course provides engineers, scientists, managers, and marketing specialists with a comprehensive overview of modular avionics technology. Lessons learned from the last forty years are presented, as well as current experiences from integrating the latest generation of modular avionics. Other topics include system consolidation, system partitioning, cooling, intimate relation between the cockpit and avionics, new paradigms for system organization and data visualization. The course also discusses parallel development of the two existing systems, military and commercial, and how they might be combined as "dual use" systems in the future. Software development is covered from the standpoint of available toolsets, compilers, debuggers, etc. However, the course DOES NOT cover programming. Lectures also explore how the technology will progress into the first decade of the 21st century. Specific topics include: Government and Commercial Standards; Honeywell Modular Avionics: IMA and VIA Technology; Integration of Processing Functions: The New Architecture; Display Technologies and Advanced Avionics; Modular Avionics and the F-16 Modular Mission Computer; Military Modular Avionics Built to Commercial Specifications; Fiber Optic Communications for Avionics Applications; and Applications of IMAs on the Boeing 777 Airplane. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu From kls Thu Feb 9 18:50:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: etate@mcl.bdm.com (C. Emory Tate) Subject: Re: fire suppression in-flight References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: etate@lan.mcl.bdm.com Organization: BDM Federal, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Feb 95 18:50:03 In article , schuler@shell.portal.com wrote: >I am not sure whether this question has been asked here before, but >here I dare: with Halon being discontinued from production given >its ozone-unfriendliness, what alternate fire suppression systems >are being considered to replace existing technology? Research I'm aware of is proceeding along two fronts: CF3I and refrigerant replacements (e.g., HFCs). Problems with CF3I (almost as good as 1301, with no ozone depletion because it's more unstable and I is a heavier species than the problematic Br) include its toxicity and poorer stability in storage. Work on the effects of diluting it with a refrigerant replacement HFC on its toxicity is proceeding. The onboard systems are leaning toward HFCs, despite their poor volumetric efficiency (like twice the volume for the same extinguishing effect as 1301 in one case), to avoid tox and stability problems. The increased volume of re- frigerants is because they have to cool and smother the fire rather than chemically quenching it like the Halons. Also, the HFCs are greenhousers, but the EPA allows some in critical apps, like onboard firefighting where available volumes are low. -- C. E. Tate snailmail: BDM Federal, Inc. 1501 BDM Way, McLean, VA 22102 ____________________________________________________________ Stick forward and opposite rudder to stop the spin. From kls Thu Feb 9 18:50:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hazcam@ix.netcom.com (Juan Rivera) Subject: Re: fire suppression in-flight References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Feb 95 18:50:03 In schuler@shell.portal.com (Carlos Alejandro Schuler) writes: > >I am not sure whether this question has been asked here before, but >here I dare: with Halon being discontinued from production given >its ozone-unfriendliness, what alternate fire suppression systems >are being considered to replace existing technology? > >Sorry for the waste of bandwidth if the question has been discussed >here before. > >Carlos. >-- >Carlos A. Schuler Aerometrics, Incorporated >Scientist 550 Del Rey Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94086 >schuler@shell.portal.com Voice:(408)738 6688 Fax:(408)738 6871 > > > As far as I know there is no replacement for Halon that works nearly as well, but Halon can be recovered and reused so existing fire extinguishers can be serviced and hydro tested and then refilled with the recovered Halon. So the existing supply should sast for years. Juan Rivera NASA / Kuiper Airborne Observatory From kls Thu Feb 9 18:50:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kens@ncd.com (Ken Stoorza) Subject: Re: Inflight entertainment References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Network Computing Devices Inc., Mt. View, CA, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Feb 95 18:50:03 I flew first class on Delta from Taipei to Seoul the other week. They had the individual LCD screens that swing out of the seat arm. Quality was pretty good; usually I don't watch inflight movies because the video and sound quality are so poor. There were several channels of video entertainment to choose from. If I were on a long flight, I would probably use this feature. Of course, since I usually fly business class and not first, it's probably achedemic anyway. -- Ken Stoorza From kls Thu Feb 9 18:50:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Vicky Crone Subject: Re: Recoverable flight attitudes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Washington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Feb 95 18:50:03 > I am not a full-size pilot, but have some experience with model > aircraft, which in general have much more relative power and control Being a model aircraft pilot you should be familiar with the terms barrel roll and split S. Although I'm not a first hand witness, rumor has it that a Boeing flight test pilot barrel rolled a 707 in the 60's. Another rumor has it that a military C-141 (slightly larger than a 707) once did a split-s after the flight crew became severly disoriented in IMC conditions. Personlly I have performed an aileron roll in the C-141 simulator. Your question is basically one of aerodynmics, IMHO any aircraft with standard configuration and flight controls should be recoverable ASSUMING the aircraft structure can withstand the aerodynamic loads involved and sufficient altitude for recovery exists. > I have similar questions about the Lauda 767 on which the thrust reverser > deployed climbing at 24,000 feet. My understanding on this one was that the aircraft disintegrated in flight when the TR deployed. From kls Thu Feb 9 18:50:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Recoverable flight attitudes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Feb 95 18:50:03 >rumor has it that a Boeing flight test pilot barrel rolled a 707 in the 60's You're probably referring to Tex Johnston's roll of the Dash-80 (707 prototype) in the late fifties. I didn't see it either, but over 100,000 people did and there are photographs, so I think it's safe to say it's not just a rumor. (See the group archives for various past discussions of this event.) -- 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 Feb 9 18:50:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) Subject: Re: Recoverable flight attitudes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Stanford University, Dept. of Aero/Astro Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Feb 95 18:50:03 In article , Joe Diederichs wrote: > So my question is, if an airliner somehow gets into an unusual attitude, > say straight nose down, at a reasonable altitude, say 15,000 feet, is it > recoverable, or is crash at that point the only possible outcome? In general a transport airplane is recoverable from any attitude IF there is enough altitude, IF the speed already attained is not too close to the structural placard speed and IF all the controls are working. USAir 427 had rolled 90 deg. after 13 seconds so pulling g's was not helping the rate of descent. It appears that the pilot was unable to stop the roll or even diminish the roll rate. Since the design lateral control power is large on these aircraft and can overcome even a large rudder deflection, one must conclude that either the aileron/spoiler system was not functioning correctly, or something else input a large rolling moment, perhaps a left wing stall due to ???? (perhaps a slat failure of some kind, a wild speculation but the NTSB is not doing too well either). Boeing says you can recover because they want the airplane to be perfect; ALPA says you cannot recover because they want the pilots to be blameless. Richard Shevell Email: shevell@leland.stanford.edu From kls Thu Feb 9 18:50:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jayorke@julian.uwo.ca (John A Yorke) Subject: Has anyone ridden Comair's CRJ?? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ITS, UWO Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Feb 95 18:50:04 Has anyone ridden on Comair's CRJ jet? I've seen them in Aviation Week but I haven't had the privledge of flying one yet. Perhaps someone who has can give me their opinions on the aircraft. Post in this newsgroup so people can hear your thoughts. Oh, by the way, I was wondering if the CRJ can use the covered walkways at the airport or if passengers must brave the elements. Probably not since it has those stairs built in. Thanks in advance, John Yorke. From kls Mon Feb 13 01:44:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Pop Quiz Time! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Feb 95 01:44:20 OK, airliner freaks, time to prove your abilities. Today's question is courtesy of Chris Longridge (Boeing VP of Competitive Strategy). What airliner has had more engine types (diffrentiated by manufacturer) installed on it than any other airliner? I am looking for the names of the engine manufacturers, the engines and the designation(s) of the airliner. Hint: the total is greater than 3 and doesn't include GE! The Boeing 747 is not the answer - the total here is only 3 - P&W, GE and R-R. Yes I realize that it has had the JT-9D, PW4000, CF6, GE90, RB.211 and now RR Trent installed on airframes - this is not what I am looking for! THIS IS A CLOSED BOOK QUIZ! The answer(s) will be posted on Thursday, Feb 16! ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mon Feb 13 01:44:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: A positive aspect of the DC-10? References: <3gtj72$gr2@news.bu.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Feb 95 01:44:21 In article rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu writes: >I had heard about a similar incident at Minneapolis, between two DC-10s. > >Apparently the pilot who was taking off had received special training >about just this feature of the 10, and rotated early, again clearing >the aircraft in his way. > >Followups to sci.aeronautics.airliners. I'd like to hear more about this >aspect of the DC-10. It's not generally thought to be a very safe >airplane, so hearing more about it would be interesting. A FedEx mechanic told me that since DC-10 the ORD disaster in 1979, reference speeds for takeoff were pushed forward a few knots, resulting in greater airspeed protection should there be another asymmetric slat retrac- tion following engine failure near V2. This results in a shallower takeoff angle, and, presumably, a longer roll-out (note that contrary to what many pilots think, there were no structural enhancements or changes to how the airplane or its systems work as a result of that crash). If the crew chooses not to exercise this protection (from news footage of KC-10s taking off for the Gulf a couple months ago, I assume the military doesn't), it gives the airplane a little bit of kinetic energy which can be traded for altitude or maneuvering capability. Very little about this bird gives me any peace of mind. >>to lift off with less runway than necessary. That characteristic actually >>avoided a runway collision in Detroit several years ago. A 727 happen to >>be crossing the runway in front of a DC-10 approaching take-off speed. The >>pilot of the 10 remembered this fact and rotated the nose and managed to >>clear the 727 by about 75 ft. Not much of a margin but the captain was >>thankful about the feature. From kls Mon Feb 13 01:44:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: darsys@pro-entropy.cts.com (Eric A. Seiden) Subject: Re: Has anyone ridden Comair's CRJ?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pro-Entropy +1-305-994-3578 (DAR Systems Int'l -- Miami, FL) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Feb 95 01:44:21 jayorke@julian.uwo.ca (John A Yorke) writes: >Has anyone ridden on Comair's CRJ jet? ... I was wondering if the CRJ can use >the covered walkways at the airport or if passengers must brave the elements. >Probably not since it has those stairs built in. Haven't flown one, but YES they can use the jetways. The stair declines in such a way that the whole thing is low enough for the jetway to scoot right up to the door. I've seen a few at jetways at various airports around the country. -- Eric -- [Call Pro-Entropy at +1-305-994-3578 (14.4K/8/N/1) for 24 hours of chaos!] Internet: darsys@Pro-Entropy.cts.com ("Real" Name: Eric A. Seiden) Rec-Sports-Hockey official contact for the #1 NHL Team: THE FLORIDA PANTHERS! "Imagine there's no heaven; it's easy if you try." -- John Lennon From kls Mon Feb 13 01:44:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mps1@cec.wustl.edu (Mihir Pramod Shah) Subject: Re: Has anyone ridden Comair's CRJ?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Feb 95 01:44:21 In article , John A Yorke wrote: >Has anyone ridden on Comair's CRJ jet? I've seen them in Aviation Week but I >haven't had the privledge of flying one yet. Perhaps someone who has >can give me their opinions on the aircraft. Post in this newsgroup so people >can hear your thoughts. Oh, by the way, I was wondering if the CRJ can use >the covered walkways at the airport or if passengers must brave the elements. >Probably not since it has those stairs built in. Check out rec.travel.air. There are a few accounts of experiences of CRJs. They've generally been quite favorable, the only small complaint being that they're a little short on overhead bin space. I haven't been on one, but people have said they ride very low to the ground, and are as comfortable as an average DC-9 or 727. Personally I like the fact that the CRJ is making great headway in the commuter market, even opening up new ones or re-opening old ones that have been abandoned. Connections to covered walkways are probably not feasible because of their built-in stairways (as you said) and the fact that they ride very close to the ground. Too bad, because it would have made the CRJ the first true commuter jet that feels like a big one. Mihir Shah mps1@cec.wustl.edu From kls Mon Feb 13 01:44:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ken Subject: Re: Has anyone ridden Comair's CRJ?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Feb 95 01:44:21 jayorke@julian.uwo.ca (John A Yorke) wrote: > Has anyone ridden on Comair's CRJ jet? I've seen them in Aviation Week but I > haven't had the privledge of flying one yet. Perhaps someone who has > can give me their opinions on the aircraft. John, I have not ridden on one but have had the chance to inspect the inside and talk to the crew. The pilots say it is very loud (I fly a sa227 Metro and one of the crew members said it was as loud as that!) The Flight Attendent says it is very quit in the back. It has about a 6'2" tall aisle and looks very comfortable inside. It can not use a jetway as the intregel stairs are in the way. From kls Mon Feb 13 01:44:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stevep@shell.portal.com (Steven H Philipson) Subject: Re: Long term storage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Mountain View Flight Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Feb 95 01:44:21 In article , Peter Lisner wrote: [re: storage of aircraft in the Mojave desert.] >[...] I can >understand why this is done for older aircraft, >but what didn't make sense was the fact that some >current generation airliners were also stored in >this way. The most striking example was a British >Airways B767. Given that this aircraft is still in >production, I don't understand why it was stored >like this. One would think that it could be sold >or leased instead of letting it sit idle. Leasing an airplane takes a fair amount of preparation. It frequently has to be modified to match the fleet of the lessee, and they tend to like to have leased aircraft painted in their own livery. Also, leases tend to be for fairly long terms. If the owner only wants to have the airplane in storage for a short period, say 6 months plus or minus a few, then it doesn't make sense to put those new airplanes up for lease. It may seem crazy to have a 100 million dollar airplane just sitting there (especially when the financing is running $20,000 per day), but it can be the cheapest alternative for the airline. This is a big-bucks business. What seems like huge amounts for individuals is all just part of the game they're in. Steve (the certified flying fanatic) stevep@shell.portal.com From kls Mon Feb 13 01:44:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stevep@shell.portal.com (Steven H Philipson) Subject: Re: 777 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Mountain View Flight Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Feb 95 01:44:22 In article , DANJET wrote: >>Stall speeds of the 777 are similar to the 767 and other >>transports, around 130 to 140 kts for landing flaps. > >Is this correct? When I follow a 767/757 into MDW in our little GIV he >slows way back to our lnding speed of max138 full flaps (1.3vso) According to 1978-79 _Jane's All the World's Aircraft_, the approach speeds for the 767-200MR and TC at maximum landing weight are 130 and 134 knots, respectively. At lighter weights they can come in even slower. Steve (the certified flying fanatic) stevep@shell.portal.com From kls Mon Feb 13 01:44:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Saab 2000 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Feb 95 01:44:22 US readers: keep your eyes skywards - the Saab 2000 (A/C #4) is on a US sales tour. It flew in to Boeing Field yesterday (2/9/95) and overnighted in the Galvin hangar, departing at 10:30 this morning. A Boeing friend called me (thanks Nicole!) and I managed to get down there before they departed for Portland. I didn't get inside, as I'm an aero weanie - I spent my time looking over the outside of the aircraft - especially the inlet system. I helped Allison out with some analysis of the inlet back when it was in the design stage and I later convinced IPTN to use a modified version of it in the N250. It was nice to see it "in the flesh". My first impression was of big the aircraft is. A close inspection reveals it to be pretty clean - for instance they've gotten rid of the external cable run troughs that are on the forward belly of the 340 (gee, I almost typed SF 340). I noticed that they've added two strakes under the tailcone. The sales type said that they were for weathercock stability, but they look to me to be for controlling the vortices that can form on upswept aft fuselages - look at an EMB 120 Brasilia. I couldn't stick around for the take-off, so I don't know how quiet/noisy it is. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mon Feb 13 01:44:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: limerock@aol.com (Limerock) Subject: 777 stall speeds Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: limerock@aol.com (Limerock) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Feb 95 01:44:22 In a previous message, I indicated the 77 stall speeds are 130 to 140 knots. NOT! I meant approach speed, which is 1.23Vstall (1g). Sorry! From kls Mon Feb 13 01:44:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: emoore@gate.net (Eric Moore) Subject: Re: Lockheed Constellation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Feb 95 01:44:22 In article , jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) wrote: > Actually there are a few Connies in service, mainly in the > Carribean, as freighters; in addition, there are several that are > being restored or have been recently, including one that will be > flying with Qantas colours in Australia. There is one flying freighter service out of MIA. When the throttles are pushed to the wall, it sounds like all the power is going into noise. That plan still gets everyone's attention. EM -- Eric Moore Miami, Florida emoore@gate.net "...Come back to Miami! We weren't really shooting at YOU!" From kls Wed Feb 15 03:42:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,sci.engr.mech Path: bounce-back From: ixthos@access.digex.net (Ixthos) Subject: NEED\WTB a copy of Aircraft ENGINES of World 1952. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Feb 95 03:42:21 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Hi; Thanks for reading this. I have an old Boeing Gas turbine. It's very similar to a T50 502-10B. I would like some kind soul to tell me where in the DC area I can go to look at this book to find out the exact type of engine I have. Also Are there any places one can get (buy) used turbines and or parts for them??? Thanks; C.W. Thomas From kls Wed Feb 15 03:42:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Return to Lessor story (was Re: Long term storage) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Feb 95 03:42:21 In article stevep@shell.portal.com (Steven H Philipson) writes: It may seem crazy to have a 100 million dollar airplane just sitting there (especially when the financing is running $20,000 per day), but it can be the cheapest alternative for the airline. This is a big-bucks business. What seems like huge amounts for individuals is all just part of the game they're in. ==== Pardon me for changing the subject, but I have a story along these lines from a couple of years ago... I was working for an air carrier which had a run-out B747-100 to return to a leasing company. However, the terms of the lease said that four overhauled engines needed to be returned on the wing (probably particular engine serial numbers). The airline did the numbers, and determined that it was cheaper to buy the airframe (which was out of time), rather than to put the aircraft into return condition. So they bought it, and THEN put it immediately into storage, because they couldn't pay for the aging aircraft modifications to return it to revenue service. I suspect that it will never carry passengers again. Go figure. ed -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Wed Feb 15 03:42:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eliscio@hermes.acs.ryerson.ca (Eugenio Liscio - AERE/W94) Subject: Aircraft Riveting Process Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ryerson Polytechnic University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Feb 95 03:42:21 I am working on my undergraduate thesis which has to do with the upsetting of aluminum slug rivets. These are used at McDonnell Douglas Canada Limited to rivet the stringers to the wingskin of MD-11/DC-10 aircraft. If anyone has any information on aerospace fasteners (esp. rivets) I'd sure like to get a hold of it. Thanks, Eugene eliscio@acs.ryerson.ca From kls Wed Feb 15 03:42:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@GSB-Pound.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Has anyone ridden Comair's CRJ?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Feb 95 03:42:21 In article , Mihir Pramod Shah wrote: >Connections to covered walkways are probably not >feasible because of their built-in stairways (as you said) and the fact that >they ride very close to the ground. Too bad, because it would have made the >CRJ the first true commuter jet that feels like a big one. Low to the ground doesn't rule that out. The BAe146 (now the Avro RJ) also has a low sill height, but I've seen jetways used with that machine too. RNA From kls Wed Feb 15 03:42:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: entmlf@cr41.staffs.ac.uk (Martin at Staffs University, UK) Subject: EPR v. N1 for turbofan power setting Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Feb 95 03:42:21 A two-part question, and probably a pretty stupid one too:- a) RR Engines usually use Engine Pressure Ratio as the parameter used to set engine power/thrust for take-off, climb, noise abatement, cruise, etc. Other manufacturers use N1. Which is the better parameter to use, ie who has got it right? Maybe EPR is harder to gauge than N1 but is more meaningful? b) On aircraft that use EPR for thrust setting, why is the range from 0.0 to about 2.3? On a recent MD81 flight, thrust was set using EPR (I don't know what engines, but not RR?) and the Go Around limit was about 2.1, and flight-idle during descent was about 0.3. I can't calculate the actual pressure ratio, but IF it represents the pressure rise along the engine, and if flight-idle is 0.3, then I'd have guessed that full power EPR would have been about 50 on that scale? A range of 0.0 to 2.3 representing the thrust range from idle to TO/GA seems small. OK, so what have I got wrong?! Martin m.fiddler@staffs.ac.uk From kls Wed Feb 15 03:42:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Radovich Subject: Re: 777 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Wattle Lake Air Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Feb 95 03:42:21 stevep@shell.portal.com (Steven H Philipson) wrote: >In article , >DANJET wrote: >>>Stall speeds of the 777 are similar to the 767 and other >>>transports, around 130 to 140 kts for landing flaps. >> >>Is this correct? When I follow a 767/757 into MDW in our little GIV he >>slows way back to our lnding speed of max138 full flaps (1.3vso) > > According to 1978-79 _Jane's All the World's Aircraft_, the approach >speeds for the 767-200MR and TC at maximum landing weight are 130 and >134 knots, respectively. At lighter weights they can come in even slower. The following are the approach speeds for B767-200ER & B767-300ER's. Note that most operators "bug up" their Vref speeds by 5 knots to ensure an adequate margin. Type Max Ldg Wt(MLW) Vref @ MLW Approach Speed (Vref + 5) B767-200ER 126,100 kg 137 knots 142 knots B767-300ER 145,150 kg 146 knots 151 knots Note that the speeds above are for max landing weight of these particular versions, so unless the aircraft was returning to land at above max landing weight (due to an emergency etc.), they would be the maximum speeds for the ER (extended range). The minimum approach speed can be as slow as 123 knots for the -200ER & 125 knots for the -300ER when the aircraft is very light. Regards, Mark Radovich From kls Wed Feb 15 03:42:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dreeves@ese.ogi.edu (B. Douglas Reeves) Subject: Re: Saab 2000 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oregon Grad. Inst. - Dept. Env. Sci & Eng. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Feb 95 03:42:22 In article , David Lednicer wrote: | US readers: keep your eyes skywards - the Saab 2000 (A/C #4) is |on a US sales tour. ..... I'm sorry I missed that, but does anybody know what the expected price of the 2000 is in USD? Thanks, D. Reeves -- |B. Douglas Reeves Env. Sci.& Eng. Oregon Graduate Institute| |N6XHW 146.90 PDX (503)833-8504 World dreeves@ese.ogi.edu Net| |"School is Hell, but it beats working"-M. Groening "Blarg!"-P.Lee| From kls Wed Feb 15 03:42:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: HELP: TCAS ALGORITHM NEEDED References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Feb 95 03:42:22 TCAS II is covered by TSO-C119a(TCAS-I by TSO-C118). To obtain a copy of a TSO write to the: Department of Transportation Personal Property Operations Branch, General Services Section, M-443.2, Washington DC, 20590. This will most likely point you to an RTCA Document however. DO-197, Active Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System I (C118) is available from: RTCA, Inc. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 1020 Washington, D.C. 20036 USA Phone 202-833-9339 I think that RTCA would be a better place to start with, although it is the TSO which makes the RTCA document a 'standard.' From kls Wed Feb 15 03:42:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: paolo.saccuman@jrc.it (Paolo Saccuman) Subject: Re: HELP: TCAS ALGORITHM NEEDED References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Feb 95 03:42:22 Some month ago, I have carried out a series of simulation on the effect of the TCAS intervention during an approach procedure. For this purpose I have developed a model of the TCAS II based on the release 6.0 of the system logic. The FAA-approved logic is published by the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics in the document: "Minimum Operational Performance Standards For Traffic Alert And Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) Airborne Equipement" Volume I & II Document No. RTCA/DO - 185 Last revision: September 6, 1990. Copy of the document can be obtained from: RTCA SECRETARIAT One McPherson Square 1425 K Street, N.W. Suite 500 Washington D.C. 20005 (202) 682-0266 The price of the document is 60.00 $. In detail, volume II contains the required collision avoidance algorithm, both as high-level pseudocode, to convey the functional design, and as low-level pseudocode, to serve as a detailed specification. Another document in which the system logic is presented, even if in a more descriptive way, is: "Introduction to TCAS II" published by FAA. I hope that these suggestions can be helpful for your work. Paolo Saccuman # European Commission # Joint Research Centre # Institute for Systems Engineering and Informatics # I - 21020 Ispra (Va) Italy # E-mail: paolo.saccuman@jrc.it From kls Wed Feb 15 03:42:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Hamadeh Nureddin <74743.1314@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: HELP: TCAS ALGORITHM NEEDED References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: via CompuServe Information Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Feb 95 03:42:22 I remember coming across a detailed description of the TCAS II algorithms in the highly specialized (and very difficult to obtain) Journal of Navigation. This is a quarterly, and you probably have to special order it. Anyway, here is the necessary biblioography on the articles: 1. Ford, R. L. The protected volume of air space generated by an airborne collision avoidance system. The Royal Institute of Navigation. The journal of Navigation, Volume 39, 1986, No2. pp.139-158 2. R.L Ford. The conflict resolution process for TCAS II and some simulation results. journal of navigation. Vol 40, September 1987, No.3. -- Aviation Specialist, pilot, and engineer. MSc. Aeronautical Science, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. From kls Wed Feb 15 03:42:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ericrood@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Eric Rood) Subject: Re: HELP: TCAS ALGORITHM NEEDED References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Feb 95 03:42:22 Peter Stuetz (ld1bstue@kommsrv.RZ.UniBw-Muenchen.de) wrote: : We try to equippe our research simulator with TCAS. : How can we get access to the current valied, FAA-approved : TCAS-Logic. Also any information about how traffic is declared : a threat and how resolution advisories are calculated would be : very helpful. : Thanks for help! : Peter -- I don't know that you can get the "code", but you should be able to obtain a copy of the guidelines (Technical Standard Order, TSO) which define the parameters the device must perform to. The code is probably proprietary data owned by each manufacturer of the devices. Have you considered TCAD (MUCH less expensive!) such as the Ryan device or the on from BF Goodrich designed for the US Navy trainers based in Pensacola (sp)? Also, are you looking for TCAS I or TCAS II information? TCAS I just tells you there is something out there in a certain direction . TCAS II tells you how you need to respond (climb/descend) and communicates with the other aircraft if so equipped to maneuver in the opposite direction. these are presented as Threat Advisories (TA's) and Resolution Advisories (RA's). You might also contact NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System for more information. -- BF Goodrich FlightSystems / 2001 Polaris Parkway / Columbus OH 43240-2001 / 614-825-2001 Voice -- NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System / Ames Research Center / Moffett Field CA 94035-1000 or The Office of the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System / PO Box 189 / Moffett Field CA 94035-0189 -- Ryan International Corporation / Electric Lab / 4800 Evanswood Drive / Columbus OH 43229 / 614-885-3303 Regards, Eric. -- Eric Rood / 170 Monterey Drive / Dublin OH 43017-1329 / 614-761-7461 ericrood@freenet.columbus.oh.us opinions are my own, subject to change by sound arguement From kls Wed Feb 15 03:42:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jkkuchar@athena.mit.edu (James K. Kuchar) Subject: Re: HELP: TCAS ALGORITHM NEEDED References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Feb 95 03:42:22 In article , ld1bstue@kommsrv.RZ.UniBw-Muenchen.de (Peter Stuetz) writes: |> We try to equippe our research simulator with TCAS. |> How can we get access to the current valied, FAA-approved |> TCAS-Logic. Also any information about how traffic is declared |> a threat and how resolution advisories are calculated would be |> very helpful. There is a document from RTCA: "Minimum Performance Standards for TCAS Airborne Equipment", Document # RTCA/DO-185, Sept. 1983. I seem to recall that RTCA moved recently, but the address I have is RTCA Suite 655 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 (202) 296-0484 This describes the TCAS logic for TAs and RAs through pseudocode that can be tailored to your simulator. Note, however, that the TCAS logic has changed several times since 1983. If you're interested, write to me and I can point you to the correct people to talk to. Jim Kuchar jkkuchar@mit.edu From kls Mon Feb 20 12:05:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia.org (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Aircraft Order Update (2/16) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Feb 95 12:05:25 Organization: International Internet Association. Note for S.A.A readers: I started compiling this list since last month and have posted two updates to rec.travel.air. Karl suggested that I cross-post to both groups. I intend to update it twice a month. It has been very quiet for the past two weeks. If no major orders come up, I'll only update monthly. Suggestions and corrections are welcome. My major sources are the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Financial Times, Flight International, Aviation Week, and Air Transport World. *** 1995 Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (Feb 16, 95) *** 9 5 | A I R B U S | B O E I N G | M D | | | /* 737 \ | | airline|300 310 319 320 321 330 340|345 700 800 744 757 767 777|80 90 11| _______|___________________________|___________________________|__________| 3Q | | 3R | | AI | | 2P | | Bavaria| | 2 | | NH | 10? | 3G 3P| | BG | 2P | | | IY??? | 2? | | | _______|___________________________|___________________________|__________| Total | 0 4 0 0 10 0 0 | 0 2 0 2 0 6 3 | 0 0 0| 1. * The 737-300/400/500 is kept under one column (345). 2. The engine selection (other than the A340, B737, and MD80/90) is indicated by the letter behind each order number. C,G,I,P, or R stands for CFMI, GEAE, IAE, P&W, or R-R, respectively. 3. If the MD95 is launched, the statistics will be kept under the MD90, and B will be used for BMW-R-R's BR715 engine. 4. Send an e-mail to me (chuanga@iia.org) for any order that I have left out. Make sure the orders are *announced* *firm* orders with verifiable source. 5. IATA code: 3Q - Yunnan (China), AI - Air-India, NH - All Nippon, IY - Yemen, BG - Biman Bangladesh ***************************************************************************** Known order cancellations: Boeing: 3 B757s (3Q/CAAC); 3 B737s, 4 B747Fs, 3 B767s (AF); 4 B747s (NH) Airbus: 7 A340s (AF) Acknowledgments: Thanks to panos@euler.berkeley.edu for providing the info on the IY order, but I was a little hesitant to include it because I could not verify it. Does anyone know anything about it, and what's the engine selection? Also, thanks to andelin@clinet.fi (Jan-Erik Andelin) for many updates. -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Mon Feb 20 12:05:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia.org (Andrew Chuang) Subject: PW4098 launched Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Feb 95 12:05:25 Organization: International Internet Association. According to Friday's (2/17) Hartford Courant, Pratt & Whitney became the first engine manufacturer to have committed to build an engine for the long-range version of the B777 (B-plus, I believe). The engine, the PW4098, is scheduled to be certified in September 1997. In an earlier Hartford Courant article, it was reported that P&W had been discussing with an Asian carrier (my guess is Korean Air) and a South African carrier (everyone can guess this one, right?) about the long-range B777 powerplant. With the 98,000-lb-thrust PW4098, the B777 will have a range of 8,000 miles. By my simple estimation, the long-range B777 can enter into service by late 1998. -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Mon Feb 20 12:05:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@jug.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: EPR v. N1 for turbofan power setting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Feb 95 12:05:25 In article entmlf@cr41.staffs.ac.uk (Martin at Staffs University, UK) writes: > Which is the better parameter to use, ie who has got it right? > Maybe EPR is harder to gauge than N1 but is more meaningful? Both N1 and EPR are fairly easy to measure. N1 is measured using a tachometer, and EPR is measured using something very equivalent to a pitot tube stuck in the exhaust. (A "Pt7" probe for those curious.) > b) On aircraft that use EPR for thrust setting, why is the > range from 0.0 to about 2.3? On a recent MD81 flight, thrust > was set using EPR (I don't know what engines, but not RR?) and The MD80 series uses the JT217/JT219 series from Pratt and Whitney, exclusively. (The MD90 and 95, however, will not use P&Ws). > the Go Around limit was about 2.1, and flight-idle during > descent was about 0.3. > I can't calculate the actual pressure ratio, but IF it > represents the pressure rise along the engine, and if > flight-idle is 0.3, then I'd have guessed that full power EPR > would have been about 50 on that scale? > A range of 0.0 to 2.3 representing the thrust range from idle > to TO/GA seems small. Given that an EPR reading of zero really means that there is a pressure differential of 1 (i.e. both sides of the engine are at the same pressure), multiplying the ambient pressure at sea level by 3.3 (i.e. 2.3 gauge pressure), one gets a pressure differential of 48.51 psi. Not having the engine specs handy, I'll assume an effective engine diameter of 2 feet (24 inches). This works out to an engine area of 452.4 square inches. Multiplying this by 48.51 psi, it works out to 21,945 lbs of static thrust. (Note that assuming a 3 foot engine diameter works out to almost 50,000 lbs!). This is easily within the ball park of the real answer. ed -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Mon Feb 20 12:05:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: EPR v. N1 for turbofan power setting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Feb 95 12:05:25 In article entmlf@cr41.staffs.ac.uk (Martin at Staffs University, UK) writes: > >A two-part question, and probably a pretty stupid one too:- > >a) RR Engines usually use Engine Pressure Ratio as >the parameter used to set engine power/thrust for >take-off, climb, noise abatement, cruise, etc. Other >manufacturers use N1. > >Which is the better parameter to use, ie who has got it >right? Maybe EPR is harder to gauge than N1 but is more >meaningful? EPR is engine pressure ratio, the ratio of air pressure leaving the back to the air entering the engine. There are two types of EPR, a "simple" EPR, with two probes, one at the inlet and the other at the fan outlet; another is a sort of "composite" EPR, with two outlet probes: one for the fan, the other for the turbine exhaust (a small percentage of total thrust goes through the turbine, and counts). Why EPR? Well, on high-bypass turbofans, it just makes more sense. You're using a power setting, not a performance setting. A tach indication can be unreliable, and can result in different readings among different engines in identical conditions. It is also more sensitive to engine differences, so a peak N1 indicator has to be monitored throughout the regime (some imple- mentations which use N1 also have an N1 computer showing the numerical maximum in the gauge; this is one reason why Boeing 747s with CF6 engines tended to have electromechanical tape displays). Some engines which use EPR include the JT8D, the RB.211, and JT9. The GE CF6 uses N1. Another consideration is the type of nacelle the engine is positioned in. In this case, the airplane design also becomes a factor; I'm sure one can find exceptions for all of these cases. A big, high-bypass fan (e.g., CF6) might benefit more from a tach indicator. >b) On aircraft that use EPR for thrust setting, why is >the range from 0.0 to about 2.3? On a recent MD81 >flight, thrust was set using EPR (I don't know what >engines, but not RR?) and the Go Around limit was about >2.1, and flight-idle during descent was about 0.3. The range is usually 1.0 to 3.0. At 1.0, the ratio is 1:1; this will happen on the ground with the airplane standing still. Most gauges may go peg at 0.7 (more ram air than exhaust), but I've never seen one go to 0.0. >I can't calculate the actual pressure ratio, but IF >it represents the pressure rise along the engine, and >if flight-idle is 0.3, then I'd have guessed that full >power EPR would have been about 50 on that scale? When you apply full power, you're also creating "suction" at the engine inlet. The probles are within the inlet, not on the outside. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Mon Feb 20 12:05:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Keith Steele Subject: Re: EPR v. N1 for turbofan power setting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Feb 95 12:05:26 EPR stands for engine pressure ratio. It is simply the exhaust pressure divided by the intake pressure. For practical purposes the intake pressure equals ambient pressure. What produces thrust is the difference between intake and exhaust pressure. For example lets say you are at an airport with an elevation of about 1000 ft. Ambient pressure is 14 pounds pounds per square inch. The engine on one of the B-727 variants that I fly is a JT-8D with 14,000 lbs takeoff thrust. The diameter of the exhaust is 3 ft for a total of 1000 square inches. Takeoff EPR is 2.0. Therefore the The air pressure at the front of the engine is 14psi X 1000 sq in or 14,000 lbs of pressure. The air pressure at the rear of the engine is 28psi X 1000 sq in or 28,000 pounds. the total pressure is 28,000 pounds at the back of the engine opposed by 14,000 lbs of pressure at the front of the engine giving a total difference of 14,000 lbs of forward thrust. As long as you know what ambient pressure and the diameter of the engine is you can always use the EPR indicature to figure exactly how much thrust or push each engine is delivering. At 18,000 ft the air pressure is only 7 psi, therefore using the math you can see that 2.0 EPR would only give you 7000 lbs of thrust per engine. Also I believe you misrread the low end of the EPR indicator. 1.0 EPR is no thrust because the pressure at the front and the back of the engine would be the same therefore there would be no thrust being produced. EPR is an excellent thrust indicator because regardless of engine condition it tells you exactly how much thrust or push the engine is delivering. The problem is that with high bypass engines it doesn't work very well. The reason is rather complex but if you want to know send me Email. In the aircraft I fly N1 is used as a backup thrust indicator should the EPR indicator fail. N1 is an indirect measure of thrust. The engineers determine that if N1 is rotating at a certain speed than so much thrust must be produced. The probvlem The problem with N1 is that it does not take into account wear an tear on the fan blades. As they get worn they may not produced the thrust they did when they were new. On the newer high bypass engines they are the best choice because EPR is not accurate on high bypass engines. Keith Steele Captain/Flight Instructor B-727 75126,1123@compuserve.com KEITHSTEELE@delphi.com From kls Thu Feb 23 02:12:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Jonathan N. Deitch) Subject: "Falling from the Sky" nitpicks Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 95 02:12:19 Organization: Georgia State University Saw the film last night, was pretty good ... some questions, though ... Airplane taking off *was* a 767, wasn't it ? I thought it looked like one .. However, was the airplane when it landed at Grimley ? Looked waaaay too small to me ... more like a baby sized 737 ... I thought 767's had those *huge* engines on 'em and this plane had much smaller ones. Also, why in hell did everyone run out the back door when the forward cabin door was *open* with slide chute deployed ? Did this occur in the actual event ? Seems silly for the crew to climb back up the rear chute (which was *very* steep) when they could practically step inside the forward door with the front gear collapsed ... Also, did you notice when the RAT deployed and the power came back on, there was a comment made about "emergency instrumentation" yet all the computers came back on (I seem to remember reading about the incident and mention was made that the computers did NOT come back on) not even mentioning that the *cabin* lights were on too ... awful lot for a little turbine to drive, you know ... Not to mention how the air traffic controllers were listening in on the radio after the landing when there should have not been any power ... the ram air turbine would have stopped spinning when the airplane stopped moving. Oh well ... chalk up another one for Docu-Drama ... - 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 Thu Feb 23 02:12:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) Subject: Re: Aircraft Riveting Process References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Stanford University, Dept. of Aero/Astro Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 95 02:12:19 In article , eliscio@hermes.acs.ryerson.ca (Eugenio Liscio - AERE/W94) wrote: > I am working on my undergraduate thesis which has to do with the > upsetting of aluminum slug rivets. These are used at McDonnell Douglas > Canada Limited to rivet the stringers to the wingskin of MD-11/DC-10 > aircraft. If anyone has any information on aerospace fasteners (esp. rivets) > I'd sure like to get a hold of it. Try contacting Professor Walter Vincente at e-mail HF.MKM@Forsythe.stanford.edu Professor Vincente has specialized on the history of technology since he retired as an aerodynamicist and wrote a paper on the history of riveting a few years ago. Whether he can help on your particular riveting process may be a question but it is worth a try. -- Richard Shevell Email: shevell@leland.stanford.edu From kls Thu Feb 23 02:12:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Corwin@src.honeywell.com (Bill Corwin) Subject: Re: Biggest Jumbo? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell Technology Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 95 02:12:20 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > aircraft MGTOW span length passengers > -------- ----- ---- ------ ---------- > 747-400 870000 211.0 231.9 412-509 > 747-100 750000 195.7 231.9 366-452 > MD-11 618000 169.5 200.8 293-410 > DC-10-30 572000 165.3 181.6 250-380 > A340-300 558900 197.8 209.0 280-440 > L-1011-500 504000 164.3 164.2 230-330 > L-1011-250 496000 155.3 177.7 250-400 > DC-10-10 440000 155.3 182.3 250-380 I believe all your numbers Karl, but you've left out one of the most beautiful aircraft in the world. I wouldn't call it a "JUMBO" but she is a "heavy" (GW > 300,000 lbs.). Concorde 408000 83.8 203.75 100 From kls Thu Feb 23 02:12:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: JEFFGIVENS@delphi.com Subject: HELP: TCAS ALGORITHM NEEDED References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 95 02:12:20 Quoting jkkuchar from a message in sci.aeronautics.airliners : There is a document fro RTCA: "Minimum Performance Standards for TCAS : Airborne Equipment", Document # RTCA/DO-185, Sept. 1983. He can also try contacting Tony Broderick at 76077.2520@compuserve.com. Tony is deputy administrator in charge of certification and something for FAA. He can certainly point him in the right direction. JG...UKT (ABE/PHL) jeffgivens@delphi.com PP-ASEL incl. 4 hrs. B727! From kls Thu Feb 23 02:12:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Answers to the quiz Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 95 02:12:20 The intended answer to the pop quiz is the Convair 110/220/340/440/540/580/640. The engines are: P&W R-2800 Twin Wasp piston engine Napier Eland turboprop (Alleghany flew them as the 540) Allison 501 turboprop R-R Dart turboprop However, people have pointed out to me that the DC-3 has five manufacturers represented: Curtiss R-1820 Cyclone (pre-war DC-3s) P&W R-1830 Twin Wasps (military C-47s) R-R Dart (BEA had two) P&W Canada PT-6 (several recent conversions) Mikulin M-25 (Soviet Li-2s) and it occured to me that the Caravelle has four: R-R Avon (early models) P&W JT8D (later models) GE CJ805 (a one-off prototype, the "Santa Maria") GE/Snecma CFM 56 (as a testbed) and the 707/720 has seven(!): P&W JT3C, JT3D, JT4A R-R Conway GE/Snecma CFM 56 P&WC PW 100, 300, 500 (on a testbed) Garrett TPE 351, TFE 731(?) (on a testbed) CFE (GE/Garrett) CFE 738 (on a testbed) IAE V2500 (on a testbed) (IAE is P&W/R-R/MTU/IHI/Fiat) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Thu Feb 23 02:12:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dale Grose Subject: Re: 777 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Vianet Austria Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 95 02:12:20 stevep@shell.portal.com (Steven H Philipson) wrote: > According to 1978-79 _Jane's All the World's Aircraft_, the approach > speeds for the 767-200MR and TC at maximum landing weight are 130 and > 134 knots, respectively. At lighter weights they can come in even slower. > The Approach Speed of a B767-300 at 145,149kgs(Max ldg Wt) is 149kts. Dale Grose dgrose@via.at From kls Thu Feb 23 02:12:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: slacker@arlut.utexas.edu (Steve Lacker) Subject: Capabilities of airliners (was recoverable flight attitudes) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 95 02:12:21 Hello, all. I'm normally a lurker on this group because it fascinates me, but I have no background or training in aircraft design, nor am I a pilot. After following the thread on recoverable flight attitudes, I started wondering (for about the thousandth time) what particular airliners throughout the history of flying were known for truly exceptional flying qualities. I know that is somewhat difficult to define, but lets just say that 'good' in this context means 'more nimble' or 'fighter-like'. Things like good pitch rate, roll rate, and planes that pilots simply liked to fly. Obviously, since even I had heard of Tex Johnston's stunt with the Dash 80, the 707 and 720 probably fall in this category. I've known one pilot who absolutely loved the 727, and despised it when he was 'promoted' to the DC-10. What about the old-timers like the DC-3 versus the Convair 240/340/440, or the DC-7C versus the Super Constellation? Do any of the current generation birds have outstandingly good reputations yet? ( I don't particularly *want* to know about any outstandingly bad reputations, I'm travelling week-after-next ;-) Waiting for the Pop Quiz answer also... SL From kls Thu Feb 23 02:12:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Capabilities of airliners (was recoverable flight attitudes) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Feb 95 02:12:21 >Do any of the current generation birds have outstandingly good >reputations yet? The Boeing 757 is widely regarded as being something of a rocket. Coming up with any sort of definitive comparison is virtually meaningless given the wide proliferation of engine and weight options available on most airliners, but looking at "typical" configurations that you might find on one of the major carriers, the 757's thrust-to-weight ratio is clearly eclipsed by only one Western airliner -- Concorde, and I believe that's with after- burners operating. (Lest the debate open again, I'll concede that there may be a hotrod configuration of an A319 or something that's better than a hypothetical overweight and underpowered 757 config.) Once, after a largely empty flight from SFO to LAX that cruised at 39,000 ft for barely over 5 minutes, I did some back-of-the- envelope thrust/weight calculations. Keep in mind that this plane can haul nearly 200 people over 4,500 miles; we probably had about 75 on a 337 mile journey. The best comparison seemed to be an F4 Phantom at full takeoff weight!!! -- 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 Tue Feb 28 22:57:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (Lakshmi N. Chilukuri) Subject: Re: EPR v. N1 for turbofan power setting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Feb 95 22:57:35 In article , entmlf@cr41.staffs.ac.uk says... >Which is the better parameter to use, ie who has got it >right? Maybe EPR is harder to gauge than N1 but is more >meaningful? >b) On aircraft that use EPR for thrust setting, why is >the range from 0.0 to about 2.3? >if flight-idle is 0.3, then I'd have guessed that full >power EPR would have been about 50 on that scale? .... EPR is the ratio of the primary (hot) stream total pressure to the total pressure of the freestream. EPR should be greater than 1.0 if the engine is running. So it is tough to accept your estimate of EPR=0.3 for flight idle power! Percent N1 is a measure of the fan rpm, and hence is directly related to the total pressure rise across the fan. Thus, percent N1 is a measure of the work being done by the fan. Since the bypass stream dominates the thrust generated by modern turbofans, I would prefer to use percent N1 to regulate power setting? Any comments? EPR can also be used to regulate power setting. However, the power expended by the fan can be estimated from EPR only if the thermodynamic cycle efficiency is well understood. Krish Chilukuri Aero Group Leader Rohr Industries From kls Tue Feb 28 22:57:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ejw111@psu.edu (Eric J. Whitney) Subject: Re: EPR v. N1 for turbofan power setting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratory, Penn State Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Feb 95 22:57:35 In article rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: I do not have a lot of experience in this area, but I do remember being in a meeting a long time ago (about 8-10 years) in which there was some discussion about the parameters used to determine power setting. I remember that a design engineer on a military engine project said that F/A-18 pilots used Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) to determine take-off power setting. The pilot would throttle the engine to reach a specific EGT, once reached the plane would then be catapulted off the deck. It's easy to see that you can get the same EGT with different EPR and N1's depending on the condition of the engine. So, when the engineer said this other designers (I assume on other engine programs) went nuts. They said in a severly degraded engine N1 could be so low that the plane could be catapulted into the sea! I cannot comment on any of this because I'm just not knowledgeable in this area; but using EGT would seem to be very iffy proposition. I know of no commercial engines that use EGT as a measure of thrust. Perhaps somebody with more experience in this area could shed some light on this topic. For example, in the commercial airliner what is the relationship between EPR or N1 and EGT? Eric From kls Tue Feb 28 22:57:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Willlllbur Subject: EPR info Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Maryland University College Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Feb 95 22:57:35 I would like to impart some knowledge regarding EPR and the GE TF-39 engines installed of the Lockheed C5-Galaxy. The TF-39 engine is flat rated in static take-off thrust for all ambient temperatures up to 89.5 degrees F (standard tropical day) within the limits of maximum turbine inlet temperature (TIT). The engine is not run at a fixed maximum speed, but at a speed to develop the rated thrust. The variables that increase the density of the air (decreasing atmospheric temperature - increasing atmospheric temperature - ram effect inflight) will result in the engine reaching rated thrust at lower engine speeds. The flight engineer calculates the thrust setting relative to ambient conditions and advises the pilots to set the throttles to provide the desired thrust. The pilots use the EPR vertical scale tape instruments to set engine power. EPR instrument range on the C5 is 1.0 to 7.0 EPR. Since the EPR instrumentation is not a direct indicator of fan performance (N1), the fan speed is used in relation to EPR to determine engine performance. On the TF-39 engine, EPR is an indication of mass air energy immediately upstream of the low pressure turbine which drives the fan. A pressure ratio sensor is connected to the engine inlet total pressure (Pt2) and low pressure turbine inlet total pressure (Pt5.4) probes. EPR is not a direct indicator of engine performance for the fan or the core engine but a ratio of fan inlet pressure to high pressure turbine discharge pressure. Mass air flow from the fan and or core engine compressor is directly related to rotor speeds in addition to the ambient variables. Therefore, the throttle position to provide a desired EPR is also establishing a mass air flow which can be directly related to fan thrust and core engine thrust. The Lockheed C5B models do not use EPR as on the C5A model. MSG William R. McGowan Flight Engineer 709th Airlift Squadron Dover AFB, DE 19902 From kls Tue Feb 28 22:57:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (Lakshmi N. Chilukuri) Subject: Thrust reversers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Feb 95 22:57:35 Why do we need thrust reversers? The FAA requires aircraft to be able to land safely, without using thrust reversers, even on slippery or icy runways. Common wisdom is that thrust reversers help reduce wear and tear on brakes. Does anyone have a feel for the cost of wheel brakes? Is there a move to reduce these costs? Do these costs outweigh the risks associated with potential in-flight deploy of thrust reversers? Could a pilot or other expert please enlighten me about an operator's perspective on these matters. This matter should be debate-worthy, since the Lauda Air 767 crash (in Thailand) was initiated by inadvertent thrust reverser deploy. Krish Chilukuri Aerodynamics Group Leader Rohr Inc, San Diego From kls Tue Feb 28 22:57:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ecla@world.std.com (alain arnaud) Subject: NY Times article on ATR Certification Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Feb 95 22:57:35 The sunday NY Times (2/26/95) has a two full pages article on ATR42/72 accidents and the lack of proper certification for icing conditions. It seems that the FAA icing specifications date from the 1940s and have not been updated since. Good article, seems more appropriate for Aviation Week, but that rag would never publish something so critical of the industry in general and so damning of the FAA. --Alain Arnaud From kls Tue Feb 28 22:57:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: NY Times article on ATR Certification References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Feb 95 22:57:36 >It seems that the FAA icing specifications date from the 1940s and >have not been updated since. If true, this sounds like typical FAA. The DC-10 Case, an ethics textbook using the DC-10 as a case study, has much discussion about the FAA's grossly outdated standards in a variety of areas, and their tendency to drag their feet over even the most reasonable changes. -- 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 Tue Feb 28 22:57:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: DC-10 Stuff Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Feb 95 22:57:36 Hey folks, Does anyone know if there is a sure-fire way to tell what kind of wing-body fairings a DC-10 has? I've noticed recently that they all seem to be different. Some have a large fairing at the leading edge of the wing root that extends upward above the top surface of the wing, some don't. Some -30s have it, some don't. Same with the aft end of the fairing. Some -30s have a long rear end, some don't. Some -10s have it, some don't. Same story with the horizontal stabilizer fairing on the fuselage. Some have a rounded front end, some have a pointed front end that almost touches the aft cabin door. There seems to be no rhyme or reason as to which type of airplane has which type (or types) of fairings. I thought you could pretty well say that a -10 had one type and a -30 had the other, but it just ain't so. Any enlightenment would be greatly appreciated. Jennings Heilig jheilig@gate.net From kls Tue Feb 28 22:57:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Airbus@ix.netcom.com (Derek Hellmann) Subject: Total Air DC-10 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Feb 95 22:57:36 One day about about 10-12 years ago I saw a Total Air DC-10 at Imperial Terminal, LAX. It was in full Total Air colors with titles and I never saw it again. Total Air, later renamed Air America, was a L-1011 operator flying a handful of ex-Delta machines. Trust me though, it was NOT an L-1011. Everyone says that I probably saw an L-1011 instead but I know what I saw. I forgot the series and couldn't see the registration because it was parked nose first toward the terminal fence. So, has anyone else on this planet ever seen a Total Air DC-10? Anybody know any details about this airframe,history, etc. (was it NTU)? Help me! D. Stewart airbus@netcom.com From kls Tue Feb 28 22:57:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: 747-400F References: <3iggar$g6s@clarion.cec.wustl.edu> <3ii177$jim@iia.org> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Feb 95 22:57:36 In article <3ii177$jim@iia.org>, Andrew Chuang wrote: >Almost all Trans-Pacific freighter services stop in Alaska. Even with >the new 747-400F (which Cargolux, Cathay Pacific, Singapore and Asiana >have), airlines still schedule a stop in Anchorage. All the airlines >that have ordered the -400F opted for extra payloads instead of extra >range. Unlike human beings, cargo don't care much for non-stop service. :-) Speaking of the 747-400F, Boeing used the old 747 top, i.e. it ditched the stretched upper deck. I've wondered about what a 747-400F would be like with a stretched upper deck devoted to passengers. It would be sort of like one of those cruising cargo ships that have a small number of passenger cabins. I very much doubt that Boeing would ever make such a beast, but I wonder what the economics are like. You can fit a decent number of passengers in the stretched upper deck. You could see it as a Combi with a huge freight fraction. (have they made -400 Combis yet?) Getting people in and out of the upper deck might be a bitch, however. Comments? RNA From kls Tue Feb 28 22:57:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: etech@netcom.com (Eric Chevalier) Subject: Inflight engine shutdowns vs. speedups? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Feb 95 22:57:36 About a week or two ago a United 757 had to abort a landing approach at LAX because it's right engine suddenly went to full throttle. I happened to be listening to the tower frequency at the time and the first calls from the crewmember handling the radio suggested they had some major control problems for a few moments. (Ultimately the crew got the engine shutdown and the flight landed uneventfully. Although landing with one engine on a wet runway must have been interesting.) Which leads me to wonder: I know that flight crews (especially at the commercial level) get a good deal of training in unexpected engine-out situations. But how about the opposite situation, such as this crew experienced? Do unexpected engine "spin-up" conditions get as much attention during training? -- ERIC CHEVALIER Internet: etech@netcom.com Prodigy: GCXJ11A Compu$erve: 76010,2463 From kls Tue Feb 28 22:57:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia.org (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Lufthansa orders A319 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Feb 95 22:57:36 Lufthansa announced its intend to order 20 A319s to replace its B737-200s. It was also reported that Lufthansa would be ordering the CFM56 engine to power the A319. The engine selection is very mind-boggling: When Lufthansa made the A320 launch order, it selected the IAE V2500 engine, but later switched to the CFM engine. When Lufthansa ordered the A321, it selected the IAE engine. Now, it are going back to the CFM engine. -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Tue Feb 28 22:57:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia.org (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Answers to the quiz References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Feb 95 22:57:36 David Lednicer (dave@amiwest.com) wrote: [list of powerplants for various airframes... snip] Since you included flying testbed, then I think the DC9/MD80/90/95 should be mentioned, too: P&W JT8D, IAE V2500, BMW-RR BR715 (not yet, but it's inevitable), P&W/Allison propfan (I don't know the engine designation), and GE36 (UDF). Also, reengining with R-R's Tay engine was considered, but I don't think it was ever put on a DC9 (correct me if I'm wrong). : IAE V2500 (on a testbed) (IAE is P&W/R-R/MTU/IHI/Fiat) Just a nitpicking, it's not IHI. It's JAEC, and IHI is a part of JAEC. -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Tue Feb 28 22:57:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Answers to the quiz References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Feb 95 22:57:36 >P&W/Allison propfan (I don't know the engine designation), and GE36 (UDF). I remember seeing the GE UDF testbed (DC-9-80 #1) at Mojave, sans UDF engine but with an *extremely* long pylon on that side. The P&W/Allison propfan, however, tested on a 727-100. As far as I know it was never put on any flavor of DC-9 as well. -- 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 Mar 3 02:27:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nordstrom@esa.lanl.gov (Carl Nordstrom) Subject: Re: EPR v. N1 for turbofan power setting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 95 02:27:48 Stuff deleted... > The problem with N1 is that it does not take into account wear an tear on the > fan blades. As they get worn they may not produced the thrust they did when > they were new. On the newer high bypass engines they are the best choice > because EPR is not accurate on high bypass engines. It seems that you could use *corrected* N1 and always get a proper indication of thrust in high bypass engines. High bypass engine fan blades do not suffer the wear and tear of smaller engine fan blades as a percentage of core flow, so I would wager that this would be a good indicator. Of course, I don't know if pilots would feel comfortable with a mathematical approach to thrust, as opposed to a direct reading of N1 (and the subsequent table lookup to arrive at thrust). Carl Nordstrom nordstrom@esa.lanl.gov From kls Fri Mar 3 02:27:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.electronics,sci.optics Path: bounce-back From: BGOODIN@UNEX.UCLA.EDU (William R. Goodin) Subject: UCLA short course on "Modular Avionics" Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UCLA Extension Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 95 02:27:49 On April 24-28, 1995, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Modular Avionics", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Erwin A. Ulbrich, MSEE, PE, McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, Henry M. Daghighian, MScE, Teledyne Electronic Technologies, Roy Farmer, MBA, Delco Systems, Mark E. Johnson, MIM, Honeywell, William F. Kiczuk, Texas Instruments, Albert A. Marcantonio, Raytheon, Kenneth J, Nerius, Harris Aerospace Systems, John R. Newport, PhD, Systems Analysis Group, and Mohammed M. Tafreshi, MSEE, Boeing. This course provides engineers, scientists, managers, and marketing specialists with a comprehensive overview of modular avionics technology. Lessons learned from the last forty years are presented, as well as current experiences from integrating the latest generation of modular avionics. Other topics include system consolidation, system partitioning, cooling, intimate relation between the cockpit and avionics, new paradigms for system organization and data visualization. The course also discusses parallel development of the two existing systems, military and commercial, and how they might be combined as "dual use" systems in the future. Software development is covered from the standpoint of available toolsets, compilers, debuggers, etc. However, the course DOES NOT cover programming. Lectures also explore how the technology will progress into the first decade of the 21st century. Specific topics include: Government and Commercial Standards; Honeywell Modular Avionics: IMA and VIA Technology; Integration of Processing Functions: The New Architecture; Display Technologies and Advanced Avionics; Modular Avionics and the F-16 Modular Mission Computer; Military Modular Avionics Built to Commercial Specifications; Fiber Optic Communications for Avionics Applications; and Applications of IMAs on the Boeing 777 Airplane. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu From kls Fri Mar 3 02:27:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@news.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: 747-400F References: <3iggar$g6s@clarion.cec.wustl.edu> <3ii177$jim@iia.org> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 95 02:27:49 On 28 Feb 95 22:57:36 , rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) said: RNA> Speaking of the 747-400F, Boeing used the old 747 top, i.e. it RNA> ditched the stretched upper deck. RNA> I've wondered about what a 747-400F would be like with a RNA> stretched upper deck devoted to passengers. It would be sort of RNA> like one of those cruising cargo ships that have a small number RNA> of passenger cabins. ... RNA> Getting people in and out of the upper deck might be a bitch, RNA> however. The 90-second evacuation requirement is the real limitation, I think. I do know that the gossip when 747s entered commercial service was that the airlines weren't willing to bet too much on it working and that was why the original 747 upper decks didn't have revenue seats in them. Rather, they were lounges. Bars, card tables, live entertainment. Those of you who've only flown since deregulation don't know what you've missed. -- Mary Shafer DoD #362 KotFR SR-71 Chief Engineer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA shafer@dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html From kls Fri Mar 3 02:27:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: 747-400F References: <3iggar$g6s@clarion.cec.wustl.edu> <3ii177$jim@iia.org> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 95 02:27:49 > I've wondered about what a 747-400F would be like with a stretched > upper deck devoted to passengers. It would be sort of like one of > those cruising cargo ships that have a small number of passenger > cabins. > > I very much doubt that Boeing would ever make such a beast, but I > wonder what the economics are like. You can fit a decent number > of passengers in the stretched upper deck. You could see it as > a Combi with a huge freight fraction. (have they made -400 Combis > yet?) My understanding of the long-range 747 situation is that you can either carry a lot of people a short distance or a lot of fuel to carry less people farther. I'm told that even the 747-400 can find itself tight on fuel with a full load on a long stage length . . and long range is what the -400 is all about. > Getting people in and out of the upper deck might be a bitch, > however. Not any worse than it already is on a 747 with the stretched upper deck. From kls Fri Mar 3 02:27:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747-400F References: <3iggar$g6s@clarion.cec.wustl.edu> <3ii177$jim@iia.org> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 95 02:27:49 >> Getting people in and out of the upper deck might be a bitch, >> however. >Not any worse than it already is on a 747 with the stretched upper deck. For an emergency evacuation situation, you're right, but not for normal boarding and deplaning. To my knowledge, no airline uses the upper doors for anything other than emergencies -- in normal operation, passengers board on the main deck then go up the stairs to the upper deck. In the configuration Robert suggested, cargo is on the main deck so you probably don't even *have* the stairs and would thus be forced to board via the upper doors. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Mar 3 02:27:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia.org (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: 747-400F References: <3iggar$g6s@clarion.cec.wustl.edu> <3ii177$jim@iia.org> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 95 02:27:49 Robert Ashcroft (rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu) wrote: : Speaking of the 747-400F, Boeing used the old 747 top, i.e. it : ditched the stretched upper deck. : I've wondered about what a 747-400F would be like with a stretched : upper deck devoted to passengers. It would be sort of like one of : those cruising cargo ships that have a small number of passenger : cabins. I believe this thread has been discussed in this group before. I know Cargolux used to carry passengers on the upper deck between Taipei and Luxembourg back in the late 70s. However, at that time, it was the only direct flight between Taipei and Europe. Cargo flights are usually operated during "inhumane" hours. Unless the tickets are dirt cheap, very few people would be interested in such a flight. With dirt-cheap tickets, cargo operators won't improve their revenue by carrying paxs. For international flights, there are different quota for cargo and passenger flights as allowed by the bilaterals. It can turn into an air war, if a cargo airline, like FedEx, decides to carry passengers on its trans-oceanic flights. : I very much doubt that Boeing would ever make such a beast, but I : wonder what the economics are like. You can fit a decent number : of passengers in the stretched upper deck. You could see it as : a Combi with a huge freight fraction. (have they made -400 Combis : yet?) There are quite a few -400 Combis around: Air China, Asiana, EVA, Korean, Malaysia, Air France, KLM, Air Canada, and Kuwait (?) all have the -400 Combis. -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Fri Mar 3 02:27:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: Mark Radovich Subject: Re: A positive aspect of the DC-10? References: <3gr0b2$1k0a@ns1.CC.Lehigh.EDU> <3gtj72$gr2@news.bu.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Wattle Lake Air Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 95 02:27:49 kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Re: A positive aspect of the DC-10? >With regard to the original poster's question, I've never heard of >United pulling a stunt like American's pseudo-non-stop on a regular >basis, and UA 48 is listed as an OGG-SFO non-stop without enough >time in the schedule for such foolishness, so I'd guess they do have >enough runway at Maui to get a full load on its way to California. This reminds me of the days that United used to run B747-SP's from Los Angeles to Sydney, Australia non-stop. Well almost non-stop. You see their aircaft were powered by JT9D's which weren't as fuel efficient the RB211 powered ones as operated by Qantas. (Only five RB211 powered B747-SP's were ever produced and Qantas still operates two of them.) We used to chuckle to ourselves as we would hear on HF, United altering their flight plan in order to drop in to Nadi or Auckland to pick up fuel. This mainly happened in the southern winter when the westerly winds aloft are strongest. So much so for direct services! Mark Radovich From kls Fri Mar 3 02:27:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: DC-10 Stuff References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 95 02:27:49 > Does anyone know if there is a sure-fire way to tell what kind of > wing-body fairings a DC-10 has? I've noticed recently that they all seem > to be different. Some have a large fairing at the leading edge of the > wing root that extends upward above the top surface of the wing, some > don't. Some -30s have it, some don't. Same with the aft end of the > fairing. Some -30s have a long rear end, some don't. Some -10s have it, > some don't. Same story with the horizontal stabilizer fairing on the > fuselage. Some have a rounded front end, some have a pointed front end > that almost touches the aft cabin door. I flew as a cockpit crewmember on the DC-10 many years ago and my company had about a dozen -10 variants. Each had its own aerodynamic "personality" since we had aircraft with different variations on the mods you describe. The same situation seems to apply to the L-1011, many of which have a "fin" in front of the center engine inlet . . but not all. > There seems to be no rhyme or reason as to which type of airplane has > which type (or types) of fairings. I thought you could pretty well say > that a -10 had one type and a -30 had the other, but it just ain't so. I read today in Aviation Week that the MD-11 would now be supplied with a new composite center engine inlet which would be installed on future production aircraft. I think that the improvements are introduced on the assembly line and delivery position probably determines which mods a given aircraft has . . although "customizing" airliners has been done to satisfy individual airline requirements for a long time. You can tell a -30 from a -10 when the wheels are down. :-) From kls Fri Mar 3 02:27:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dzulbas@merlion.singnet.com.sg (dzul) Subject: Re: Thrust reversers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 95 02:27:50 Lakshmi N. Chilukuri (lchiluku@ucsd.edu) wrote: : Why do we need thrust reversers? The FAA requires aircraft to be able to : land safely, without using thrust reversers, even on slippery or icy : runways. Common wisdom is that thrust reversers help reduce wear and tear : on brakes. The max landing weight of the B744 is about 245,000 kgs. Landing at that weight without reverse thrust on a warm day will take a long time to 'turn around' the aircraft. That is the brakes will be too hot for another takeoff, eventhough if the next flight leaves after an hour. its only me ............................. dzul ************************************************ i am who i am but i am not my company spokesman From kls Fri Mar 3 02:27:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wordsmit@netcom.com (Brian C. Smith) Subject: Re: Thrust reversers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 95 02:27:50 Lakshmi N. Chilukuri (lchiluku@ucsd.edu) wrote: : Why do we need thrust reversers? The FAA requires aircraft to be able to : runways. Common wisdom is that thrust reversers help reduce wear and tear : on brakes. Reverse thrust often allows an airliner to turn off the runway sooner and this might be an operational advantage to both the carrier and the tower. From kls Fri Mar 3 02:27:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: Thrust reversers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 95 02:27:50 In article , lchiluku@ucsd.edu (Lakshmi N. Chilukuri) wrote: > Why do we need thrust reversers? The FAA requires aircraft to be able to > land safely, without using thrust reversers, even on slippery or icy > runways. Common wisdom is that thrust reversers help reduce wear and tear > on brakes. > > Does anyone have a feel for the cost of wheel brakes? Is there a move to > reduce these costs? Do these costs outweigh the risks associated with > potential in-flight deploy of thrust reversers? > > Could a pilot or other expert please enlighten me about an operator's > perspective on these matters. This matter should be debate-worthy, since > the Lauda Air 767 crash (in Thailand) was initiated by inadvertent thrust > reverser deploy. Airliners are slowed with a combination of techniques, all of which are typically used during each landing. Modern aircraft use immediate deployment of spoilers to add drag and, more importantly, to get the "weight on the wheels" so anti-skid braking can be immediately effective. Thrust reversers are normally used on all landings and their effectiveness is greatest at the higher speeds immediately following touchdown. They must usually be returned to forward thrust at a specified speed to avoid compressor stalls. A 757/767 may be landed using auto-spoilers (they deploy immediately upon wheel spinup), autobrakes (set to varying values to achieve a smooth deceleration), and reversers deployed manually by the pilot performing the landing. Inoperative thrust reversers do not carry a significant performance penalty, but inop spoilers or anti-skid systems can potentially make an aircraft unable to "fit" on a given runway. Wheel brakes are used at the higher speeds upon landing, except when ambient temperatures make us tend to use them less in order to prevent overheating of the brakes and wheels. I think that the manufacturers have tended to reduce brake wear by tailoring the brake disk compounds rather than discouraging the use of the brakes. Brakes and tires are essentially consumables . . they wear out. Our company was required to perform the inspections of the reverser systems which were suspected of causing the Lauda crash. There was, as I remember, a problem with a doughnut seal which may have allowed fluid under pressure to port to the deploy side of the reverser plumbing. There are several systems which act to prevent inflight deployment . . we have an auto-stow system . . but apparently the Lauda accident proved that the system wasn't fail-safe. From kls Fri Mar 3 02:27:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: Inflight engine shutdowns vs. speedups? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 95 02:27:50 In article , etech@netcom.com (Eric Chevalier) wrote: > About a week or two ago a United 757 had to abort a landing approach at > LAX because it's right engine suddenly went to full throttle. I happened > to be listening to the tower frequency at the time and the first calls > from the crewmember handling the radio suggested they had some major > control problems for a few moments. (Ultimately the crew got the engine > shutdown and the flight landed uneventfully. Although landing with one > engine on a wet runway must have been interesting.) The 757 engines produce at least 37,500 pounds of thrust. An engine at max thrust will be a real attention getter during an approach where, presumably, the aircraft is not very heavy. The twin-engine airliners are required (as are all airliners) to attain certain performance milestones with the assumption that the most critical engine will fail at the most critical time. That's why the twins are so overpowered on takeoff. We call the 757 the "Atari Ferrari" because of its glass cockpit and its abundant power. The Pratt & Whitney engines installed on many 757s have what amounts to "fly-by-wire" engines. There are no mechanical connections between the throttles and the fuel controls. There is a great deal of redundancy in the electronic engine controls, but nothing's perfect. > Which leads me to wonder: I know that flight crews (especially at the > commercial level) get a good deal of training in unexpected engine-out > situations. But how about the opposite situation, such as this crew > experienced? Do unexpected engine "spin-up" conditions get as much > attention during training? Yes, we do . . during my last simulator session we dealt with a situation in which one engine "ran away". It's not a common training situation . . you can, after all, shut the engine down and revert to the single engine situation. And we practice many different engine failure situations, from the dreaded "V1 cut" to less demanding shutdowns inflight to resolve other systems malfunctions. Incidentally, the "real" airplanes seem to handle better with the loss of an engine than the simulator often does. From kls Fri Mar 3 02:27:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: entmlf@cr41.staffs.ac.uk (Martin at Staffs University, UK) Subject: Re: Inflight engine shutdowns vs. speedups? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 95 02:27:50 Eric Chevalier posted a question about loss of control of engine thrust - a 757 had an engine go to full power on final approach. (My mail won't let me re-quote). I understood that the HP fuel shut-offs, usually just behind the thrust levers, will ONLY shut off the fuel when the engines are at idle, to prevent inadvertant shutdown in flight. So, how do you shut the engine down? Maybe the fuel will shut off if the throttles are at the idle position even though the engines are at full power? And would that damage the engine? Martin From kls Fri Mar 3 02:27:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dzulbas@merlion.singnet.com.sg (dzul) Subject: Re: EPR v. N1 for turbofan power setting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 95 02:27:50 Lakshmi N. Chilukuri (lchiluku@ucsd.edu) wrote: : EPR is the ratio of the primary (hot) stream total pressure to the : total pressure of the freestream. EPR should be greater than 1.0 if : the engine is running. So it is tough to accept your estimate of EPR=0.3 : for flight idle power! Maybe an EPR of 0.3 for flight idle is a bit on the low side but the EPR reading can be less than 1. For the PW4056 (I only know about this particular engine from experience) the flight idle is around 0.7 . When the B744 is fully configured for landing ie with full flaps and gears down, the EPR setting is only around 1.07 . its only me ............................. dzul ************************************************ i am who i am but i am not my company's spokesman From kls Fri Mar 3 02:27:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Crone Subject: Re: EPR v. N1 for turbofan power setting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Washington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 95 02:27:50 > I remember that a design engineer on a military engine project said that > F/A-18 pilots used Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) to determine take-off power > setting. The pilot would throttle the engine to reach a specific EGT, once > reached the plane would then be catapulted off the deck. It's easy to see > that you can get the same EGT with different EPR and N1's depending on the > condition of the engine. So, when the engineer said this other designers (I > assume on other engine programs) went nuts. They said in a severly degraded > engine N1 could be so low that the plane could be catapulted into the sea! I > cannot comment on any of this because I'm just not knowledgeable in this area; > but using EGT would seem to be very iffy proposition. > > I know of no commercial engines that use EGT as a measure of thrust. Perhaps > somebody with more experience in this area could shed some light on this topic. EGT is particularly useful in fighter aircraft because of (among other things) formation flight. Generally two aircraft using the same EGT have nearly identical power output which is great for station keeping. Fighter engines tend to be low-bypass turbofans, or turbojets (which have only one RPM guage). With these engines EGT is a pretty good indicator of power output although in the end I think the choice is simply a matter of how the pilot was trained to fly. Having flown the Northrop T-38 I can tell you that it varied from pilot to pilot as to whether he preferred EGT or RPM for gauging his power. From kls Fri Mar 3 02:27:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gitlitz@hdssd.hitachi.com Subject: Re: Capabilities of airliners (was recoverable flight attitudes) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hitachi Data Systems Ltd. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 95 02:27:50 In article , writes: > had about 75 on a 337 mile journey. The best comparison seemed > to be an F4 Phantom at full takeoff weight!!! According to a senior 757 Captain with United (my landlord), the rate of climb *is* comparable to an F4! From kls Fri Mar 3 13:48:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: NTS Board Recommended Improved Black Boxes on Wednesday References: <199502261222.GAA09403@priddy.cs.utexas.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Mar 95 13:48:52 I found in Monday's (February 27, 1995) Aviation Daily the following article which identifies the proposed parameters to be recorded by FDRs: NTSB Urges Flight Data Recorder Upgrades For Newly Manufactured Aircraft Along with recommendations for upgrading flight data recorders on aircraft in service, the National Transportation Safety Board issued a list of proposed parameters for FDRs on newly manufactured (DAILY, Feb. 23). The proposed FDR enhancements are recommended for aircraft operated under Parts 121, 125 and 135 (10 seats or larger) and certificated after Dec. 31, 1996. The board also urged that the FDRs have a 25-hour recording capacity. Proposed FDR Enhancements For Newly Manufactured Airplanes Acceleration Parameters: Vertical Lateral Longitudinal Airplane Performance/Position Parameters: Altitude Airspeed Air/Ground sensor (primary airplane systems reference, nose or main gear) Brake pressure and pedal position Drift angle (when an information source is installed) Ground speed (when an information source is installed) Wind speed and direction (when an information source is installed) Outside air temperature or total air temperature Radio altitude (when an information source is installed) Latitude and longitude (when an information source is installed) Airplane Attitude Parameters: Angle of attack left and right (when an information source is installed) Pitch Roll Magnetic heading True heading (when an information source is installed, sampled 1 per 4 seconds) Yaw or sideslip angle (when an information source is installed)* Flight Controls Position and Input Parameters: All control surface positions - primary controls (pitch, roll, and yaw) All cockpit flight control input positions (control wheel, control column, rudder pedal) (sidestick controllers on fly-by-wire systems) All trim surface positions - primary controls** (pitch, roll, and yaw) All cockpit trim control input positions - primary controls** (pitch, roll, and yaw) Thrust/power - primary flightcrew reference (may require multiple parameters for all phases of flight) Throttle/power lever position Thrust reverser status (i.e., stow, transit, deployed, reverse pitch) Thrust command (when an information source is installed) Thrust target (when an information source is installed) Engine bleed valve position (when an information source is installed) Airplane Configuration Parameters: Flap position (trailing and leading edge) Spoiler position (ground and speed brake) Spoiler/speed brake cockpit selection/status (armed-ground spoiler) Flap cockpit control selection Landing gear position Landing gear cockpit control selection De-icing and anti-icing system selection (when an information source is installed, sampled 1 per 4 seconds) Fuel quantity in CG trim tank (when an information source is installed) Computed center of gravity (when an information source is installed) AC electrical bus status DC electrical bus status APU bleed valve position Hydraulic pressure (all systems) Navigation Aids: Localizer deviation Glideslope deviation DME 1 and 2 distances NAV 1 and 2 selected frequency GPS position data (when an information source is installed) Marker beacon passage Autopilot Parameters: Engagement status (all systems) AFCS modes and engagement status Timing: Radio transmitter keying UCT (when an information source is installed) Recorder elapsed time (frame counter, 0 to 4,095) CVR/DFDR synchronization reference (when an information source is installed) Event marker Warning Parameters: GPWS Hydraulic pressure low (each system) Master warning Loss of cabin pressure TCAS - TA, RA, and sensitivity (as selected by crew) Icing (when an information source is installed) Engine warnings each engine - Vibration (when an information source is installed) Over temp. (when an information source is installed) Oil pressure low (when an information source is installed) Over speed (when an information source is installed) Windshear (when an information source is installed) Computer failure Stick shaker/pusher (when an information source is installed) Manual/Automatic Selected Parameters: Selected barometric setting Selected speed Selected vertical speed Selected heading Selected flight path Selected decision height EFIS display format Head-up display (when an information source is installed) Para-visual display (when an information source is installed) Multi-function/engine/alerts display format * Range, as installed; accuracy, as installed; resolution, 0.3% of full range; sampling, 1 per second. ** Range, full travel, accuracy, 1 3% unless higher accuracy uniquely required; resolution, 0.3% of full range; sampling, 1 per second. Notes: 1. Data shall be recorded within the range, resolution, accuracy and sampling intervals specified in EUROCAE Document ED-55, Chapter 3 and Annex 1, unless otherwise noted. 2. Each airplane type will need to be assessed to identify any novel or unique design or operational characteristics. It will then be necessary to ensure that sufficient dedicated parameters, appropriate to these characteristics, are recorded in addition to or in place of other parameters. 3. The flight recorder shall use a digital method of recording and storing the data and a method of readily retrieving those data from the storage medium. The data shall be obtained from sources within the aircraft that enable accurate correlation with data displayed to the flightcrew, except when the flight deck displays are filtered or manipulated so as to produce values that do not meet the resolution and accuracy requirements for all phases of flight (for example, some EICAS flight control position display data). Source: NTSB -- Stephen L Nicoud This message does not necessarily represent the views of The Boeing Company. I am not a spokesperson for The Boeing Company. All rights reserved. From kls Sat Mar 4 23:27:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) Subject: Thrust reversers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Mar 95 23:27:44 Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Thanks for all the mail regarding T/R safety! I very much appreciate the cc-by-mail because my news-server is extremely slow with sci.aeronautics.airliners postings. Tom and Dinesh: thanks for the tip regarding the NASA/FAA/Industry paper entitled ``Thrust Reversers - Are They Really Needed?" (authored by Hendersen and Yetter). I've managed to get a copy of the paper and read it with much interest. Despite the excellent previous work by NASA, it would still be interesting to hear anecdotal narratives from pilots and operators. Krish Chilukuri Aero Group Leader Rohr Inc. From kls Sat Mar 4 23:27:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: NTS Board Recommended Improved Black Boxes on Wednesday References: <199502261222.GAA09403@priddy.cs.utexas.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Mar 95 23:27:45 It is interesting that there are two glaring omissions in the otherwise comprehensive list of parameters whose capture on flight data recorders the NTSB wishes to enforce:- - Mode of Flight Control System. In the investigation of the A320 crash at Habsheim in 1988, the lack of this meant that there is still no agreement on whether the FCS (referred to as the Electrical FCS, or EFCS, on the A320) was "landing mode" under "normal law", or in "angle of attack protection" (alpha-Prot) mode, immediately before impact. - Mode of Flight Management and Guidance System. In the investigation of the A320 crash near Strasbourg in 1992, the lack of this meant that the investigators had to deduce from the flight control surface positions during simulator flights under different modes that the aircraft was *probably* in "heading - vertical speed" (HDG-V/S) or "track - flight path angle" (TRK-FPA) mode. This knowledge was *crucial* in deducing the probable causes of the accident. -- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax.: +44 (171) 477-8585, E-mail (JANET): p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk From kls Sat Mar 4 23:27:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pleavin@HK.Super.NET (Mr Ted Pleavin) Subject: Re: Thrust reversers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hong Kong Supernet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Mar 95 23:27:45 dzul (dzulbas@merlion.singnet.com.sg) wrote: : Lakshmi N. Chilukuri (lchiluku@ucsd.edu) wrote: : : Why do we need thrust reversers? : The max landing weight of the B744 is about 245,000 kgs. Just for info the max landing weight of the B-747-267B is 285,762 kgs, I wrote the exam yesterday ! :-0 Cheers Ted. From kls Sat Mar 4 23:27:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Nicolas Ercan Murat Subject: Re: 747-400F Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Mar 95 23:27:45 > For an emergency evacuation situation, you're right, but not for > normal boarding and deplaning. To my knowledge, no airline uses > the upper doors for anything other than emergencies -- in normal > operation, passengers board on the main deck then go up the stairs > to the upper deck. In the configuration Robert suggested, cargo > is on the main deck so you probably don't even *have* the stairs > and would thus be forced to board via the upper doors. Actually, the 747-F's do have stairs connecting the two decks. It's a pulley system whereby a an inclined ladder comes down. The main MUST be accessible to the crew in case they have to access either the cargo or, more importantly, the avionics/electronics compartment above the front landing gear (the manual landing gear deployment is also there). An other point is that the upper deck does have some seats and a galley. They are used for crew rest. Lufthansa is installing bunks and business class seat for their crews too. -Bernie vis@leland.stanford.edu From kls Sat Mar 4 23:27:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pleavin@HK.Super.NET (Mr Ted Pleavin) Subject: Re: 747-400F References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hong Kong Supernet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Mar 95 23:27:45 Mary Shafer (shafer@news.dfrf.nasa.gov) wrote: : On 28 Feb 95 22:57:36 , rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) said: : RNA> I've wondered about what a 747-400F would be like with a : RNA> stretched upper deck devoted to passengers. It would be sort of : RNA> like one of those cruising cargo ships that have a small number : RNA> of passenger cabins. : The 90-second evacuation requirement is the real limitation, I think. I think you might also find that passenger terminals and freight terminals do not match up very well. Most passengers I've ever seen would not want to be put into any freight terminal I've been in :-) Cheers Ted. p.s. Mary I do remember the upper deck lounges. At Canadian Pacific Airlines they were decked out as old railway club cars. From kls Sat Mar 4 23:27:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: Re: 747-400F References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Mar 95 23:27:45 Mary Shafer (shafer@news.dfrf.nasa.gov) wrote: : I do know that the gossip when 747s entered commercial service was : that the airlines weren't willing to bet too much on it working and : that was why the original 747 upper decks didn't have revenue seats in : them. Rather, they were lounges. Bars, card tables, live : entertainment. Those of you who've only flown since deregulation : don't know what you've missed. First-class lounges only, as I recall. Those of us who fly "steerage" only got to see them on the ground, when the crew would occasionally conduct a tour. : DoD #362 KotFR What does that mean?? Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@NETCOM.COM From kls Sat Mar 4 23:27:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747-400F References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Mar 95 23:27:46 > First-class lounges only, as I recall. Those of us who fly "steerage" >only got to see them on the ground, when the crew would occasionally >conduct a tour. The upstairs lounge on the 747 was F class only, but United also had a "Friendship Room" coach lounge at the front of the coach cabin (on the main deck), and another lounge aft. I'm sure United was far from unique, but they're the only ones for which I have a solid reference handy. Their DC-10s also had F and Y class lounges when they entered service. You don't have to look at widebodies -- or such exotics as the Boeing Stratocruiser -- to find these lounges, either. Looking at United again, their DC-7s had aft lounges, though I'm not sure if these were coach or on F class-only aircraft. I recall Connies and other late propliners being similarly equipped. (Not from firsthand experience, alas!) -- 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 Mar 8 02:59:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gordona@wimsey.com (Gordon R. Andrews) Subject: Engine Spool-ups Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:49 Organization: Wimsey Information Services In response to the discussion on engine spool ups (unintended), I would like to describe an event that happened to me. We were climbing out of Maui in a RR powered 757 (180 min ETOPS) bound for Vancouver, B.C. Through 25000 feet we noticed that the right engine EGT was boxed yellow at 795 degrees. The right EPR guage was sitting at about 1.83. I pulled back the right thrust lever and nothing happened. Repeated movement of the thrust lever did not affect the engine at all. We elected to shut the engine down with the fuel control switch. We returned to Honolulu, where a series of checks in the E and E bay found no faults. We did a dry motoring, an idle run at the gate, a full power run on the runway and then took the airplane to 39000 feet on a test flight. No problems. The aircraft was subsequently dispatched and flew 7 more sectors before the right engine Fuel Flow Governor was pulled and sent to Woodward for bench testing. These are excerpts from their report. Findings from the investigation were reproted by Woodward in an Engineering Alalytical Report, EAR 1944763 - 940107. Briefly, it was discoveded that accel and decel scheduling was extremely enriched because the CDP Servo Piston seized in a high CDP position. The piston seized due to interference of a press fit pin inside the piston with the ID sidewall of the servo sleeve. Based on the engine parameters from the DFDR data during th eevent, the calculated CDP was approximately 355 psia which was representative of takeoff CDP. Therefore, it was deduced that the piston became stuck during takeoff which held the decel fuel limit artificially high. During takeoff at high power, this did not affect performance because the fuel flow requirement was high. However during climb when the fuel flow requirement was reduced, the enriched decel limit exceeded the engine's required-to-run line and prevented the pilot from reducing engine power with the throttle. Conclusions The unit could not have been calibrated if the pin the CDP Servo Piston had been installed improperly. Also since the FFG had operated normally for 7600 hours ans since the wear on the ID sidewall of the CDP Servo Sleeve from the pin was minimal, it was concluded that the pin moved in service. Based on one problem in several hundred million operating hours of experience in similar applications, plus the lack of a definite cause for the problem, the probability of another occurrence should be considered extremely unlikely. No further corrective action is planned at this time. I am wondering if the problem stated in a previous posting of unscheduled spool up, is related to this event. If anyone has any comments let me know Gordon Andrews Vancouver gordona@wimsey.com From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: TB spread through aircraft air References: <3j7r0v$2ch@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:50 I'm cross posting this to sci.aeronautics.airliners, because you've made it a technical question (followups to s.a.a). I have a tough time believing that getting sufficient fresh air into the cabin to have 100% fresh air would be a problem. I can understand it might cost a little more, but other than that, what is the technical problem? RNA In article , Jim Hogan wrote: >In article <3j7r0v$2ch@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU>, >rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU says... >> >>The first known case of the spread of TB in an aircraft has been >>confirmed. >> >>This will have immense implications both for the airlines and for >>public health in general. >> >>The airlines will find it harder than ever to justify recycling >>air on board airplanes. >> >How could they ever justify NOT having recycled air? Today's high bypass >engines just cannot handle the bleed penalty of a 100 percent fresh air >cabin. There is no free lunch, either we have 50% recircuated cabin air >or we do away with the quiet, fuel efficient Stage 3 engines that the >industry depends on. > >As far as TB goes, it is a VERY easy size virus to filter (Greater than >99.9% capture for the filters used in Boeing planes - I understand that >MD & Airbus are equivalent). If you were to catch TB on an airplane, it >would be from an interpersonal contact, not from the cabin air >distribution system, regardless of whether you were on a 100% fresh, or a >50/50 recirc plane. > >As for travellers with TB - my vote would be some type of govt. >restrictions and/or quarantine. > >Jim > >My comments do not represent the opinions of the Boeing Company. > From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Eric Olesen Subject: Lounges Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:50 Subject: Re: 747-400F Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners References: Organization: Texas Metronet, Internet for the Individual 214-705-2901 (info) Distribution: Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : The upstairs lounge on the 747 was F class only, but United also had : a "Friendship Room" coach lounge at the front of the coach cabin (on : the main deck), and another lounge aft. I'm sure United was far from : unique, but they're the only ones for which I have a solid reference : handy. Their DC-10s also had F and Y class lounges when they entered : service. AA had their piano bar upstairs on the 747, but also had a coach lounge for a while during the 70's. CO had their Pub Service on their longhaul DC10s as late as 1990, and may have added this to their ex-PE 747s. | Eric Olesen | Airline Historical Archives under construction | | olesen@metronet.com | but now available (includes AA & PeoplExpress) | | Fort Worth, Tx | http://fohnix.metronet.com/~olesen/homepage.html | | "Views expressed here do not represent the airline that I work for! | From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Matthew Akin - LASER Subject: Mentor needed Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ. of Ala. in Huntsville, Computer Science Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:50 I am a high school computer science teacher who is teaching a computational science course for the first time. I have a student who is interested in doing a project on either "Inverted Airplane Wings" or "The Effective Lift of an Airplane WIng". If there is anyone who would be interested in helping this student get started he and I would both be appreciative. His e-mail address is: thoffman@cs.uah.edu (his name is Trey), my e-mail address is listed below. Thanks, Matt Akin Computer Science, AP C.S. Anniston High School makin@cs.uah.edu From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: NTS Board Recommended Improved Black Boxes on Wednesday References: <199502261222.GAA09403@priddy.cs.utexas.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:50 Corrections to my earlier posting (indicated by "^^^" underneath):- > on the A320) was in "landing mode" under "normal law", or in "angle of ^^ > attack protection" (alpha-Prot) mode, immediately before impact. ... > during simulator flights under different modes that the aircraft was > *probably* in "heading - vertical speed" (HDG-V/S) rather than in ^^^^^^^^^^^ > "track - flight path angle" (TRK-FPA) mode. Sorry for the poor proof-reading! Pete --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: elym@delphi.com (Michael Ely) Subject: Re: NY Times article on ATR Certificatio References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:50 >Good article, seems more appropriate for Aviation Week, but that rag would >never publish something so critical of the industry in general and so >damning of the FAA. Whether it is true or not, I dought that the NY Times would publish anything if it wasn't........ they go for the big phobia and often take it further than it should for sheer profit. The bigger the lie, the more people are apt to beleive it. Again, I won't say its wrong or untrue, nor would I say it is true. But the NY Times like any other media is out for the NY Times and bigger advertising sales, not neccessarily the truth. "When the legend become Fact, print the legend." TTYL From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: atlntaferg@aol.com (AtlntaFerg) Subject: Re: NY Times article on ATR Certification References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: atlntaferg@aol.com (AtlntaFerg) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:50 I am currently working on planning for the FAA certification program for the C-130J cargo aircraft and the FAA is changing their views on icing cert. They are getting a lot more serious about what is required for certification in leiu of the recent ATR incidents. Tailplane icing seems to be a real concern. Steve Steve Ferguson (AtlntaFerg@AOL.COM) From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: atlntaferg@aol.com (AtlntaFerg) Subject: Re: Inflight engine shutdowns vs. speedups? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: atlntaferg@aol.com (AtlntaFerg) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:50 >I understood that the HP fuel shut-offs, usually >just behind the thrust levers, will ONLY shut off >the fuel when the engines are at idle, to prevent >inadvertant shutdown in flight. >So, how do you shut the engine down? Maybe the >fuel will shut off if the throttles are at the idle >position even though the engines are at full power? >And would that damage the engine? All FAA cerifiable aircraft are required to have a means of shutting down the engines which is independent of the normal shutdown mechanism. This is usually in the form of a fire handle which when pulled will shut down the respective engine. During cerification, shutdowns of engines are performed from all power settings including Max Takeoff Power. Most modern engines do not incur any degradation from this sort of operation. With reguard to landing with one engine at full power: I suspect also that it may not be possible to stop the aircraft with only breaking and one thrust reverser. Also the directional control problems associated with one engine at full power and the other in reverse are probably too large to overcome with differential braking and rudder input. Steve F. Steve Ferguson (AtlntaFerg@AOL.COM) From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Inflight engine shutdowns vs. speedups? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:51 >I understood that the HP fuel shut-offs, usually just behind the thrust >levers, will ONLY shut off the fuel when the engines are at idle, to >prevent inadvertant shutdown in flight. The fuel shut-offs can be closed at anytime. There are no interlocks on any aircraft that I'm familiar with. From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Inflight engine shutdowns vs. speedups? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:51 entmlf@cr41.staffs.ac.uk (Martin at Staffs University, UK) wrote: >I understood that the HP fuel shut-offs, usually >just behind the thrust levers, will ONLY shut off >the fuel when the engines are at idle, to prevent >inadvertant shutdown in flight. > >So, how do you shut the engine down? Maybe the >fuel will shut off if the throttles are at the idle >position even though the engines are at full power? >And would that damage the engine? As a mechanic who works on large aircraft We are told that shutting down an engine without sufficient "cool down" time could damage the engine. The case and Rotor expand an contract at different rates and as a result shutting down an engine to soon ( or in this while) after developing power will result in the turbine blades contacting the case and doing damage. -- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org http://www.io.org/~bradg/ Compuserve: 74163,2040 Leading Edge Aviation Services My opinions are mine all mine.I won't let anyone else take credit or blame. From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: K.G.A.Lewis@sussex.ac.uk (Ken Lewis) Subject: Re: EPR v. N1 for turbofan power setting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Sussex Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:51 dzul (dzulbas@merlion.singnet.com.sg) wrote: : Lakshmi N. Chilukuri (lchiluku@ucsd.edu) wrote: : : EPR is the ratio of the primary (hot) stream total pressure to the : : total pressure of the freestream. EPR should be greater than 1.0 if : : the engine is running. So it is tough to accept your estimate of EPR=0.3 : : for flight idle power! : Maybe an EPR of 0.3 for flight idle is a bit on the low side but the EPR : reading can be less than 1. For the PW4056 (I only know about this : particular engine from experience) the flight idle is around 0.7 . : When the B744 is fully configured for landing ie with full flaps : and gears down, the EPR setting is only around 1.07 . The textbook I was reading last night defines Engine Pressure Ratio as the the ratio of the pressures recorded at the inlet and in the hot exhaust. I dont see how this can be less than one. There must be a jet pilot out there who can say definitively if the EPR dial starts at 1.0 or 0.0! EPR is a good indicator for non-high-bypass engines. N1 may not be a good indication if the engine is worn or has internal damage but still runs OK(ish). From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: "Falling from the Sky" nitpicks References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:51 This incident was written up in a fairly good book titles (I think) Quite Sky. I loaned it out and it didn't come back. Also, why in hell did everyone run out the back door when the forward cabin door was *open* with slide chute deployed ? Did this occur in the actual event ? As I recall from the book, the friction started a minor fire in the insullation around the skid area. The cabin crew, seeing the smoke, opened the rear door and forced folks out that way. One problem however, becasue of the collapsed nose gear, the rear slide did not reach the ground, or bearly did so. Numerous people were injured going out this way including several seriously. One passenger (as I recall) said something to the effect of "nuts to this" went forward, opened the forward door and stepped out onto the runway. The movie also seemed silly (at best) (1) by allowing the passengers to remove their childern from the seat constraints and hold them on their laps. (2) did you notice that they climbed back up into the aft door to 'rescue' the captain, then stumbled (one presumes) past the open front door to make a drmatic exit out the back again? Every other chapter in the book was interesting reading (the author alternated between the flight deck and the cabin - cabin stuff was . The most interesting part is that the aircraft was jacked up, checked, refueled and flow back. It is probably still in service and is/was called the Gimbly Glider. regards, Brian From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re:Falling from the sky References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Manitoba Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:51 > Saw the film last night, was pretty good ... some questions, though ... > > Also, why in hell did everyone run out the back door when the forward > cabin door was *open* with slide chute deployed ? Did this occur in the > actual event ? Seems silly for the crew to climb back up the rear > chute (which was *very* steep) when they could practically step inside > the forward door with the front gear collapsed ... > Oh well ... chalk up another one for Docu-Drama ... > > I didn't live here in Winnipeg when this occurred, however a colleague at work was at Gimli, in those car races, when the 767 came in. He mentioned it was most quiet on final. They weren't on the runway, they just finished time trials and were taking a break when the 767 approached. Of course the movie wholly exploited this fact and the crap with the kid on the runway riding a bike was completely bogus :-) The other notes of interest are: Winnipeg is ~120-130km from Gimli, Winnipeg is flatter than a pancake, I'm told the Air Canada captain was fired for not checking fuel quantity. I do find it interesting though that simulations failed to successfully land the incident! Oh, well. Leave it to Hollywood to blow something way out of proportion. Remember the two hour movie about the Aloha 737 that actually only flew for 15-20 minutes ;-) Regards, Ernie From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: "Falling from the Sky" nitpicks References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISFSI Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:51 In article , musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu says... >Also, why in hell did everyone run out the back door when the forward >cabin door was *open* with slide chute deployed ? Did this occur in the >actual event ? Seems silly for the crew to climb back up the rear >chute (which was *very* steep) when they could practically step inside >the forward door with the front gear collapsed ... While I don't know why people egressed the way they did in the movie, my fire service experience has taught me that people do VERY strange things in panic situations. For example, in airliner incidents, people have been found inside the hulls, people who probably could have survived the crash, but who apparently failed to exit because the door through which they entered was unusable. This sort of behaviour is seen in building fires as well; human nature plays a great role in how people react to unusual situations. From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ronnb@crl.com (Ronald G. Blaylock) Subject: Re: "Falling from the Sky.." References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest] Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:51 I would just like to note that there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie that some parts were changed to dramatize the effects. Being a Navy P3 flight engineer for some number of years allowed me to notice many of the same "discrepancies." Ron Blaylock < ronnb@crl.com > From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: "Falling from the Sky" nitpicks References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:51 >not even mentioning that the *cabin* lights were on too ... awful lot for >a little turbine to drive, you know ... Especially since it only drives a hydraulic pump, not a generator. >Not to mention how the air traffic controllers were listening in on the >radio after the landing when there should have not been any power ... the >ram air turbine would have stopped spinning when the airplane stopped >moving. The number 1 VHF COMM operates off of battery power. From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nordstrom@esa.lanl.gov (Carl Nordstrom) Subject: Re: Answers to the quiz References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Allison Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:51 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > I remember seeing the GE UDF testbed (DC-9-80 #1) at Mojave, sans UDF > engine but with an *extremely* long pylon on that side. > > The P&W/Allison propfan, however, tested on a 727-100. As far as I > know it was never put on any flavor of DC-9 as well. The PW/Allison engine (designated the 578 DX, I believe) only flew on a DC-9. At that particular time, there was quite a cost/technology risk trade study going within the airlines and aircraft manufacturers, and propfan technology was judged too immature for consideration, so the stint on the Boeing aircraft was cancelled (GE did test on both though, I believe). However, the flight test program for the PW/Allison engine went almost perfectly, with the full design flight envelope of the engine being tested on the aircraft. At some point in the future, propfans will be back, since the fuel savings are just too great... BTW, the *extremely* long pylon you saw was no doubt for the PW/Allison engine. It was unbelievably long. Carl Nordstrom nordstrom@esa.lanl.gov From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Quiz Answers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:52 You have got it backwards Karl - the 727 only flew with the GE 36 UDF, while the MD-80 flew with both the GE and the P&W/Allison engines. Rumor is that both airframes have now been scrapped. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: 747-400F References: <3ii177$jim@iia.org> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:52 kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >For an emergency evacuation situation, you're right, but not for >normal boarding and deplaning. To my knowledge, no airline uses >the upper doors for anything other than emergencies -- The upper doors on a -400 cannot be used for normal boarding and de-boarding due to the slide raft being affixed to the floor not the door. It is an emergency exit only. The only reason it is larger is to satisfy the 90 second rule. ----------------------------------------- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org http://www.io.org/~bradg/ Compuserve: 74163,2040 Leading Edge Aviation Services My opinions are mine all mine.I won't let anyone else take credit or blame. From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: 747-400F References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: -=MO.NET=- P-Net, Inc's Missouri Operations Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:52 In the late 1970's, Seaboard World toyed with the idea of carrying passengers on the unused upper deck seats. They were bought out by Flying Tigers, of course, and the idea died. I think a cargo carrier would face a few problems. The freighters usually park in areas unaccessable to passengers, which would present check-in and security problems. The 747 freighter has a pull down stairway that drops down on the main deck, so the passengers would have to be loaded directly to the main deck. A primary goal of cargo carriers is to arrive in all kinds of weather. These carriers will divert to a nearby field, if they are unable to land at their destinations, which again presents passenger handling problems. Also, these airlines operate at some strange times. I have flown on Federal Express, and they have a great schedule, as long as you don't mind an 0230 departure! In short, cargo airlines want to concentrate on cargo, which is a lot more valuable than passengers. Look at the bottom line of FedEx and UPS, compared to the passenger carriers. Steven From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: A positive aspect of the DC-10? References: <3gr0b2$1k0a@ns1.CC.Lehigh.EDU> <3gtj72$gr2@news.bu.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Organization: -=MO.NET=- P-Net, Inc's Missouri Operations Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:52 Laker Airways used to operate, DC-10-10 Series LGW to LAX, but of course the -10 certainly didn't have the range for an over the pole trip. Their fuel stop was in Bangor. Western ran a short lived LGW to DEN service with DC-10-10's which neccesitated bumping passengers on flights westbound with lots of open seats, due to weight. Wardair Canada ran transatlantic jet service from YYZ and other Canadian points to LGW with 727-100's. It had a scheduled fuel stop in Greenland, worked fine, and make a profit. They even used celestial navigation. Steven From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: DC-10 Stuff References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:52 From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Date: 03 Mar 95 02:27:49 You can tell a -30 from a -10 when the wheels are down. :-) ==== If you're talking about the center landing gear on the -30, this ain't necessarily so. American Airlines removed the center gear from its four domestic DC10-30s (N139AA-N142AA). I can't recall the exact reason why (probably didn't need weight penalty on a domestic aircraft), but they were certainly removed. The international -30s still had the center gears (N137AA, N138AA, N143AA, N144AA, N163AA, and N164AA). N139AA, by the way, was the one which went off the runway at DFW in April 1993 - no fatalities, but the airframe was totaled. Of course, all of the -30s American had have probably been retired by now. ed From kls Wed Mar 8 02:59:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC-10 Stuff References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Mar 95 02:59:52 >If you're talking about the center landing gear on the -30, this ain't >necessarily so. American Airlines removed the center gear from its >four domestic DC10-30s (N139AA-N142AA). JAL has gone both ways with their DC-10-40s, which are essentially a DC-10-30 with P&W JT9D engines instead of GE CF6s. At least one made a full round trip -- I don't recall if it started as a DC-10-40(D), with no center post, or a DC-10-40, with one, but I'd guess the latter because I doubt the structure would be there to attach to if the plane hadn't been built with the extra post. (I also suspect all of the -40s were built new as long-range aircraft.) >I can't recall the exact reason why (probably didn't need weight >penalty on a domestic aircraft), but they were certainly removed. Weight penalty would be non-trivial, plus there's a fair amount of extra maintenance and consumables (tires, brakes) expense. -- 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 Mar 8 02:59:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Subject: Productive Machine! 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: 08 Mar 95 02:59:52 I'm trying to estimate the productivity of a typical jet airliner. Can anyone fill in the following blanks?: Boeing 727 amortized purchase price 20-25 yrs. ago._____________ average hours flown since 1970-75 _____________ average load factor during life _____________ average revenue per passenger/hour _____________ average operating cost per hour _____________ I suppose the operators have this data at hand and could answer my question: "How much profit has a typical B727 made in it's lifetime?" How about figures for other popular aircraft? Thanks, John "Maverick's going supersonic..I'll be there in 30 seconds!" -- From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics.simulation Path: bounce-back From: Claudio Braga Subject: B707 Flight Simulator Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:33 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, USA I am Looking for a B707 flight simulator. The provider can be located anywhere (any continent). I would appreciate if you answer to: cbraga@access.digex.net Thank you very much in advance. Claudio Braga From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: be204@yfn.ysu.edu (Allan M. Hamamey) Subject: Re: Productive Machine! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:33 One source of some of the info would be a trade rag titled Air Transport World. Aviation Daily would also carry some of the data you're looking for. This data would be fleet wide (One companies B-727's) rather than imdividual aircraft. It was and may still be on a report CAB Form 41. Cleveland Public Libray shold have back issues of both./ From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: victor@techniques.com (Victor R. Orly) Subject: Concorde NOSE for sale???? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: FMS Techniques, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:33 A friend mailed this to me (from some newsgroup I can't get): For sale: one Concorde supersonic droop nose, careful owner, never been flown, yours for just $39,920 Where will one put it? Can it fit in an apartment/house? Victor -- |Victor R. Orly--B.S. Aerospace Engineering--Univ. of Southern California 1994| | Internet: victor@techniques.com | From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: DC-10 Stuff References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:34 In article , ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) wrote: > You can tell a -30 from a -10 when the wheels are down. :-) > ==== > If you're talking about the center landing gear on the -30, this ain't > necessarily so. American Airlines removed the center gear from its > four domestic DC10-30s (N139AA-N142AA). I can't recall the exact > reason why (probably didn't need weight penalty on a domestic > aircraft), but they were certainly removed. Oh great!! First it's the Easter Bunny, then Santa Claus, and now the center landing gear on the -30. I'm devastated. > The international -30s still had the center gears (N137AA, N138AA, > N143AA, N144AA, N163AA, and N164AA). I think that it was possible to leave the center gear retracted when it wasn't needed due to weight considerations. I'm sure that the weight of that gear assembly was considerable and its removal was a great move for economy if the aircraft were being used in lower-weight operations. George From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: A positive aspect of the DC-10? References: <3gr0b2$1k0a@ns1.CC.Lehigh.EDU> <3gtj72$gr2@news.bu.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:34 In article , sthomson@MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) wrote: > Laker Airways used to operate, DC-10-10 Series LGW to LAX, but of course > the -10 certainly didn't have the range for an over the pole trip. Their > fuel stop was in Bangor. Western ran a short lived LGW to DEN service > with DC-10-10's which neccesitated bumping passengers on flights > westbound with lots of open seats, due to weight. > > Wardair Canada ran transatlantic jet service from YYZ and other Canadian > points to LGW with 727-100's. It had a scheduled fuel stop in Greenland, > worked fine, and make a profit. They even used celestial navigation. > > Steven At Western we obtained one DC-10-30 for the London operation. But it was flown from DEN, not LAX. That one -30 had metric gauges . . a Gimli glider waiting for a place to happen, we thought. The trips flew from DEN to LGW and also flew to ANC from LGW as I remember. The trips went so senior that every cockpit crewmember was a captain. Western had about a dozen DC-10-10s and that one -30 for a while. From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: James.C.Anderson@williams.edu (Jim Anderson) Subject: Engine Design Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: James.C.Anderson@williams.edu Organization: Williams College Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:34 I have a question about the diffenence in engine design between say, GE/PW and RR. Corrent me, please, but don't the GE and PW engines have a central "spike" coming out the back of them and the RR engines don't? The Rolls engines have look of the "pre-high-bypass" days (jt8d seris(?)). What's the difference? -- Jim Anderson Williams College Systems Manager Center for Computing janderson@williams.edu (Internet) Jesup Hall janderson@williams.bitnet Williamstown, MA 01267 413-597-2082 From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kglor@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Kathleen Glor) Subject: Re: Inflight engine shutdowns vs. speedups? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Alberta Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:34 TriStar500 (tristar500@aol.com) wrote: : >I understood that the HP fuel shut-offs, usually just behind the thrust : >levers, will ONLY shut off the fuel when the engines are at idle, to : >prevent inadvertant shutdown in flight. TriStar, I fly a B727 which of course is older technology than B757 however certification requirements demand that not only the fire handle will shut off the fuel (along with the hydraulics firewalls for the fuel, trip the generator fields) but the HP cocks (called start levers, or fuel cutoffs in North America) will cut off the fuel at any time it is selected to `cutoff'. As far as practicing a full thrust on one engine while the other is in idle is practiced in the simulator, and any time that I've done it there has always been enough rudder authority to over come the yaw.( Grant it I'm in a 3 engine aircraft not a 2 but the same does hold true) Also stoping with one engine in reverse and only braking would not be a problem. Stopping distances in aircraft are based solely on the use of brakes reverse thrust is not taken into consideration. Plus another 60% of the distance is added on for good measure. In our operation we require a 3 minute cool down before we shut an engine down for exactly the reasons mentioned, however if I ever had an engine go full thrust on me at any time (which can happen if the Fuel Control Unit fails) I'm not going to hesitate for one second to shut the engine off. Nor would any pilot who flies transport sized aircraft. Freight Dog From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ztomcich@osf1.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) Subject: 747 question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:34 I'm a writer and I have some basic questions about a 747, or any wide body aircraft for that matter, for a story I'm writing. When an aircraft is parked and totally abondoned how does one get in and out? Is there a nose gear hatchet or must they use a stair truck to board and disembark? Secondly are the emergancy slides a reflex system that will operate whenever a door is opened or does it have a arming switch? And finally when these aircraft are in drydock- presumablly for good- what sort of security is around them? I'm writing a story about the magical life of pre-teenage kids- kind of your stand by me sort of story. I'm toying with the idea that they are exploring an aircraft graveyard. I'm most curious about them myself. Perhaps i should visit one before i presue this. If anyone has any technical data on the systems on board an aircraft- just little things that can help me out as far as what one would see on board a ditched aircraft- please lemme know. thanks. -- -Ziggy Last of the Zigatarian Zigmeisters Royal member of the Zigtorian Ziggerauts From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.chem,sci.edu Path: bounce-back From: dodgeman@ix.netcom.com (Christian Staller) Subject: Ice Detection Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:34 I am looking for information about an individual, company, university, or any other type of organization which may be doing research in the area of detecting the formation of ice. Not why does ice form, but the actual detection of it, i.e., icing conditions on road surface, air craft, etc. Any information is much appreciated. Please post to this news group or mail: “dodgeman@ix.netcom.com” careof Chris Staller. Thank you! From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: alek@den.mmc.com (Alek O. Komarnitsky) Subject: Re: Inflight engine shutdowns vs. speedups? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:34 In article , TriStar500 wrote: >>I understood that the HP fuel shut-offs, usually just behind the thrust >>levers, will ONLY shut off the fuel when the engines are at idle, to >>prevent inadvertant shutdown in flight. > >The fuel shut-offs can be closed at anytime. There are no interlocks on >any aircraft that I'm familiar with. As I recall, a real-life example of this was on a Delta 767 (757?) out of LAX where the pilots inadvertently did this on climb-out ... alek From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) Subject: Thrust Reversers - Aerodynamic Research Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:34 One of the many Aero problems associated with the use of thrust reversers (T/R) is associated with the plume trajectory. Integration of a T/R with an aircraft is a painful process, especially for fuselage-mounted engines. During landing, the T/R plume washes over control surfaces and can cause severe rudder buffetting, pitch-up moment and tail rocking. Many of the empirical models that are available in the open literature, were developed using laboratory measurements of plume trajectory and spreading. These lab experiments were almost always performed for a simple configuration of a jet issuing from a flat plate into a cross-stream, with a flat (top hat) initial velocity distribution. The flow within a thrust reverser geometry forces fluid to undergo nearly 135 deg turn, before issuing out as a plume. Thus the starting velocity profile will be extremely skewed, and perhaps will contain counter-rotating vortices. Does data exist on the effect of the initial velocity profile on plume trajectory and decay? How does one model (other than CFD) these flow fields? Thanks a bunch-- Krish Chilukuri Aero Group Leader Rohr Inc. From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: jimh@eskimo.com (Jim Hogan) Subject: Re: TB spread through aircraft air References: <3j7r0v$2ch@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:35 In article , rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu says... >I'm cross posting this to sci.aeronautics.airliners, because you've >made it a technical question (followups to s.a.a). I have a tough >time believing that getting sufficient fresh air into the cabin >to have 100% fresh air would be a problem. I can understand it >might cost a little more, but other than that, what is the technical >problem? The main problem is the limited supply of high pressure engine bleed air. I'm not a propulsion type, so bear with me... In a high bypass engine, about 75 % of the air bypasses the engine core. The remaining 25% that travels through the combustor and high pressure stages provides the power to drive the low pressure compressor that imparts it's energy on the bypass air (and consequently provides the majority of the engine's thrust). This high pressure air is also bled from the engine to power the air conditioning packs and provides the thermal anti-icing functions on the wing leading edge and engine cowls. Due to the pressures and temperatures required to run the AC packs, only air bled from the core of the engine is suitable. This is the crux of the problem - the more bleed we take, the less thrust the engines produce, and the less fuel efficient they become. The penalty of bleed air can not be taken lightly - when looking at aircraft stretches, we find that the increased bleed necessary to bump cabin inflows enough to meet pressurization requirements can often be the make or break factor in whether or not the existing engine is "big" enough - not the increased weight of the fuselage. As far as the recirc vs. no recirc argument, there is really no detriment to recirculated air. I have spent a great deal of time working on this issue and can elaborate if there is interest. Jim From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Botella <100334.342@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: 747-400F References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell Aerospace Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:35 For your information, Cargolux operates half a dozen of seats for passengers on their B747-200 F. However, it's quite confidential. On their brand new B747-400Fs, it's no longer possible (just a few seats for company travellers). -- JN Botella From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: EPR on C5A References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:35 Willlllbur wrote: >I would like to impart some knowledge regarding EPR and the GE TF-39 >engines installed of the Lockheed C5-Galaxy. The EPR instrument range on the C5 is 1.0 to 7.0 EPR. AS I understand it NO GE engine equipped aircraft use EPR as a measure of engine thrust. P&W, RR use EPR as the main indication of thrust. GE using N1. As well I have never seen EPR indication as high as 7.0 even for TOGA , A normal TOGA thrust EPR would be around 2.0 +-. The 747-200 EPR indication only reads to 1.8 in the P&W JT9D-7j engine. That aircraft is comparable to the C5 in size and power. ----------------------------------------- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org http://www.io.org/~bradg/ Compuserve: 74163,2040 Leading Edge Aviation Services My opinions are mine all mine.I won't let anyone else take credit or blame. From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pleavin@HK.Super.NET (Mr Ted Pleavin) Subject: Re: 747-400F References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hong Kong Supernet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:35 Nicolas Ercan Murat (vis@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote: : > For an emergency evacuation situation, you're right, but not for : > normal boarding and deplaning. To my knowledge, no airline uses : > the upper doors for anything other than emergencies -- in normal : Actually, the 747-F's do have stairs connecting the two decks. It's a pulley : system whereby a an inclined ladder comes down. The main MUST be accessible : to the crew in case they have to access either the cargo or, more importantly, : the avionics/electronics compartment above the front landing gear (the manual : landing gear deployment is also there). Other items that sometimes must be accessable in the cargo area are any live animals, like race horses that are often carried. A handler is carried on the upper deck to look after any upset, and a humain killer is also carried incase things get out of control. : An other point is that the upper deck does have some seats and a galley. They : are used for crew rest. Lufthansa is installing bunks and business class : seat for their crews too. One configuration that I know of personally has 6 business class seats and 2 bumks. The limit on the number of people allowed on the upper deck has to do with the number of inertial reals available for the cockpit escape hatch. The main deck doors are not a primary escape route on the freighter. The stairs to the main deck are basically an aluminium step ladder attatched at the top with the bottom retractable into the ceiling for loading and unloading of freight. Cheers Ted. From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) Subject: Re: EPR v. N1 for turbofan power setting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:35 In article , >: Lakshmi N. Chilukuri (lchiluku@ucsd.edu) wrote: > >: : EPR is the ratio of the primary (hot) stream total pressure to the >: : total pressure of the freestream. EPR should be greater than 1.0 if >: : the engine is running. K.G.A.Lewis@sussex.ac.uk says... > The textbook I was reading last night defines Engine Pressure Ratio as >the the ratio of the pressures recorded at the inlet and in the hot >exhaust. I dont see how this can be less than one. I just received flight test data for a RR engine that clearly shows EPR to be greater than 1.0 for all power settings, altitudes and freestream Mach numbers. Perhaps some engineers prefer to subtract 1.0 from the above definition of EPR. From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) Subject: Engine Power Settings Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:35 Hello Hello Hello: Just a few general questions regarding engine power settings: 1. How is 100 per cent N1 established. Is it an arbitrary goal that is selected during early design of an engine? Or does it have relevance to the thrust of a revenue aircraft? Is percent N1 indicated in the cockpit? 2. Who establishes power settings such as Max T.O., max continuous, max cruise, flight idle etc. Are they determined solely by airframer specs? How do these power levels affect engine life? What engine components would be affected? 3. How is reverse thrust level established? Is it true that airliners would prefer to maintain reverse thrust below flight idle, in order to avoid an additional engine cycle per flight? 4. How often are partial power settings used? Hope these questions will spark discussion on other engine-related topics Thanks Krish Chilukuri Rohr Aerodynamics From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eureka@sam.neosoft.com (Paul Kronfield) Subject: Leasing B-737's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eureka International Group of Companies Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:35 We are representing a foreign entity with a need to lease five B-737's. We are presently providiing Boeing maintenance parts to this country, and are in a position to assist any leasing entity in this deal. Interested parties please contact me ASAP: Paul Kronfield Eureka International Aviation 800 Bering Drive, Suite 450 Houston, TX 77057 tel: 713-789-0009 fax: 713-789-0067 email: eureka@sam.neosoft.com From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pierce@pat.mdc.com (Cole Pierce) Subject: Re: Lounges References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MDSSC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:35 >CO had their Pub Service on their longhaul DC10s as late as 1990, and may >have added this to their ex-PE 747s. Actually, Continental's shorthaul DC10-10s were the ones with the lounge (if one can call any DC-10 a shorthaul ). >>> been there, done that <<< From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ckd@loiosh.kei.com (Christopher Davis) Subject: Re: Quiz Answers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Venus Equilateral Communications Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:36 DL> == David Lednicer DL> You have got it backwards Karl - the 727 only flew with the GE 36 DL> UDF, while the MD-80 flew with both the GE and the P&W/Allison DL> engines. Rumor is that both airframes have now been scrapped. The 727-100 UDF testbed aircraft was reportedly used as the crashed aircraft for the movie "Hero". A photo was printed in _Airliners_ magazine a while back. The nature of the "crash site" setup shown in the photo was such that I am confident that aircraft has not flown since. (The fuselage was in multiple pieces :) -- Christopher Davis * * 512/03829F89 = D7 C9 A7 80 8C 84 3F B2 27 E1 48 61 BF FC 18 B4 1024/66CB73DD = 46 8E FD F5 12 8E 13 4C 2C 8A 92 A3 B0 D5 2A 5E [ Public keys available by finger, WWW, or keyserver ] From kls Tue Mar 14 02:34:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: crazy!a904246@uunet.uu.net (Chris Wesley (0013 cxw )) Subject: Power Hungry air conditioning ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: chris.wesley@tiuk.ti.com Organization: Texas Instruments Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 02:34:36 I was taking off from Mombasa last Monday and was surprised to hear the pilot advice us that - due to the high outside temperature causing lower engine efficiency - he would be turning off the cabin air conditioning during takeoff to get more power. Does the air conditioning consume a significant portion of the engine power ? I thought it was driven from the APU anyway. I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks & Regards, Chris From kls Tue Mar 14 11:54:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: Re:Falling from the sky References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 11:54:43 Ernie Fidgeon writes I'm told the Air Canada captain was fired for not checking fuel quantity. In the book (sorry I really wish I had it here as a reference) some time is spent on how the situation came to be. There were several causes: 1. Lack of agreement on who could release the aircraft. Control was moving from the flight crew to ground maintenance (?). Captain did not want to fly but as the aircraft was released by the maintenance folks it was a 'fly it or leave it.' (I really hope this has changed!) (See note 1) 2. The one Fuel Quantity Gauging System (two installed) had a problem which, while one processor was really dead, made the other think that it was alive, so the backup failed to drive the displays. At one point, the circuit breaker was pulled and locked open and the gauging system worked. HOWEVER another maintenance mechanic in attempting to fix the problem removed the lock and powered both computers up again. Result - a blank fuel quantity display. (No entry in the maintenace log as to why the CB was locked open? I think that the problem was finally traced to a cold solder joint.) 3. After fueling, the tanks were dipped as the fuel quantity gauging system was INOP. HOWEVER, as Canada was converting from Imperial Gallons to liters, the wrong conversion factor was used (converted to gallons as I recall). Hence the calculated amount was sufficient (including margins) but the amount actually loaded was approximately half; hence the incident. Note 1: FAR 91.205(a) requires: "No person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a standard U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation ... unless that aircraft contains the instruments and equipemtne specified... (b) For VFR flight during the day, the following instruments and equipment are required: (c)Fuel gauge indicating the quantity for fuel in each tank." As Canada usually seems to follow the FAA requirements, how could this confusion have come about as this aircraft would not be considered as meeting its airworthiness certificate? (Note that this is not an issue once in flight as the Flight Management System can calculate fuel used/on board based on fuel flow. Getting the right numbers to put into the FMS was the issue.) ************************ The opinions expressed are my own and not those of my employer. I take credit for what is good and responsbility for what is in error. Also, as this is based on memory of a book, errors are indeed possible. ************************ From kls Tue Mar 14 11:54:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: marcarnold@aol.com (MarcArnold) Subject: Re: "Falling from the Sky" nitpicks References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: marcarnold@aol.com (MarcArnold) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 11:54:44 >This incident was written up in a fairly good book titles (I think) >Quite Sky. The book was FREE FALL, and I'd recommend reading the cockpit portions for a good account of the technicalities surrounding the incident.... You can skip the melodramic passenger perspective stuff.... -- Marc Arnold "Onward and Upward" 200 South Brentwood Boulevard, #21B St. Louis MO 63105 (314)721-5801 (314)726-5114 fax From kls Tue Mar 14 11:54:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: deepsky@greylady.greylady.uoregon.edu (Christopher Hunt) Subject: Airline training and FSI. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Oregon Chemistry Stores Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 11:54:44 I am interested in receiving advice on and hearing about the reputation of the Flight Safety Acadamy at Vero Beach FL. I have sought out such information in the other newsgroups but haven't got any replies so I am tring here as a last resort. There seem to be at least a few part 121 pilots with modems reading this newsgroup so perhaps if I phrase this right, I 'll get a bite... or of course flamed. :-) I am tring to research schools that provide professional flight training at a level above the local expertise (Eugene Oregon). I have talked to Flight Safety's (Marketing) people and it would seem they are Hard Core. And yes I know their reputation from my years in local aviation. But what do their students say? Do you work next to one of their graduates? My question is: Are they the best place you have heard of going to for preperation for a airline career? I don't want to go to Fl to find out I have made a mistake. And you can't learn anything from a slick brousure. Where would you go (other than the Military) if you started right now? Send me some Email please. From kls Tue Mar 14 12:42:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: SAS skips MD-95, launches 737-600 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Mar 95 12:42:43 Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) has been preparing to order as many as 55 new 100-seat airliners, including 35 firm orders. It has been widely expected that SAS, long a loyal McDonnell Douglas customer, would become the launch customer for the MD-95. MacDAC badly needs to launch the MD-95 to help flesh out its product line, and according to an article in today's Wall St. Journal has been offering the MD-95 to SAS for $25 million, about 30% less than the $36 million of competing Boeing and Airbus models. Instead, SAS announced today an order for 35 Boeing 737-600s, with options on another 35 aircraft, becoming launch customer for the third and smallest member of Boeing's third-generation 737 lineup. Reports valued the firm orders at about $1.17 million, or about $33.4 million per aircraft. Some of the aircraft will be configured with 95-seat mixed seating (58 business, 37 economy) while others reportedly will have 128-seat all- economy seating. That seems awfully tight, though the 737-600 is the same size as the 737-500, on which Boeing offers up to 132 seats with a 30 inch seat pitch. (For comparison, Southwest puts 122 seats on a 737-500 using a 32 inch pitch.) As of about a year ago, SAS operated the following Fokker and McDonnell Douglas aircraft, all of which presumably will be replaced by the new 737s: 3 Fokker F-28-1000 16 Fokker F-28-4000 9 MacDAC DC-9-21 26 MacDAC DC-9-41 They also had 12 737-500s at that time, with two more due in 1996, though many of these were leased or sub-leased to other airlines. SAS' fleet director also mentioned a need for around 10 new aircraft in the 170- to 180-seat class within the next few years. SAS now has a sizable MD-80 fleet that's only a bit smaller (all of their MD-81s and MD-87s seem to be mixed-class, with 133 and 110 seats, respect- ively, but they also have single-class 156-seat MD-82s and 161-seat MD-83s) with six MD-90-30s due in 1996 that are close in size to the MD-81/82/83. The 737-800 could be a contender, though -- a 737-400 can seat 168 with the 30 inch pitch, so the slightly longer 737-800, which has room for two more rows, could presumably seat 180. It would certainly not be luxurious accommodations! -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Mar 16 14:38:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cgwh@chevron.com (Curtis Wheeler) Subject: Q: Asymetric Stabilators on T-tailed Jets? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Mar 95 14:38:54 Organization: CITC/CSD I have noticed something about T-tailed airliners that has me wondering. Planes Like the MD80 and 727 appear to use stabilators that do not move symetrically. I often see them on the ground with one stab cocked up or down more than the other. Is this design for extra roll control/trim? Something else? Thanks in advance. Curtis Wheeler San Ramon, CA (cgwh@chevron.com) KD6ELA / GROL PG10-25691 / Pvt. Pilot ASEL From kls Thu Mar 16 14:38:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: finna@netcom.com (Finn Arildsen) Subject: Re: SAS skips MD-95, launches 737-600 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Mar 95 14:38:55 Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) has been preparing to order as many : as 55 new 100-seat airliners, including 35 firm orders. It has been [... deleted ...] : SAS' fleet director also mentioned a need for around 10 new aircraft : in the 170- to 180-seat class within the next few years. SAS now has : a sizable MD-80 fleet that's only a bit smaller (all of their MD-81s : and MD-87s seem to be mixed-class, with 133 and 110 seats, respect- : ively, but they also have single-class 156-seat MD-82s and 161-seat : MD-83s) with six MD-90-30s due in 1996 that are close in size to the : MD-81/82/83. The 737-800 could be a contender, though -- a 737-400 : can seat 168 with the 30 inch pitch, so the slightly longer 737-800, : which has room for two more rows, could presumably seat 180. It would : certainly not be luxurious accommodations! I can certainly verify that accomodation on SAS's current domestic version (MD-82) is by no means luxourious! Your knees are virtually stuck in the seatback in front of you. However, with flying times of about 20 minutes for domestic Danish flights, it is tolerable. It is probably worse on considerably longer Norwegian and Swedish flights. Amazingly, even with a time of 18 minutes from takeoff to landing, the crew manages to serve coffee and softdrinks to approx. 150 passengers (and collect the cups). --Finn From kls Thu Mar 16 14:38:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bill@natural.com (William N. Blake) Subject: Re: Concorde NOSE for sale???? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Natural Intelligence, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Mar 95 14:38:55 In article , victor@techniques.com (Victor R. Orly) wrote: > A friend mailed this to me (from some newsgroup I can't get): > > For sale: one Concorde supersonic droop nose, careful owner, never been > flown, yours for just $39,920 Actually, it is a prototype nose, only flown in a wind-tunnel (low mileage!). And the price is negotiable -- it's going to be put up for auction. -- Bill Blake (bill@natural.com) -- Natural Intelligence, Inc.-- New York City http://www.natural.com PGP Public Key on request From kls Thu Mar 16 14:38:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia.org (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Aircraft Order Update (March 16, 95) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Mar 95 14:38:55 *** Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (Mar 16, 95) *** 9 5 | A I R B U S | B O E I N G | M D | | | /* 737 \ | | airline|300 310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 777|80 90 11| _______|___________________________|_______________________________|__________| 3Q | | 3R | | AI | | 2P | | Bavaria| | 2 | | NH | 10U | 3G 3P| | BG | 2P | | | IY | 2U | | | LH | 20C | | | ML | 4I | | | SK | | 35 | | _______|___________________________|_______________________________|__________| Total | 0 4 20 4 10 0 0 | 0 35 2 0 2 0 6 3 | 0 0 0| 1. * The 737-300/400/500 is kept under one column (345). 2. The engine selection (other than the A340, B737, and MD80/90) is indicated by the letter behind each order number. C,G,I,P, or R stands for CFMI, GEAE, IAE, P&W, or R-R, respectively; U for undecided/unknown. 3. If the MD95 is launched, the statistics will be kept under the MD90, and B will be used for BMW-R-R's BR715 engine. 4. Send an e-mail to me (chuanga@iia.org) for any order that I have left out. Make sure the orders are announced firm orders with verifiable source. 5. IATA code: 3Q - Yunnan (China), AI - Air-India, NH - All Nippon, IY - Yemen, BG - Biman Bangladesh, LH - Lufthansa, ML - Midway, SK - SAS ***************************************************************************** Known order cancellations: Boeing: 3 B757s (3Q/CAAC); 3 B737s, 4 B747Fs, 3 B767s (AF); 4 B747s (NH) Airbus: 7 A340s (AF) From kls Thu Mar 16 14:38:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia.org (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Engine Design References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Mar 95 14:38:56 Jim Anderson (James.C.Anderson@williams.edu) wrote: : I have a question about the diffenence in engine design between say, GE/PW and : RR. Corrent me, please, but don't the GE and PW engines have a central "spike" : coming out the back of them and the RR engines don't? The Rolls engines have : look of the "pre-high-bypass" days (jt8d seris(?)). What's the difference? I believe the "spike" you are talking about is the tail cone. To the best of my knowledge, all turbofan engines have tail cones. The reason that you don't see tail cones on low-bypass engines is because they are enclosed in long engine/fan ducts. In the long duct, the bypass flow and core flow are mixed before exhaustion. Why are the two streams of flow mixed? It's for improving fuel consumptions and reducing noises. For high-bypass engines, the engines are much larger. With a mixed-flow configuration, the extended fan duct will add a lot of weight to the engine. Therefore, it is not widely used. With their three-spool design, the R-R engines are usually shorter and smaller than the American ones (both GE and P&W engines have two spools, only). As a result, R-R engines are better candidates for mixed-flow configuration. Currently, the RB.211-524G/H (for the 747 and 767), -535E4 (for the 757), Trent 700 (for the A330), V2500 (for the A319/320/321 and MD90), and the CFM56-5C (for the A340) have the mixed-flow configuration. R-R called it "integrated exhaust nozzle", while GE/SNECMA called it "long-duct mixed-flow" (LDMF). Despite what I just said about R-R engines being better candidates for mixed-flow configuration, the RB.211-524 is much heavier than the JT9D, the PW4000, and the CF6. I think the Trent 800 does not have an integrated exhaust nozzle (but I can be wrong). Surprisingly, the Trent 800 is the lightest engine for the B777 (but it has the highest specific fuel consumption). R-R claims that the Trent is at least 3,000 lb lighter than the competitor (i.e., 6,000 lb per aircraft)!!! CFMI originally planned to have the LDMF for the CFM56-7 (which will power the B737-6/7/800), but I believe they have decided against it. BTW, the tail cone is not always visible even on the non-mixed-flow engines; for example, the PW4000 on the A310 and the B747, and the CF6-80 on the A310. -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Thu Mar 16 14:38:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Engine Design References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Mar 95 14:38:56 >Despite what I just said about R-R engines being better candidates >for mixed-flow configuration, the RB.211-524 is much heavier than the >JT9D, the PW4000, and the CF6. Sure, but the added weight is mostly because of the third set of shafts and bearings for the third stage, with the longer duct being a comparatively modest increment, right? >Surprisingly, the Trent 800 is the lightest engine for the B777 (but >it has the highest specific fuel consumption). R-R claims that the >Trent is at least 3,000 lb lighter than the competitor (i.e., 6,000 >lb per aircraft)!!! I assume you're reading the same ad I saw in AW&ST. Like any sort of advertising, read carefully: "The Trent 800 is also the lightest engine for the new Boeing, weighing UP TO 6,500lb less PER AIRCRAFT than its competitors." ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ The emphasis on key phrases is mine. They'd *really* like you to think their engine is 6,500 lbs less than any of the competitors, but like most folks you caught that. The first set of weasel words are the real killers though. RR is really only comparing their engine to the heaviest competitor -- the GE90, which suffers a substantial weight penalty on account of that enormous fan and perhaps some extra hardware to easily allow the fan and core to be separated for shipping. They in effect say nothing about the PW4000, which could only be an ounce heavier, or perhaps even lighter than the Trent 800! (I don't know how the PW4084 compares in weight to the Trent 800, though my guess would be that it's a little heavier.) -- 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 Mar 16 14:38:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: More Airbus FBW woes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Mar 95 14:38:56 Reposted from comp.risks. Anyone know anything more about this? Date: 15 Mar 1995 15:56:26 +0000 From: Les Hatton Subject: A340 shenanigans The BBC news at 08.30 reported a slight problem which occurred on the morning of 15 Mar 1995 with the ultra high-tech, packed full of software and therefore utterly wonderful Airbus A340. Apparently on the final part of its approach to Gatwick, both the pilots screens went blank, to be replaced by a polite little message saying "Please wait ...". Somewhat unnerved, the pilots requested that the plane turn left, but it turned right instead. They then tried to get it to adopt a 3 degree approach to the runway, but it chose a 9 degree plummet instead. At this point, from the report, they appeared to gain manual control and landed safely. It is not clear who will pick up the dry-cleaning bill. Vis a vis this sort of thing, I was at a talk recently, given by the CAA (UK Civil Aviation Authority), at which it was stated that in the past generation of civil aircraft, most of the software problems were reported in the Flight Management System. Not surprisingly, this was the most complex part of the aircraft software system. Not any more it isn't. During the talk, it was also admitted that the newer generation of aircraft such as the A340, other software systems including active systems were "at least as complicated". So what next ? I suppose it follows on nicely from the story in the October 1994 Risks whereby a Japanese Air Force T-4 jet trainer ejected one of its pilots. Perhaps it didn't like him. :-) Les Hatton, Ph.D. C.Eng, Director of Research & Engineering, Programming Research Ltd, England les_hatton@prqa.co.uk +44 (0) 1 932 888 080 From kls Fri Mar 17 12:58:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia.org (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Engine Design References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Mar 95 12:58:01 Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : >Despite what I just said about R-R engines being better candidates : >for mixed-flow configuration, the RB.211-524 is much heavier than the : >JT9D, the PW4000, and the CF6. : Sure, but the added weight is mostly because of the third set of : shafts and bearings for the third stage, with the longer duct being : a comparatively modest increment, right? I think the longer duct accounts for most of the difference. Although, the third shaft add a lot of weight, the smaller diameter and shorter length compensate for the additional shaft weight. (The CF6-80C2 and the PW4000 have many more stages than the -524G/H, especially the -80C2.) The long duct not only adds more weight, it also adds more drag. : >Surprisingly, the Trent 800 is the lightest engine for the B777 (but : >it has the highest specific fuel consumption). R-R claims that the : >Trent is at least 3,000 lb lighter than the competitor (i.e., 6,000 : >lb per aircraft)!!! : I assume you're reading the same ad I saw in AW&ST. Like any sort of : advertising, read carefully: No, please read on. : "The Trent 800 is also the lightest engine for the new Boeing, : weighing UP TO 6,500lb less PER AIRCRAFT than its competitors." : ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ : The emphasis on key phrases is mine. They'd *really* like you to : think their engine is 6,500 lbs less than any of the competitors, but : like most folks you caught that. The first set of weasel words are : the real killers though. RR is really only comparing their engine to : the heaviest competitor -- the GE90, which suffers a substantial : weight penalty on account of that enormous fan and perhaps some extra : hardware to easily allow the fan and core to be separated for shipping. : They in effect say nothing about the PW4000, which could only be an : ounce heavier, or perhaps even lighter than the Trent 800! (I don't : know how the PW4084 compares in weight to the Trent 800, though my : guess would be that it's a little heavier.) My info was old. The number that I remember is that the Trent 800 is about 3000 lb lighter (per engine) than the PW4084, and 5000 lb lighter than the GE90. If R-R is talking about 6,500 lb difference per aircraft between the GE90 and the Trent 800, then my estimate for the difference between the PW4084 and the Trent 800 is about 2,500 lb per aircraft. That's about 10-15 more passengers. The GE90 is significant heavier is because the engine is at least half a generation ahead of the Trent 800 and the PW4084. It's close to be classified as a Ultra-High-Bypass (UHB) engine. The much higher bypass ratio (9-10 vs. 6-7) translates into better fuel and thermal efficiencies, however, it's also a lot heavier. According to R-R's number, the Trent 800 will burn less fuel on trips shorter than 4,000 nm (or statute mile, I forgot). (Well, I'm skeptical of R-R's number, too. After seeing their B757 claim, I know that they have a tendency to exaggerate.) Only time will tell if it was wise for GE to bet on the more advanced technology. -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Fri Mar 17 12:58:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chucko@eskimo.com (Charles Albertson) Subject: Re: Concorde NOSE for sale???? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Mar 95 12:58:01 bill@natural.com (William N. Blake) writes: >In article , victor@techniques.com >(Victor R. Orly) wrote: >> For sale: one Concorde supersonic droop nose, careful owner, never been >> flown, yours for just $39,920 >Actually, it is a prototype nose, only flown in a wind-tunnel (low >mileage!). And the price is negotiable -- it's going to be put up for >auction. Negotiable, indeed. It went for approx. $51,000 to some guy who's going to put it in his front yard in Nebraska. From kls Fri Mar 17 12:58:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Q: Asymetric Stabilators on T-tailed Jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Mar 95 12:58:01 You shouldn't see split-elevators on a 727 with hydraulics on. A MD80 is a different story though. This airplane does not have powered elevators but uses old-fashioned control tabs. What this means is that without airspeed the elevators, and ailerons for that matter, can flop around and go where ever they want. The MD90 does have fully-powered elevators but the ailerons are still control tabbed. From kls Fri Mar 17 12:58:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.invest.futures Path: bounce-back From: sense@aol.com (Sense) Subject: Titanium Prices Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: sense@aol.com (Sense) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Mar 95 12:58:01 I procure Ti-10V-2Fe-3Al Titanium forgings used in the landing gear of the B777 and hear much talk of titanium pricing rising. Is there anyone who can provide information or the location of information of the titanium market trends? I would appreciate any and all data you could provide. Sense@aol.com From kls Fri Mar 17 12:58:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sense@aol.com (Sense) Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: sense@aol.com (Sense) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Mar 95 12:58:01 I can reply to the emergency slide question. Prior to take-off, the captain will say something like "Flight Attendents prepare for departure", and then they will position the actuating arm that attaches to the door. This arm actuates the slide upon opening the door. Naturally, before landing the captain will say "....prepare for arrival." and that tells the attendant to disable the actuator. In short, the slides can only be activated from inside the plane. From kls Fri Mar 17 12:58:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sense@aol.com (Sense) Subject: Re: Power Hungry air conditioning ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: sense@aol.com (Sense) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Mar 95 12:58:01 The APU is used to power the AC is correct, but it also powers all of the plane's electrical systems, and I think the hydraulic as well. When the engines are running, the APU is turned off and engines power the entire plane. In order to keep maximum power to the engines, the APU can be used as a "battery" to run the other systems of the plane (since the AC, like in your car, eats plenty of juice), and relieve some power from the engines from having to run 10 or 15 percent of the electrical motors and part of the AC. Some airlines run the APU a couple of miles pre-arrival. This also acts like a battery and gives a little of boost in handeling performance. On a 767, it also stresses the APU Air Inlet Door Actuator which my company manufactures. Sense@aol.com From kls Fri Mar 17 12:58:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Future Air Navigation (long) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Mar 95 12:58:03 FANS 1 UPDATE FOR 747-400 DAVID ALLEN INTRODUCTION Based on the FANS concept of a phased approach to implementation, Boeing and its customer airlines have been working with civil aviation administrations to develop FANS- 1, a system upgrade for the 747-400 that is compatible with present and future upgrade plans of the Boeing family of aircraft. FANS-1 complements the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Global Plan and regional planning activity going on in several parts of the world. This report will concentrate on the development of FANS capability for the 747 -400 (which will be the first Boeing airplane to have an integrated FANS solution installed). Before plunging into the details of the FANS implementation on the 747-400, it is necessary to review the ground rules associated with the creation of the functional baseline: 1. Implementation of FANS capability must proceed incrementally, with benefits outweighing cost at each step 2. Implementation of functions must consider all requirements necessary to achieve maximum benefits (ground and airborne) 3. Maximum utilization of existing equipment, minimum installation of new equipment 4. Integrity issues must be addressed at the system level 5. The 747-400 system upgrade must be consistent with plans for other Boeing aircraft Clearly FANS cannot be implemented in a single step. But, at some point, manufacturers and airlines have to take a first step or FANS will never be implemented. For Boeing, FANS-1 is that first step. At its September-October 1993 meeting in Montreal, the FANS Committee recognized the operators' needs for a timely return on investments and ``encouraged States and aircraft operators to implement communication system protocols based on the ARINC Specification 622 in order to gain early benefits.'' Just as ARINC 622 provides a transition to the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN) -- the ultimate communications system envisioned by ICAO -- GPS, with or without augmentation, provides a transition to the ultimate ICAO Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). Adding GPS and ARINC 622 compatible equipment with ATN compatible applications guarantees compatibility with tomorrow's FANS equipment. FANS-1 will provide the airlines with significant benefits for the extended period of time required for the ultimate FANs environment to become reality. OPERATIONAL BENEFITS In working with the airlines, it was apparent that a first and practical step in the FANS evolution could be improving en-route operations in non-radar surveillance areas. The South Pacific region is a good example of that environment, but most of these benefits are applicable to all other regions (exception might be Dynamic Re-routing). The targeted operational benefits are: 1. Reduced lateral and longitudinal separations 2. Dispatch on Required Navigation Performance (RNP) routes 3. Flexible Tracks on existing organized track systems 4. Dynamic Re-routing 5. Improved response for altitude and route change requests 6. Avoidance of altitude loss for crossing tracks 7. Non Precision GPS RNAV approaches to MDA 8. Improved availability of alternate airports The 747-400 FANS-1 CNS performance and integrity levels will be documented and certified so they may be used by the airlines in support of Operational Specification changes to support the above benefits. Reduced Lateral and Longitudinal Separations The current aircraft separation utilizes the lowest common navigation capability to determine the airspace separation requirements and is predicated on traditional means of navigation, communication, and surveillance. Potential errors in voice communication between the pilot and controller are considered in determining the airspace separation requirement (especially in the HF environment). Digital communication between the crew (using the airborne ATC DL * function) and the controller drastically reduces that error source. * Also known as Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) and Two-Way ATC Data Link (TWDL) The potential for pilot entry errors must also be considered in this determination. Currently, it sometimes takes 20 to 45 minutes to make High Frequency (HF) voice position reports. The uncertainties associated with error sources from navigation, pilot entry error, communication problems, and traditional voice position reporting surveillance requires the Air Traffic Controller to "reserve" a tremendous amount of airspace for each aircraft. The typical Air Traffic System (100 nm lateral by 120 nm longitudinally) requires 48,000 square miles of airspace to protect a single aircraft. This translates to operating penalties for the airlines in terms of lower operating altitudes and fixed speeds. While it might be possible to gain minimal separation benefits from an improvement in a single area (ADS reporting for example), full benefits require an integrated improvement in the CNS suite: 1. Communication Improved response time (for intervention) Reduction in communication errors 2. Navigation Improved navigational accuracy 3. Reduction in entry errors 4. Surveillance Increased frequency of position reporting Inclusion of intent information to position report HF relayed voice communication can have a significant delay. ATC Data Link communications will require a fraction of the transmission time and they are much less likely to be misunderstood. GNSS integration will provide the airplane with significantly greater navigational accuracy. The data linking and loading (into the FMC) of ATC clearances and routing will greatly reduce the probability of entry errors. FANs equipped airplanes have the ability to transmit, via satellite data link, automatic dependent surveillance (ADS) reports (actual position and intent information) nominally every 5 minutes or at a rate selected by the ATC authority down to 64 seconds. This position will not only have the benefits of GNSS accuracy, but will also have the benefit of a synchronized clock with the controller (via GNSS Universal Time Constant). This combination of improvements (using systems with appropriate integrity and cockpit alerting) allow the authorities to reduce mandatory separation between airplanes, therefore allowing more airplanes to fly at their optimum altitude (reducing fuel burn). Industry is working with the national administrations and relevant ICAO panels to implement such procedure changes right now. The FANS Committee estimated communications cost for each ADS position report would be somewhere between 50 cents and a dollar. The authorities are considering the implementation of a preferred track system which will give preferential tracks to FANS equipped airplanes. While there will be transitional improvements in separations based on experience and ground base equipage, it is anticipated that full ground implementation will give a FANS 1 aircraft 30 nm radius protection (2,827 square miles) which is a 1,690% improvement over today's system. Dispatch on Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Routes Many of the regional ATC planning groups are planning to establish preferred routes for airplanes which can guarantee a certain RNP. The FANS 1 implementation supports a full, integrated compliance to the RNP concept with pilot alerting, automatic "phase of flight" default RNPs, and pilot entry RNPs. With GPS combined with IRS, the airplane performance will be capable of operating in the planned RNP environments. Flexible Tracks on Existing Organized Track System Flexible tracks are currently used in areas with lower traffic density which allow the airlines to fly optimum routes using seasonal winds. This gives a more efficient route than the fixed track system. The capabilities of the FANS 1 aircraft which allow reduced separation will also support the implementation of additional flexible tracks for equipped airplanes. This allows an optimized flight plan using the latest weather data to be sent via satellite data link to an en- route aircraft. One way this could be implemented is for the airline flight planning office to send the new optimized flight plan via company data link to the aircraft. The aircraft could then data link that new route as a clearance request to Air Traffic Control (ATC), receive a clearance from the ATC controller via data link, then load and fly the new route. Another way would be for the ATC authority to compute the optimum flight plan (a new flexible track) and send it to the airplane using the ATC Data link function. By flying the optimized flight plan, fuel burn and flight time could be reduced. Real and tangible benefits to the operator could result. Improved Response Time for Altitude Change Requests In the HF radio communication environment, it can take up to 20-60 minutes to get a clearance for a step climb to a new optimum altitude. Satellite communication can reduce that response time to minutes. Operating at optimum altitude reduces fuel burn. Avoidance of Altitude Loss for Crossing Tracks Airplanes which are approaching crossing tracks are required to be separated by altitude (meaning one airplane can be forced to operate as much as 4000 feet below optimum altitude). If the ATC controller had timely surveillance data and the airplane has the ability to control the airplane speed such that it crosses the way point at a given time, then this altitude separation would not be necessary. Non-precision GPS RNAV Terminal Area Procedures to MDA The FANS 1 GPS implementation will support GPS terminal area non-precision approaches down to MDA when Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitor (RAIM) is available (dependent on constellation). Ground based predictive RAIM can be used to provide this assurance. Improved Availability of Alternate Airports One of the considerations associated with routing is the availability of alternate airports. GPS/FMS approach procedures are evolving, but will allow operations into airports which are normally not available to airlines (due to lack of precision approach availability. Since, the FANS 1 FMC will be certified to allow GPS only non-precision approaches to Minimum Decision Altitude allowing more airports to be considered as alternates (with regulatory approval). Additional alternate airports and increased terminal capability at the destination airport can modification of routing to reduce fuel carriage. Such procedure changes would be achievable with FANS-1 and improved ground infrastructure. In practice more airplanes could fly at their optimum altitude and fly closer to optimum track; fuel burn and flight time could be reduced, the cost of carrying excess or contingency fuel reserves could be reduced, and payloads increased. In short; FANS-1 enables operators to increase revenues and reduce operational costs. Such operational improvements are also good for the environment. They are also good for the national economies: they increase the air transportation system capacity. 747-400 FANS 1 FMCS FUNCTIONS The following airplane Flight Management functions are required to support an initial FANS implementation. These functions are referred to as FANS 1: 1. Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS) 2. ATC Data Link (ATC DL) 3. Company Data Link 4. Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) Integration 5. Required Time of Arrival Company Data Link, ADS and ATC DL will use the currently defined and operational data network utilized by airlines today (ie ACARS/Satcom using ARINC 622 protocols). This network will link the airplane, ground, and satellite environments. FANS-1 will give Airline Data Systems the capability to data link new routes, position reports, and updated winds via this network. The ADS function will report the current Flight Management Computer System (FMCS) position (GPS corrected) via satellite or VHF data link to the ATC controller. This report will not only give the actual GPS reported position, but the report will also be referenced to the GPS time standard and contain information relating to the current intent. This will considerably improve the surveillance of enroute airplanes. The ATC Data Link function will replace the tactical communication between the crew and the ATC controller. The crew will have the ability to request deviations to the filed flight plan (even replacements of the filed flight plan). The ATC controller will also have the ability to directly request tactical changes to the airplane flight path. The integrated solution includes an aural and visual alert of an uplinked ATC message. GPS integration requires the installation of sensor units and antennas. The GPS position and integrity information will be sent directly to the Flight Management Computer System (FMCS). The FMCS will use the sensor/satellite determined integrity monitor and other navigational sensors (IRS, DME/DME) to determine the validity of the GPS position solution and, whenever possible, the GPS will continue to be used as the prime sensor. This GPS improvement provides a more accurate position for enroute operations and, as a minimum, the capability for non-precision GPS approaches down to Minimum Decision Altitude (MDA). Key to this implementation is the concept of Required Navigation Performance (RNP) and certifying navigation systems to meet RNP type requirements. (Under the FANS concept, the navigation system must demonstrate it can meet the RNP type requirements rather than the individual sensor components each having to meet specific requirements. Such a change in concept recognizes the benefits of multiple sensor systems and provides a means of traversing gaps in GPS coverage.) The FMCS will constantly monitor Actual Navigation Performance (ANP) and if it exceeds the RNP, the pilot will be alerted. Advisory and status messages also provide provide the crew real-time awareness of system availability. Required Time of Arrival (RTA) will give the crew the ability to assign a time constraint to a lateral way point, allowing them to cross a latitude/longitude at a specified time (AT, AT/AFTER, AT/BEFORE). The FMCS will automatically adjust the cruise speed to achieve that time (+/- 30 seconds). If the FMCS cannot guarantee that performance, the crew will be notified via a visual alert. The RTA Constraint can be uplinked as an ATC request and loaded by the crew into the FMCS. The benefits for the FANS 1 functions center around reduced fuel burn, reduced flight time, and increased cargo capacity for take-off weight limited flights. Trials flown by airlines as part of the Pacific Engineering Trials have show 3000 lbs fuel burn reduction and approximately 6 minutes of flight time reduction. The fuel burn reduction provides benefits in reduced fuel costs, but can provide even greater benefit when that fuel weight is replaced by cargo. These benefits vary with the route structure and wind conditions, but conservative averages of 1% fuel burn and 6 minutes flight time reduction have been deemed reasonable. The FANS 1 Package primarily affects the FMCS, but also requires updates to the Integrated Display System (IDS) and Modular Avionics Warning and Electronics Assembly (MAWEA). Concurrent installation of the Global Positioning Satellite option is highly recommended due to the inter-relationships between GPS and FANS 1 benefits. GPS cannot be installed without FANS 1 due to the requirement to modify the FMCS software. The GPS modification affects the IDS and the Central Maintenance Computer. The changes required for all of these modifications have been coordinated and scheduled. An operational data link requires the installation of the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) Management Unit (MU) and oceanic benefits will require installation of a data capable Satcom system. The Master Changes for these modifications have been released by Boeing as of October 1993 and are available from Customer Engineering. The FANS concept is a fleet wide concept. The three FANS 1 Master Changes (by engine type) are: 3461MK4143 - FANS 1 for PW Engines 3461MK4144 - FANS-1 for RR Engines 3461MK4145 - FANS 1 for GE Engines The GPS Master Changes are 3458MK4018 - GPS Installation for airplanes with GPS provisions 3458MK4020 - GPS Installation for airplanes without GPS provisions Changes to the MAWEA, CMC, and IDS will be accomplished via PRR and shall be basic and installed via Service Bulletins. GROUND SYSTEM STATUS FANS 1 interoperability will be initially implemented in the South Pacific, but plans for rapid migration to other regions are under way. The South Pacific ATC centers controlled by the USA (FAA Oakland Center), Australia, New Zealand, and Fiji have agreed to have ground systems certified and operational by April 1995. France has formally stated that Tahiti (which controls a large Pacfic region) will have ATC DL by mid 1995 and ADS by mid 1996. Papua/New Guinea, and Singapore are also expected to support FANS 1 in the near future. The FAA has further agreed to migrate this system to airspace controlled by Anchorage and New York by October 1996. The North/Central Pacific airspace is controlled by (FAA) Oakland, (FAA) Anchorage, Tokyo, and Russian Far East control centers. The Informal Pacific ATC Coordination Group (IPACG) and the Russian American ATC Coordination Group (RACGAT) have initiated CNS/ATM development programs that are expected to mature by April 1996. Planning for rapid migration to other regions (North Atlantic, Asia/Europe) is underway. India has announced that it has developed an ARINC 622 compatible ground system, and announced a FANS only route from Phuket, Thailand, via Port Blair in the Andeman Islands, to Vishakhapatnam, on India's central east cost (this will cut 60nm off the normal route and is the first FANS only route). The 747-400 FANS-1 functions were designed to allow integration into the other Boeing models requiring enroute operational enhancement. Boeing has committed to deliver the FANS 1 functions as basic on the 777 airplane with incorporation currently planned in a late 1996 follow-on certification. The implementation of FANS 1 functions on the 757/767 is under review. Note: Author David Allen is the project engineer for the 747-400 Flight Management Computer System at BCAG. He is coordinating the development of the FANS 1 improvement to the Flight Management System for the 747-400. For more information on 747-400 FANS 1, please contact David Allen at FMCDave@aol.com From kls Fri Mar 17 12:58:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: atlntaferg@aol.com (AtlntaFerg) Subject: Re: Ice Detection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: atlntaferg@aol.com (AtlntaFerg) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Mar 95 12:58:03 >I am looking for information about an individual, company, university, >or any other type of organization which may be doing research in the >area of detecting the formation of ice. Not why does ice form, but the >actual detection of it, i.e., icing conditions on road surface, air >craft, etc. One method for detecting ice that I am aware of involves the use of a vibrating wire which has a given frequency when extended into the air stream. When contaminated with ice, the frequency changes. This is detected with electronics and an icing warning issued. Steve F. Steve Ferguson (AtlntaFerg@AOL.COM) From kls Fri Mar 17 12:58:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: Power Hungry air conditioning ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Mar 95 12:58:03 In article , Chris Wesley (0013 cxw ) wrote: >Does the air conditioning consume a significant portion of the engine power ? >I thought it was driven from the APU anyway. Yes, A/C does take a noticible portion of engine power. In normal flight a small portion of compressed air is taken from the compressor section of the engine. This air is then run through a precooler, and then piped on to the PACKs (Pneumatic Air Conditioning Kits), where the still hot air is mixed with an appropriate amount of cool air and then it is pumped into the cabin. Using engine bleed air reduces the amount of thrust available, so EPR corrections are shown in the flight manual. The before takeoff checklist on the 737-200 (I assume other types are similar) call for turning the left and right PACKs on, engine #1 and #2 bleeds off, APU bleed on, and closing the isolation valve. The isolation valve simply prevents the bleed air from the APU from going to both the left and right PACKs. When closed only the left PACK sees APU bleed air. Climbing through 1000' above ground level, the pilot flying asks for the after takeoff checklist which calls for turning on #1 and #2 bleeds, moving the isolation valve to auto, and turning off the APU (at pilots discretion). Fun Story: Last September I was on a research flight on a Convair 580, and the Pressurization/Heating/Cooling system broke in mid flight. While air was still being pumped in to maintain pressure, the air was not being cooled. Even though we started an immediate descent from FL240, by the time we got down to 10,000 MSL, where we could turn off the pressurization completely, the cabin temperature was a balmy 125F! It actually felt good to get off the plane and get into the reasonable 100F temperatures of Palm Springs, CA. :^) BTW: You can see a picture of this exact Convair on page 33 of the March 13th Aviation Week & Space Technology. _____________________________ _____ | Keith Barr \ \ \__ _____ | barr@netcom.com \___________\ \/_______\___\_____________ | COMM/AS&MEL/IA/A&IGI / { /_/ ....................... `-. |_____________________________/ `-----------,----,--------------' home page URL: http://chinook.atd.ucar.edu/~barr/ _/____/O From kls Fri Mar 17 12:58:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jimh@eskimo.com (Jim Hogan) Subject: Re: Power Hungry air conditioning ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Mar 95 12:58:03 In article , crazy!a904246@uunet.uu.net says... >I was taking off from Mombasa last Monday and was surprised to hear the pilot >advice us that - due to the high outside temperature causing lower engine >efficiency - he would be turning off the cabin air conditioning during takeoff >to get more power. >Does the air conditioning consume a significant portion of the engine power ? The air conditioning packs are air cycle machines (see any good thermo book for an explanation) which use air bled from the core of the engine both for their power (by means of an inlet turbine) and as the operating medium (i.e. the air coming out of the engine is what eventually winds up in the cabin at the desired temperature). No bleed takeoffs are typically performed at high altitude and/or temperature airports where the pilot does not want to give up the thrust lost to the A.C. packs. >I thought it was driven from the APU anyway. The APU can also be used as a bleed air source for the packs. The other alternative is to hook the airplane to a ground pnuematic cart. Jim From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: RJM@neural.com (Robert Meegan) Subject: Re: Titanium Prices References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 95 02:34:21 The best place that I have found for metals pricing and trend information is in American Metals Market, a daily newspaper of the metals industry. A subscription is $575 a year. You can call (800) 360-7600. Looking over the last few weeks: Sumitomo, one of Japan's largest titanium producers reports 750 million yen in damages from the Kobe earthquake. As of 09 March, the following price ranges were reported: Aircraft Quality --- 8 1/8" Round Billet 6Al-4V $6.00-6.50 per pound 2 1/2" Round Bar 6Al-4V $8.50-9.00 0.125*36*96 sheet Com Pure $7.50-8.00 0.5*36*96 plate 6Al-4V $8.50-9.50 --- Robert Meegan "The Big Kahuna" --- Neural Applications Corporation Work --- (319) 626-5053 2600 Crosspark Road Fax --- (319) 626-5001 Coralville, IA 52241-3212 From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: torresa@pwfire.pweh.utc.com ( 0 Torres_Alfred x6514 B-195 ) Subject: Re: Engine Design References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 95 02:34:21 >: >Surprisingly, the Trent 800 is the lightest engine for the B777 (but >: >it has the highest specific fuel consumption). R-R claims that the >: >Trent is at least 3,000 lb lighter than the competitor (i.e., 6,000 >: >lb per aircraft)!!! > >: I assume you're reading the same ad I saw in AW&ST. Like any sort of >: advertising, read carefully: > >No, please read on. > >: "The Trent 800 is also the lightest engine for the new Boeing, >: weighing UP TO 6,500lb less PER AIRCRAFT than its competitors." >: ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Considering that the engines (GE, RR, PW) all weigh in the area of #8,000 to #10,000 (I'm not sure on the exact figures for each of the manufacturers) I think the figures floating around here must figure in the delta fuel burn between the different engine designs. I'm sure that BRAND X would find the best combination of altitude, weight, and range in order to CLAIM that their engine can save XXX pounds per airframe. It simply isn't possible for two engines in the same thrust class to be 30% lighter than its competition. _____________________________________________________________________________ Al Torres Pratt & Whitney Mid-Thrust HPC Component Center Engineering M/S 169-04 Phone: (203) 565-6514, Fax: (203) 565-2914, Profs ID: torresa e-mail: torresa@pwfire.pweh.utc.com From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Howie Subject: Engine hush kits Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 95 02:34:21 Howdy, I've asked unsuccessfully on rec.travel.air about what is involved in installing the so-called "hush kits" on jet engines. Could someone (Andrew?) enlighten me as to what makes up one of these kits, and how they actually reduce engine noise. Thanks, Scotty -- Steve Howie Email: showie@uoguelph.ca NetNews and Gopher Admin. Phone: (519) 824-4120 x2556 Computing and Communications Svcs. Fax: (519) 763-6143 University of Guelph From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jvrusso@aol.com (JVRusso) Subject: Re: Inflight engine shutdowns vs. speedups? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jvrusso@aol.com (JVRusso) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 95 02:34:21 As I work in the field of testing jet engines, I have shut down engines (both on purpose and in emergencies) from full power a number of times. It is true that due to thermal effects the rotor and static hardware due cool at different rates. Most times as soon as the high rotor stops turning it locks up and can not be turned for several hours. BUT, that is not due to blades touching shrouds, it id due to knife edge seals under the blade root rubbing against their seal lands. There are much tighter clearances in the seals, especially in commercial enignes, which have larger clearances, and rely on active clearance control to reduce the clearances in-flight. I have never seen any long term damage as a result of "hot shutdowns". The worst that happens is that you have to wait a few hours to borescope since you can't rotate the high rotor. We try to prevent that in a test stand by getting on starter motors as soon as N2 gets to sub-idle speeds during spool down. Hope that helped! From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Q: Asymetric Stabilators on T-tailed Jets? 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 Mar 95 02:34:22 In article tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) writes: >You shouldn't see split-elevators on a 727 with hydraulics on. A MD80 is a >different story though. This airplane does not have powered elevators but >uses old-fashioned control tabs. What this means is that without airspeed >the elevators, and ailerons for that matter, can flop around and go where >ever they want. One other important point is that the 727 does not use a stabilator--it's a trimmable horizontal stabilizer, with conventional elevators and control tabs for manual reversion. The DC-9 design might qualify as a stabilator. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Crone Subject: Re: Power Hungry air conditioning ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Washington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 95 02:34:22 > I was taking off from Mombasa last Monday and was surprised to hear the pilot > advice us that - due to the high outside temperature causing lower engine > efficiency - he would be turning off the cabin air conditioning during takeoff > to get more power. > > Does the air conditioning consume a significant portion of the engine power ? Oh yes! It certainly does, at least in older jet aircraft, maybe the newer generation engines are not as effected. In my old C-141, turning off air conditioning is not unusual in hot weather takeoff situations. > I thought it was driven from the APU anyway. Again, the following is true for the 141. The APU is shutdown usually after engine start but definitely no later than takeoff roll. Why? The inlet for the APU faces sideways to the airflow, it would simply starve for air once the airplane gets going. From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Power Hungry air conditioning ? 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 Mar 95 02:34:22 In article sense@aol.com (Sense) writes: >The APU is used to power the AC is correct, but it also powers all of the >plane's electrical systems, and I think the hydraulic as well. When the >engines are running, the APU is turned off and engines power the entire >plane. In order to keep maximum power to the engines, the APU can be used >as a "battery" to run the other systems of the plane (since the AC, like >in your car, eats plenty of juice), and relieve some power from the >engines from having to run 10 or 15 percent of the electrical motors and >part of the AC. Some airlines run the APU a couple of miles pre-arrival. >This also acts like a battery and gives a little of boost in handeling >performance. On a 767, it also stresses the APU Air Inlet Door Actuator >which my company manufactures. Normally, any engine can completely satisfy electrical loads, including a trickle-charger for the battery (ies). The APU is primarily used for: 1. Pneumatics pressure for engine start and ground air conditioning. 2. Electrical power for ground operation. >From (2), hydraulics and other electrically dependent systems may be operated. Typically, APU generators are identical in capacity to engine-driven generat- ors. In some cases, cooling capabilities are better than engine generators (e.g., 727 on ground), so the capacity is a bit greater. The APU serves two other purposes, if it's certified for in-flight use: 1. Emergency source of electrical power in the case of total engine failure or CSD shutdown. 2. Regulatory redundancy if the airplane is permitted to dispatch with a CSD inoperative. In this case, the APU is operated throughout the flight regime. The 737-200, for example, can dispatch with one gener- ator inoperative; the APU has to be run for the entire flight. The "pre-landing" operation you're referring to is probably to alleviate cold soak. In long-distance, high-altitude flying, the APU can get extreme- ly cold, and can be difficult to start after landing. There are restrictions to how many attempts can be made to start the APU, so if its services are required, it'll need to be warmed up. There is no need to use the APU to "save power" from the engines. The constant-speed drives, which power the engine-generated generators, run whether the generator is being used or not, so the work load is there. The airflow requirements are better satisfied by the engines: that's what they're designed for. As for the air conditioning system, it is normally powered from a pneumatics air source. In the case of the 727, there are two air conditioning packs on the bottom of the airplane. They may be "fed" by engine bleed air or APU bleed air. Each pack is independently comprised of a series of heat exchangers, an air cycle machine (which is a combination of compressor and turbine) and an air mix valve, which combines air of varying temperatures to come out with an output temperature. On this airplane, the packs' heat exchanger is in the belly of the airplane; airflow is controlled via a ram air door. The packs must be operational for the pressurization system to work. One-pack operation can limit altitude capability. If desired, an external *air conditioning* feed can be plugged downstream in the system to provide conditioned air on the ground. A normal external pneumatics hookup will not provide enough airflow to satisfactorily run the system. >Sense@aol.com -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: Inflight entertainment References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 95 02:34:23 In article , kens@ncd.com (Ken Stoorza) writes: > I flew first class on Delta from Taipei to Seoul the other week. They had the > individual LCD screens that swing out of the seat arm. Quality was pretty good; > usually I don't watch inflight movies because the video and sound quality are so > poor. There were several channels of video entertainment to choose from. If I > were on a long flight, I would probably use this feature. Of course, since I > usually fly business class and not first, it's probably achedemic anyway. The use of 'to the seat' entertainment is considered as a revenue generator (or potential generator) for airlines. During a previous job I meet with one airline who said 'We are the only industry who holds are customers captive for eight hours and don't try and sell them anything.' Look for in-flight shopping to become more 'popular' as the industry grows the capability to 1) offer delivery at the arrival gate (this is a real biggie from the airlines perspective as they can sell the merchandise without having to pay for the fuel to carry it - however duties/tariffs are an interesting legal issue) 2) the public gets used to video malls (training via QVC/Home Shopping Channels on cable). Another direction is inflight rebooking/reticketing in order to keep a passenger within your system. Expect to see inflight gambling (I think that Virgin already offers this). Think of the revenue which could be generated by a charter airline providing video poker/slot machines while flying to Los Vegas or Atlantic City? As to-the-seat entertainment adds about 6-8 pounds (as I recall) per seat group plus a couple of pounds per seat (this is system installed weight), the airlines will have to show how enhanced passenger entertainment is at worst revenue neutral due to this weight penelty. But once each seat has a credit card reader then the skies the limit! regards.. Brian ******************* The views expressed are my own and not those of Rockwell Collins and are based on experience during previous employment. ******************* From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cagtec@aol.com (CAGTEC) Subject: Re: Inflight entertainment Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: cagtec@aol.com (CAGTEC) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 95 02:34:23 Spoke to a friend of mine at TEAC. He said that GEC Marcorni has the hot new flight ready fully interactive system. Has anyone see or heard? Fred Ackourey From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Inflight engine shutdowns vs. speedups? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 95 02:34:23 >As I recall, a real-life example of this was on a Delta 767 (757?) >out of LAX where the pilots inadvertently did this on climb-out ... It was a 767-200. On climbout the crew got an EEC status message and instead of unlatching the EEC switches - at that time mounted right above the fuel switches, since moved to the overhead panel - went for the shut-off switches. Airplane continued to CVG with the RAT out and passengers in life vests. Major brain cramp on the part of the crew. From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 95 02:34:23 Tomcich writes: >I'm a writer and I have some basic questions about a 747, or any wide >body aircraft for that matter, for a story I'm writing. >When an aircraft is parked and totally abondoned how does one get in and >out? Is there a nose gear hatchet or must they use a stair truck to >board and disembark? I believe the only way in or out is through the stair truck through one of the main cabin doors. >Secondly are the emergancy slides a reflex system that will operate >whenever a door is opened or does it have a arming switch? The doors are armed by securing a rod from the pack on the door to the floor. These are armed in flight and disarmed upon rollout. Note: Not all slides will deploy when activated...they have a 5-10% failure rate. >-Ziggy Good luck on your book From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 95 02:34:23 In article ztomcich@osf1.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) writes: I'm a writer and I have some basic questions about a 747, or any wide body aircraft for that matter, for a story I'm writing. When an aircraft is parked and totally abondoned how does one get in and out? Is there a nose gear hatchet or must they use a stair truck to board and disembark? Yes, there is a nose gear hatch, which leads to the forward avionics bay, which has a ladder to the front of the aircraft. Secondly are the emergancy slides a reflex system that will operate whenever a door is opened or does it have a arming switch? Usually when parked in storage, the slides are disarmed (via a switch). This can easily be thrown by a person on the inside, though. And finally when these aircraft are in drydock- presumablly for good- what sort of security is around them? Drydock? If you're talking about out in the desert, there's a fence around the airport with security, but not at the aircraft themselves. Surprisingly, a good movie presentation about how to get in and out of a 747 in the desert is "Terminal Velocity" (1994). Though the plot is cheesy, there is a scene where the characters crawl around a 747 in the desert - this scene is very true-to-life in terms of entry, exit, and internal movements. 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 Mar 22 02:34:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 747 question 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 Mar 95 02:34:23 In article ztomcich@osf1.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) writes: >I'm a writer and I have some basic questions about a 747, or any wide >body aircraft for that matter, for a story I'm writing. > >When an aircraft is parked and totally abondoned how does one get in and >out? Is there a nose gear hatchet or must they use a stair truck to board >and disembark? There is an avionics compartment underneath the first class section. It leads to a hatch which is located near the left second-row seat forward of door L-1, underneath the rug. Entry can be attempted that way. Otherwise, airstairs are preferable. >Secondly are the emergancy slides a reflex system that will operate >whenever a door is opened or does it have a arming switch? The doors have an arming lever with two settings: "Auto" and "Manual." That's what the "Doors to auto" PA announcement to the flight attendants is about. If you open a door in auto, the slides will deploy. Older aircraft (non-747) have tug-bars which have to be put into place. Much more primitive, when the doors are opened, the slide deploys; the bars anchor the slide. I saw one of these go off in an airplane once (707 in Paris). >And finally when these aircraft are in drydock- presumablly for good- >what sort of security is around them? Security? Ask the kids who broke Heathrow security right after Lockerbie, and partied on 747s just coming out of maintenance. :-) >If anyone has >any technical data on the systems on board an aircraft- There are some children's books which are pretty good, lots of color pictures. The Time-Life series edition on flight has an easy-to-read overview on systems and theory. And Stewart Davis' _Fly the Big Jets_ is oriented toward passengers. Most books emphasize the 747; it seems to have some special appeal with readers. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bill Hensley <75542.2343@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: via CompuServe Information Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 95 02:34:24 All I'll say is, you haven't really lived til you've had a slide ride from a 747. It's a LONG way from the main deck to the ground. Just a random toss-out. Bill bhensley@oceo.trw.com From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: JEFFGIVENS@delphi.com (Jeff Givens) Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: @delphi.com@uunet.uu.net Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 95 02:34:24 |I can reply to the emergency slide question. Prior to take-off, the |captain will say something like "Flight Attendents prepare for departure", |and then they will position the actuating arm that attaches to the door. |This arm actuates the slide upon opening the door. Naturally, before |landing the captain will say "....prepare for arrival." and that tells the |attendant to disable the actuator. No. Prior to push back the doors are properly armed. There is no prompting from the flight deck for this; the cabin crew informs the capt. that this has been done and *then* he can push back. The "prepare for departure" and "prepare for arrival" are simply means of making sure the entire crew is seated and strapped in. has nothing to do with arming the slides. ______________________________________________________________________ JG... jeffgivens@delphi.com Delphi Internet Jet SST v2.009 - (C) PBE From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ecla@world.std.com (alain arnaud) Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 95 02:34:24 Sense (sense@aol.com) wrote: : I can reply to the emergency slide question. Prior to take-off, the : captain will say something like "Flight Attendents prepare for departure", : and then they will position the actuating arm that attaches to the door. : This arm actuates the slide upon opening the door. Naturally, before : landing the captain will say "....prepare for arrival." and that tells the : attendant to disable the actuator. : In short, the slides can only be activated from inside the plane. Small correction to the above: The slides are enabled until the end of the landing roll just in case there's a need for an emergency evacuation. From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rching@saclink1.csus.edu (Russell K Ching) Subject: DC-10s Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: California State University Sacramento Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 95 02:34:24 Does McDonnell Douglas actually use an extended digit in their series number to designate certain performance properties as they did with the DC-9s (e.g., DC-9-15, DC-9-31, DC-9-32) and -8s (e.g., DC-8-51, DC-8-54, etc.)? That is, under the 30 series would there be a 31 (DC-10-31) or a 32 (DC-10-32)? Russell Ching Dept. of MIS California State University, Sacramento From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC-10s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 95 02:34:24 >Does McDonnell Douglas actually use an extended digit in their series >number to designate certain performance properties as they did with >the DC-9s Not that I've ever seen, unless you want to count the DC-10-15, which is a special "hot and high" variant for Mexico, basically a DC-10-10 airframe with the higher thrust engines from the DC-10-30. Then again, from what I've seen, the DC-10-10s seem to be remarkably homogenous, at least as delivered from Long Beach. They all came with the same engine type (CF6-6, with some subsequently changed) and MGTOW (440,000 lbs), quite unlike the competing L-1011 or other Douglas jets (and most other airliners). The only major differences seem to be an optional lower-deck galley, plus of course cargo variants. The DC-10-30s seemed to come with a wider variety of customization. -- 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 Mar 22 02:34:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: flirman@NetVision.net.il (steve) Subject: israeli, mideast aviation news Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: front line information resources Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 95 02:34:24 The "Tel Aviv Commercial Aviation Report" report contains news and information on the Israeli and regional airline and aviation -related industries. The March issue of this information-packed English-language newsletter includes: feature stories on El Al Israel Airlines' new chairman, British Airways' Sleeper Service, Arkia Israeli Airlines Ltd.'s plans to modernize its fleet for expansion of regional service and Avro's demonstration flight of the RJ-70 in Israel, Airborne's increased ties with Israel Aircraft Industries; an interview with Transaero's director of Israel operations who discusses the airline's huge growth in the Israeli market and ideas about integrated Israel with the carrier's other Mideast routes; pages of lots of other Israeli aviation and airline market news; a page on Israeli and regional tourism news; pages of international airline news; a section called Mideast Monitor which provides regional news based on information from the data bases of Info-Prod Research; and also a page listing information resources including a video on the Israel Air Force that readers can order by mail. CHECK IT OUT! The executive editor is Sharone Parnes, who has written on Israeli and Mideast aviation, aerospace and high-tech issues for numerous international publications, including Defense News, Space News, Commercial Aviation News, Air Commerce, World Airline News, the Jerusalem Post. It is published by the Tel Aviv -based Front Line Information Resources Ltd., P.O. Box 22051, Tel Aviv Israel 61223. (Fax: 972-3-510-3952). The company also has a subscriptions office in the United States at: P.O. Box 2917, Wheaton, MD. 20915-2917 (Fax: 301-649-6810). Subscription rates are: $180 U.S. domestic mail; $250 International mail; $280 U.S. domestic fax; $350 International fax. *The company is presently offering 50% discount on subscriptions ordered by April 1! A sample issue will be sent for $10 and a stamped, self-addressed envelope. From kls Wed Mar 22 02:34:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: jvrusso@aol.com (JVRusso) Subject: Re: TB spread through aircraft air References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jvrusso@aol.com (JVRusso) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Mar 95 02:34:24 Actually, the engine will make up for the extra bleed air by increasing N2 speed so there is still the same amount air available to drive N1. THIS requires more fuel flow (higher TSFC) as well as higher turbine temperatures, which limits the life of the high turbine. From kls Mon Mar 27 01:29:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: allard@iconz.co.nz Subject: B767 FMC Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Mar 95 01:29:48 Reply-To: allard@iconz.co.nz Organization: Internet Company of New Zealand I seek information on the non PIPS B767 FMC software. In particular I would like to know how the "Fuel at Destination" figures are derived. Please email me at allard@iconz.co.nz Thanks. David Allard. From kls Mon Mar 27 01:29:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: Lounges References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: -=MO.NET=- P-Net, Inc's Missouri Operations Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Mar 95 01:29:48 I have photos of the first American Airlines DC-10-10's, that show a stand up lounge in the rear of the coach section. FYI, I was in the cabin of N141US, when it stopped at McDonnell Douglas in Toronto, during its proving runs, in the early 70's. It had a MD paint scheme, and was designated as a -20. The cabin was full of test equipment and water ballast barrels, and "Experimental" decals were installed over every entry door. Steven Cole Pierce (pierce@pat.mdc.com) wrote: : >CO had their Pub Service on their longhaul DC10s as late as 1990, and may : >have added this to their ex-PE 747s. : Actually, Continental's shorthaul DC10-10s were the ones with the lounge (if : one can call any DC-10 a shorthaul ). : >>> been there, done that <<< From kls Mon Mar 27 01:29:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nwg@vt.edu (nwg) Subject: 777 info. request Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Virginia Tech/Blacksburg Electronic Village Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Mar 95 01:29:48 I was wondering if anyone had any information or references I could look to find info. on the 777 beyond the limited amount in Jane's. Things like static margins, Coefficients of lift and drag at different conditions, airfoils, etc... I'm working on a project for a class on computational aerodynamics and need something to verify my calculations. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks... Wes Gimbert AOE Virginia Tech From kls Mon Mar 27 01:29:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: greg@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Greg Pisanich) Subject: NASA Ames Aviaition Operations Branch is on WWW Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Ames Research Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Mar 95 01:29:48 The Aviation Operations Branch of the Flight Managment and Human Factors Division at the NASA Ames Research Center is proud to announce a newly developed web site. We are at: http://olias.arc.nasa.gov Our Mission: Research in the Aviation Operations branch at NASA-Ames focuses on solving operational problems identified by our clients in the aviation community. Problems are identified through continual direct interaction with operators, regulators, and airframe manufacturers, as well as through the NASA-FAA Aviation Safety Reporting Service (ASRS). Our clients in the operational community often play key roles as partners in the research process. Our main area of innovation is in data collection, analysis, and modeling of real human-machine systems. We use a full spectrum of research methods, including moderate-fidelity part-task simulation, high-fidelity full-mission simulation, and field research methods. We apply our in-house and extramural resources to the full cycle of civil aviation operations: maintenance and manufacturing, dispatch and air-traffic control, air-ground compatibility, training, and crew-automation interaction on the flight deck. Our main types of products (with examples) are: * Databases (field data on controlled rest in long-haul flight operations; field data and simulation-based data on crew interaction with automation). *Books, book chapters, and other publications (two recent books on cockpit resource management and complex decision making). *Prototype procedural aids and evaluations (electronic checklist; datalink concepts). *Display concepts and formats ( integrated mode-management interface; flight-path predictor display for use with autoflight system). *Training modules ( fatigue countermeasures training module; computer-based training systems for advanced cockpit automation). *Training methods and field evaluations (Line-oriented flight training [LOFT]; cockpit resource management [CRM]). Come check us out. Greg Pisanich greg@eos.arc.nasa.gov From kls Mon Mar 27 01:29:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Larry Stone, United Airlines, 415-634-4725" Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Computer Users Society Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Mar 95 01:29:48 >No. Prior to push back the doors are properly armed. There is no >prompting from the flight deck for this; the cabin crew informs the >capt. that this has been done and *then* he can push back. > >The "prepare for departure" and "prepare for arrival" are simply means >of making sure the entire crew is seated and strapped in. has nothing >to do with arming the slides. I'll try to describe what my observtions (as a passenger) says we do at United. Other airlines do things differently. At departure, when the Customer Service Representative (CSR) closes the entry door, the First Flight Attendant (FA) annouces "Prepare for departure" or "prepare doors for departure" or even "Arm doors for departure." This is the signal for the other FA's to arm the doors. Note that at this point, if the jetway is returned and the door to be opened, a "Prepare for arrival" announcement will be made by the First FA and the doors disarmed prior to opening a door. Prior to taking the runway for take-off, one of the flight deck crew announces, "prepare for takeoff." This is the signal to the FA's to be seated. About 5 minutes prior to landing, the flight deck crew announce "prepare for landing." This is the signal for the FA's to prepare the cabin for arrival and tehn be seated. This is also the signal to *you* to bring your seat back up, stow your tray table, etc. Ever wonder why some passengers do it automatically when that announcement is made and don't wait for the First FA's announcement to do so? Finally, upon arrival once the seatbelt sign is off and the jetway or stairs at the door, the First FA announces "prepare for arrival" (or "prepare doors for arrival" or "disarm doors for arrival"). The FA then cracks the door (releases the handle) to indicate to the CSR on the other side that the door is disarmed and ready for opening. The CSR then opens the door the rest of the way (planes with electric doors (DC-10, 767) are probably handled slightly differently). -- Larry Stone | United Airlines VAX Systems Administrator | Maintenance Operations Center stone_l@eisner.decus.org | San Francisco, CA 415-634-4725 From kls Mon Mar 27 01:29:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hac@utrc.utc.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Engine hush kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: United Technologies Research Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Mar 95 01:29:49 In article , Steve Howie (showie@uoguelph.ca) wrote: > I've asked unsuccessfully on rec.travel.air about what is involved in > installing the so-called "hush kits" on jet engines. Could someone > (Andrew?) enlighten me as to what makes up one of these kits, and how > they actually reduce engine noise. I have very limited knowledge on the hush kits. My understanding is that the kit is actually an internal flow mixer (the same thing I was talking about in another thread on engine design) and perhaps some additional acoustic liners near the exhaust. All the stage-2 engines already have internal flow mixers. Hence, I don't understand how an improved mixer can significantly reduce the noise level and make those engines comply with the new noise regulation. The mixer looks like a "daisy-wheel" or a "cookie-cutter". If you still remember the old turbojets (not turbofans) on early B707s, CV880s, etc, there were external noise suppressors which look very much like the mixer I'm talking about. The convoluted surface of a mixer increases the area for the hot and cold flows to mix more effectively than a straight annular duct. By mixing the two streams, the exhaust velocity will be reduced, but the exhaust momentum will actually be increased (remember momentum is not a linear function of velocity). Therefore, for the same fuel consumption, one will get more thrust by mixing the flows (since thrust is proportional to the change of momentum at the inlet and the exit); i.e., the specific fuel consumption is improved, too. With the lower exhaust velocity, less "violent" mixing with the ambient air will occur, hence, less noise. I don't have any formal training in turbomachinery flow, so, I can't give you too much detail of how they really work (without making a fool out of myself :-). I know there are guys at P&W, GE, and Allison (perhaps even at R-R) who are reading this group. However, few have actively participated in the group discussion. Perhaps, some of them will enlighten us more. H. Andrew Chuang From kls Mon Mar 27 01:29:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: waterwda@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Dave Waterworth) Subject: Re: Engine hush kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Electrical Engineering Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Mar 95 01:29:49 In article , showie@uoguelph.ca says... >I've asked unsuccessfully on rec.travel.air about what is involved in >installing the so-called "hush kits" on jet engines. Could someone >(Andrew?) enlighten me as to what makes up one of these kits, and how >they actually reduce engine noise. I can't answer your question, but about one month ago Air New Zealand grounded its entire fleet of hush kitted 737-200's (10 aircraft) following three turbine blade failures. The reason for the blade failures is unknown, but the failures occurred in turbines which were fitted with reconditioned blades. The groundings left ANZ with only 3 operational planes for domestic use. Three 737's were leased from Air Nauru, Air Pacific and Air Polynesia, and a 757 leased from Air Britannia to cover the loss. Most of the hush kitted planes have now been returned to service with new blades. Dave From kls Mon Mar 27 01:29:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: DC-10s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Mar 95 01:29:49 I got into a discussion about the external appearance of DC-10s recently, and found out something interesting. While they -10's may indeed be generally "homogenous" there *are* some differences. The external appearance of the airplane is, at first glance, the same on all models except for the length of the wing and the 3rd leg on the main gear, right? Wrong... Check the wing/body fairing, both forward and aft of the wing, and the stabilizer root fairing scabbed on the fuselage. Just about every one you see is different! The -10 started out with only a wing/body fairing aft of the wing. It terminated about 1/2 way between the trailing edge and the front of the stabilizer. On the -30 it was extended back to a point almost even with the rear door. The stab fairing was made pointier at the front end, almost touching the aft door also. Later, a forward wing/body fairing was added which looks much like that on the MD-80 in that it projects well forward of the wing and well above the wing chord plane. Apparently all this was done in order to "tweak" the range performance of the airplane. I thought you could definitely tell a -10 from a -30 by looking at this fairing, but it just ain't so. I have a photo of a Western -10 (confirmed by the lack of a 3rd gear leg and the N number) which has all three -30 type fairings. I'm told it depends entirely on where the airplane fell in the production run as to which type of fairings it has. As they were developed, they were applied to all the subsequent airplanes rolling down the line. My $.02 worth... Jennings Heilig From kls Mon Mar 27 01:29:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ralbertso@aol.com (Ralbertso) Subject: Re: Future Air Navigation (long) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ralbertso@aol.com (Ralbertso) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Mar 95 01:29:49 Are there plans to upgrade older Boeing aircraft such as the 727 and 747-100 with FANS capability? Do the benefits of FANS apply equally to long-haul aircraft and shorter hop aircraft? From kls Mon Mar 27 01:29:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: riffraff@eskimo.com (David Hendrickson) Subject: Re: Engine hush kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Mar 95 01:29:49 a hush kit breaks up the single exhaust stream into a number of smaller streams. this raises the frequency of the noise, of which some is absorbed by the atmosphere, and some is raised above the audible range of your ears. basically, the high-pitched whine doesn't travel as far as or maintain the volume of the low-freq rumbling noise. dave riffraff@eskimo.com From kls Mon Mar 27 01:29:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jimh@eskimo.com (Jim Hogan) Subject: Re: Inflight entertainment References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Mar 95 01:29:49 In article , bareynol@cca.rockwell.com says... > Stuff about in-flight entertainment deleted >But once each seat has a credit card reader then the skies the limit! I have flown on one of United's 777's and every single seat (including tourist) has a phone/video control/Nintendo-style control pad with a credit card reader in the arm rest. Although the 1st, business, and tourist seats were of course different, the phone/controller was identical in all seats. Jim From kls Mon Mar 27 01:29:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: jimh@eskimo.com (Jim Hogan) Subject: Re: TB spread through aircraft air References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Mar 95 01:29:49 In article , jvrusso@aol.com says... > >Actually, the engine will make up for the extra bleed air by increasing N2 >speed so there is still the same amount air available to drive N1. THIS >requires more fuel flow (higher TSFC) as well as higher turbine >temperatures, which limits the life of the high turbine. >From a performance standpoint the engine may be able to supply the extra bleed (with an economy and range penalty, of course) but consider the downstream effects. To compensate for the increased flow, the pre-cooler will have to be upsized (located in the cowl or strut, depending on the engine) as well as the bleed air ducting in the wing. Neither of these components are located in real estate that is easy or cheap to change. Regards, Jim From kls Mon Mar 27 01:29:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ted Deller Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, Oakville, Ontario, CANADA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Mar 95 01:29:50 Jeff is right. At least on the aircraft I've flown jumpseat in, the Purser is responsible for securing the doors with the slides armed, and then informing the pilot. In one case, the cabin crew had secured the doors before the cockpit crew was ready to push back, but after the parking brake had been released. The captain had the purser go back, disarm the slides, then wait while the brakes were re-applied, then arm the slides again so the ACARS reporting system wouldn't show a "delay" time between arming the slides and actually pushing back! Just another anecdote for the thread... Ted From kls Mon Mar 27 01:29:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bill Hensley Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Questar Network Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Mar 95 01:29:50 fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) wrote: > > I believe the only way in or out is through the stair truck through one of > the main cabin doors. > Actually, there is a hatch in the bottom of the aircraft just aft of the nose gear. You climb up on the nose tires (the real way) or up a ladder (the "book" way). This takes you into the avionics bay in the forward lower lobe. On a commercial bird, the cargo area would be aft of the avionics bay. In an E-4B, there is a stairway leading up to the main deck just aft of the avionics bay. I don't have any idea how you would get to the main deck on a commercial bird or freighter. Bill Hensley bhensley@oceo.trw.com Standard disclaimers. From kls Mon Mar 27 12:24:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: fuel economy of airliners vs. automobiles Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Mar 95 12:24:26 Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California On several occasions, discussions have surfaced in this group regarding the fuel economy of an airliner, usually as compared to automobiles. Lufthansa released their first annual environ- mental report today, and it reportedly includes some numbers which may be of interest. The report indicated that Lufthansa's aircraft consumed 5.5 liters of fuel per 100 passenger kilometers, down 15.4 percent from 1991. They claim the equivalent average figure for the "car industry" is 9.8 liters, which I translate to about 24 miles per gallon. That sounds about right, though it would seem to assume only one person per car. (Probably close enough here in California!) Lufthansa's load factor for 1994 was 70%, up 12.9% from 1991's 62%. Since an extra body adds very little to the marginal cost of flying an airliner, this figure probably accounts for most of the improve- ment in fuel usage. (Flying a 100-seat aircraft with 70 passengers uses little more fuel than with 62 passengers, but you amortize the fuel over more people so fuel per pax km improves accordingly.) Compared to other airlines, Lufthansa's figures are probably a bit better because of its younger fleet, 5.3 years vs. an average of about 12 for the industry. A mix of long-distance, intercontinental flights, and short-hop domestic and intra-European flights probably puts Lufthansa ahead of airlines like USAir or Southwest, but behind Singapore Airlines, which also benefits from a very young fleet. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Tue Mar 28 07:49:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rwi@whidbey.whidbey.com (Richard Isakson) Subject: Engine hush kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Whidbey Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Mar 95 07:49:44 In sci.aeronautics.airliners Steve Howie said: >I've asked unsuccessfully on rec.travel.air about what is involved in >installing the so-called "hush kits" on jet engines. Could someone (Andrew?) >enlighten me as to what makes up one of these kits, and how they actually >reduce engine noise. While all hush kits have hardware fixes in them, one of the big factors in reducing the noise is a reduction in the performace of the airplane. You can either derate the engines which gives less thrust over the noise station. Or you can reduce the maximum takeoff weight of the airplane which puts the airplane higher over the noise station. Or you can do both. Either way you have to recertify parts of the flight manual. Rich Isakson (rwi@whidbey.com) From kls Tue Mar 28 07:49:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pleavin@hk.super.net (Mr Ted Pleavin) Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hong Kong Supernet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Mar 95 07:49:44 Bill Hensley (75542.2343@CompuServe.COM) wrote: : All I'll say is, you haven't really lived til you've had a : slide ride from a 747. It's a LONG way from the main deck : to the ground. Ya! It's one of those things some of us hate to do every year ;-) Cheers Ted. From kls Fri Mar 31 02:41:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dgrose@via.at (Dale Grose) Subject: PW4060 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 95 02:41:28 Organization: Vianet Austria Hi, I have a couple of questions relating to the PW4060 installation on the B767-300er. 1. Cruise limit EPR. How is this determined? 2. Early PW engine installations(JT8D) on Boeing & Douglas aeroplanes where designed so that in the event of an engine seizure the engine would depart the structure. I understand that the philosophy now is to leave the engine "on the wing"for the B767. Could somebody please confirm this! Thanks in advance, Dale. From kls Fri Mar 31 02:41:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 95 02:41:28 The state of the art in hush kits seems to be to first mix the core and bypass flow internally before then mixing this flow with external air drawn into a shroud. The idea is to get as much mixing before releasing the exhaust flow. Also, on JT8D aircraft, there is an Inlet Guide Vane (IGV) respacing change made to reduce inlet tones. I worked on the Sound Solutions 737 hush kit, which is RIP now. It was similar to Nordam's, but our shroud retracted after take-off. Besides the standard IGV mod, we used the P&W mod 3 mixer to mix core and bypass and then we had a 14(?) lobe mixer for exhaust and external mixing. As I noted, our shroud was only back aft of the mixer for take-off and landing and the thrust reverser was integral with the shroud. Nordam's shroud is fixed and they suffer a cruise fuel burn penalty because of this. They use the stock 737 (DC-9) thrust reverser which is bolted on to the aft end of their shroud. -- 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 Mar 31 02:41:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: allard@iconz.co.nz Subject: Re: Engine hush kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: allard@iconz.co.nz Organization: Internet Company of New Zealand Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 95 02:41:28 In , waterwda@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Dave Waterworth) writes: >I can't answer your question, but about one month ago Air New Zealand >grounded its entire fleet of hush kitted 737-200's (10 aircraft) >following three turbine blade failures. The reason for the blade failures >is unknown, but the failures occurred in turbines which were fitted with >reconditioned blades. Analysis showed that the turbine blade failures were confined to refurbished turbine blades. All refurbished blades have now been replaced. P&W and Nordom (the hushkit manufacturer) are investigating. From kls Fri Mar 31 02:41:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: aheatwole@telogy.com (Tony Heatwole) Subject: A320 and Noisy Hydraulic Pumps Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 95 02:41:29 Yesterday I flew from Detroit to Washington on a Northwest A320 (yes, I like to live dangerously). It had snowed a little, so the plane was de-iced. Just before the de-icing started, the flaps were deployed. A *terrible* noise preceded the flap deployment and continued for the next 10-15 minutes. The sound was like someone trying desperately to start a car with a nearly-dead battery followed by a thump that you could feel through the floor. This noise/thump cycle had a period of 5-10 seconds with a short silent period. I learned from talking to the captain after the flight that the sound (which they couldn't hear in the cockpit) was the cycling of an electric motor maintaining hydraulic pressure. Since they had to deploy the flaps slightly for the de-icing operation and the engines were off, they had get hydraulic pressure for the flaps from the motor. The captain noted that DC10s, especially, have a reputation for noisy hydraulic pumps. This brings a few questions to mind: 1. In the cabin the noise of this motor cycling was *horrible*. Do airlines and aircraft designers tolerate this because it's hard to avoid or simply because it's a configuration which isn't often required? 2. The pilot used the APU to generate the power for this motor. Could this motor have been powered from the jetway? We may have had to push back slightly to allow the de-icing, so that could explain the use of the APU. 3. Why didn't the pilot turn off the hydraulics after deploying the flaps? 4. Is the DC-10, in fact, notorious for the noise of its hydraulics? What other airliners have this reputation? Tony Heatwole TELOGY Networks, Inc. aheatwole@telogy.com From kls Fri Mar 31 02:41:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Underfloor Lounge in PSA L1011's? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: -=MO.NET=- P-Net, Inc's Missouri Operations Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 95 02:41:29 I took some photos of a pair of Worldways Canada L1011's in Toronto a few years back. These aircraft were both ex-PSA, and had been stored in the desert for quite some time. Visible in my photos, just behind the nose gear, was a large bulge in the fuselage. I had read somewhere that PSA had intended to operate the aircraft on a LAX/SFO shuttle service, during the mid seventies. They had their three aircraft fitted with a lounge, situated below the main deck, aft of the nose gear. Were these L1011's ever operated on this shuttle, and if so, was the lounge actually used? The L1011 doesn't strike me as a real good short haul shuttle aircraft! Must have been dreamed up in those heady, cheap fuel days! Steven From kls Fri Mar 31 02:41:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: 777 info. request References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 95 02:41:29 Good luck getting info on the 777 beyond that in Janes. Now that Airbus has Boeing on the run, they are playing very close to the vest with info on the 777. I have only seen one paper on 777 aerodynamics published and this was on engine installation aerodynamics. The airfoils are a big secret, but from what I have heard via the grapevine, they have both nose and aft loading along with "roof top" type design features. They have even been quite about details of the high lift system, which is unusual for Boeing. -- 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 Mar 31 02:41:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: B767 FMC References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 95 02:41:29 Fuel at destination is calculated by the FMC Performance function. It uses the cruise altitude, wind profiles, and calculated speed (such as ECON) to perform the integration. It uses the lateral flight plan for the distance and if there are any discontinuities then a direct line distance between the discontinuous parts are used. This probably happens most when you have not entered an arrival. The biggest impact to the fuel at destination is the accuracy of the wind model. If you can be a little more detailed as to what information you need, I can expand on the explanation. Dave Allen From kls Fri Mar 31 02:41:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: TAROM Airbus A310 reportedly crashes (in Romania?) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Mar 95 02:41:29 Reuters is apparently reporting that an Airbus A310, of Romainian airline TAROM, crashed this morning (Friday, March 31) on a flight from Bucharest to Brussels. 54 passengers and 4 crew were aboard according to the reports, with little change for any survivors -- a policeman who saw the event said the aircraft exploded in the air. (I'm not sure whether it was in Bucharest or Brussels, or elsewhere for that matter.) Weather might be contributory as snow and high winds were reported. -- 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 Apr 1 02:50:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mrdc3@aol.com (MRDC3) Subject: Douglas DC-3 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 95 02:50:19 Reply-To: mrdc3@aol.com (MRDC3) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) I know there are Douglas DC-3 lovers who have information they would like to share. I publish a quarterly magazine on the DC-3 called the DC-3/Dakota Journal. I am looking for articles, stories and experiences of anyone who has knowledge of the DC-3, C-47, Dakota, C-53, etc. etc. EMail me at MRDC3@AOL.com or Compuserve at 71231,566 for details on how to submit information. Thanks Henry M. Holden - Publisher From kls Sat Apr 1 02:50:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nayar@asf22.trt.allied.com () Subject: Re: Inflight entertainment References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: nayar@asf22.trt.allied.com () Organization: AlliedSignal Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 95 02:50:19 Jim how could you fly a United 777 when the first 777 is scheduled for delivery in May'95. I know this because I worked on the 777 Cabin Press software. You probably meant 747! Regards Chandra. From kls Sat Apr 1 02:50:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Inflight entertainment References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 95 02:50:19 >Jim how could you fly a United 777 when the first 777 is scheduled for >delivery in May'95. I know this because I worked on the 777 Cabin Press >software. You probably meant 747! Note that he's in the Seattle area, which probably means he works for Boeing ... or Microsoft. :-) Sorry, I know there are lots of other employers in the Seattle area, but it seems likely he was on one of the test flights. United's first 777 is still set for a May 15th delivery, and their 747s definitely do NOT have individual video equipment for every seat. The only aircraft United currently has in service with anything even close are their 3- cabin domestic 767-222s, which have individual 8mm video systems for each of the F class seats. (Business and steerage just get phones and the usual audio system.) -- 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 Apr 1 02:50:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: S.Tolboom@kub.nl (Stephan Tolboom) Subject: Re: Inflight entertainment References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: S.Tolboom@kub.nl Organization: Tilburg University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 95 02:50:19 In Article "bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds)" says: > > Look for in-flight shopping to become more 'popular' > as the industry grows the capability to 1) offer delivery at the > arrival gate (this is a real biggie from the airlines perspective as > they can sell the merchandise without having to pay for the fuel to > carry it - however duties/tariffs are an interesting legal issue) 2) > the public gets used to video malls (training via QVC/Home Shopping > Channels on cable). I think that on certain KLM flights ( KLM Cityhopper?), it is possible to order items from their in-flight catalogue. The ordered items will be delivered by mail order. > > Another direction is inflight rebooking/reticketing in order to keep a > passenger within your system. Expect to see inflight gambling (I > think that Virgin already offers this). Singapore Airlines also offers inflight gambling.( in business class) ( or are planning to offer it) Stephan From kls Sat Apr 1 02:51:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: jfolaron@earth.execpc.com (John Folaron) Subject: Live TV transmission to airplanes? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Apr 95 02:51:07 Organization: Exec-PC Say, has anyone heard anything recently about a test flight with live TV transmission to the airplane from the ground? I don't know a whole lot more - does anyone know anything about it? Does this mean we could get CNN live in our seats? Or the Super Bowl? Thanks for any info - I can soon schedule my flights around significant sporting events!