From kls Sat Jul 1 02:24:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk ("Niels M. Sampath") Subject: Re: 757 Range/Payload References: 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: 01 Jul 95 02:24:39 In article you write: > >Can someone provide the range and payload for a 757-xxx? > > It depends on the engine and MGTOW options selected for the aircraft. So what's the longest scheduled 757 sector then? Not sure how many miles but Icelandair's Keflavik-Orlando is up there. Doesn't Am.Trans Air do a long flight (with stops) from Norfolk VA to the Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean? -- Niels From kls Sat Jul 1 02:24:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jtringl@sandia.gov (James T. Ringland) Subject: Re: 777 landing gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sandia National Laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jul 95 02:24:40 In article , Joe Diederichs wrote: >Recently somewhere (maybe in this group) I read what I will for now >consider a rumor about a key part of the 777 landing gear being >under-designed by exactly a factor of 1/2. Supposedly this results in >the replacement of this item being an annual maintainance task. The >point was that, while the CAD systems allow fast design and accurate >details, fast design cycles allow less time for cross-checking the big >picture. Being an electronics designer myself, one of my biggest >concerns when doing a design is not missing some crucial overall aspect >while getting all the little details right. > >Can anyone substantiate this? If so, what part or parts are involved? > >Thanks, >Joe > This was written up in comp.risks two months ago and I found it interesting enough to save. That post is copied below. This may be what you saw. I know no more than what is written here, so I too would appreciate more information. Jim Ringland jtringl@sandia.gov Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 23:38:16 -0700 From: ncm@netcom.com (Nathan Myers) Subject: Boeing 777 has dainty feet I have heard recently that the new Boeing 777 jetliner, described in recent news reports as "skating through the approval process", has a little problem that might be interesting to RISKS readers. It seems that an important part of the landing gear is too weak, and will get "used up" (through metal fatigue), and need to be replaced annually. While this is probably not a safety problem, it's an extra expense (frequent inspections and replacements) and an embarrassment. Unfortunately, fixing it isn't just a matter of making the part stronger; it would then be bigger and heavier, affecting fit, balance, and nearby parts. This sort of problem is familiar in the "shakeout period" of all previous jetliners, but it's surprising that it showed up so late in the approval process. (A previous 7?7 has a nonlinearity in the landing gear linkage that caused an oscillation when trying to close the doors; it was fixed by an appalling hydraulic "patch" that cancels feedback during the nonlinear portion of the cycle.) How did this mistake get all the way through Boeing's legendary engineering process? The 777 is the first commercial Boeing to have been modeled entirely on computer before construction. Apparently the part is precisely a factor of two weaker than it should have been. Does this smell like a structural model entry error? I have been unable to find out more about the source of the error, and would welcome more detailed information. Maybe the RISK is in streamlining your engineering process so well, and eliminating so many of the more common mistakes that would have caused delays, that you are already getting final FAA approval before the booboos that only time can reveal are noticed. Or maybe the RISK is just that better communications can leak word of embarrassments few would have known about otherwise. From kls Sat Jul 1 02:24:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: Boeing Design Philosphy 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: 01 Jul 95 02:24:40 >Sir, >In your article 'Boeing Design Philosophy' dated 17 may 1995 you stated >(in other words) that primary control of the aircraft should be with the >crew (i.e. the captain). According to this statement I have two questions: >1. The central maintenance computer of a Boeing 747-400 registers >non-flight deck effects. These 'errors' can not be recognized by the crew, >but can be important for the maintenance department. Who determines the >importancy of these effects and what is the right treatment of these >effects according to you? The CMC is designed as an aid to maintenace. The dispatchability of the aircraft is determined by the messages on EICAS. The CMC is basically there to corrolate detected failures with these dispatchability issues. Non-FDE effect failures are determined by the Safety Failure Analysis by the aircraft design folks. Basically, they are failures which the system can detect, but do not affect the operation of the aircraft. The airlines generally have maintenace crews review ALL CMC messages during certain layovers and many times datalink the present leg faults down during the latter parts of the flight in order to assure the right parts are on hand. >2. With the development of more and more computers on board as well as >systems for aircraft positioning and navigation, won't there come a time >when (for example in aircraft positioning) computers will overrule the >manual input by the crew? Personal opinion here. Even though I'm an avionics systems engineer, I'm hesitant to design a system which would do that for a couple of reasons. One, it is very difficult to design a system which has the capability AND the integrity to make decisions to over-ride the pilots inputs. Current Boeing aircraft designs take credit for having the pilot in the cockpit. Second, systems which are capable enough to make those types of decisions, would be large, complex, and extremely difficult to certify (also make that extremely expensive). I believe that we have to achieve a balance here; the automated systems need to offload pilot workload, give them the right information in the best form, and help provide guidance. The pilot has to remain there to make the best choices and to basically aviate. P.S. I attended the FLight International congress on the 5 and 6 of may 1994 in Paris. You told everyone they could get a copy of the FANS II document. In my new position with KLM, I am interested in a copy. Could you please send me one? Ir. M.A. van der Eijk Oude Delft 155 2611 HA Delft The Netherlands David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Boeing Flight Management Systems From kls Sat Jul 1 02:24:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gswetnam@mitre.org (George Swetnam) Subject: Boeing 717? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jul 95 02:24:41 Perhaps I'm walking into the most frequently asked FAQ in the group, but it occurred to me that 717 is the only model number in the series 707...7n7...777 that I haven't heard of Boeing using for an airliner. Did Boeing ever work on a model by this type, or did 717 get skipped for some cultural reason? (When I was at Bell Labs in the 60's, I was interested to learn why Bell developed a No 1. Electronic Switching System, a No 2 ESS (which never made it to market) and then a No 5 ESS. Turned out there were reasons why the numbers 3 and 4 weren't used for class 5 (local) switches. No 4 was reserved for long-distance offices, the connotation being that 4-wire switching was used, and the number 3 had "always" been associated with manual switchboards.) From kls Sat Jul 1 02:24:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (James H. Haynes) Subject: Re: Boeing's Plans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jul 95 02:24:41 It was just on the radio news that Boeing will cut production of 737s and 757s to concentrate on the 777s. From kls Sat Jul 1 02:24:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing's Plans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jul 95 02:24:41 >It was just on the radio news that Boeing will cut production of 737s and >757s to concentrate on the 777s. Production rates are based on demand, not what Boeing wants to concentrate on. It's inevitable that the 777 rate is going up right now because it's been very close to zero! Here's what's happening with Boeing's monthly production rates and when the new rate takes effect: 737 7 => 5 (4/96) 747 2 => 3 (3Q96) 757 4 => 3 (6/96) 767 3.5 (unchanged) 777 3 => 4 (1997; 30 in 1996 and 19 in 1995) (Thanks to Robert Ashcroft for coincidently sending me the numbers today!) -- 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 Jul 1 02:24:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jul 95 02:24:41 In article mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) writes: >Seriously though, a picture, purpotedly on an Airbus 320 cockpit, shows some >contraption that looks awfully similar to your description of the "control >column with the Y yoke". As well, I can see (not clearly) what looks like that >sidestick on the side of of the chair. You might have seen a picture of the A300 FBW technology demonnstrator, which had a stick, as well as a control column for emergency backup. This airplane was flown at the Paris Air Show a few years ago. >Could the 320 have both ? No. Standardization is the airplane's major selling point, and sidesticks are an *integral* component of the flight deck design. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Sat Jul 1 02:24:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: yarvin@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Yale Computer Science Department Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jul 95 02:24:41 Robert Dorsett writes: > Oh, and Boeing is also proudly proclaiming this airplane has more computers > than any other airplane. Something on the order of 150. For those who > think this is a good thing, I guess Boeing is winning the chip war. :-) My guess is that most of these are single-chip microcontrollers which perform simple functions and are not connected to other computers. There's a reason why these microcontrollers have found their way into a whole lot of things including many pieces of consumer electronics: even though a circuit implemented with transistors, capacitors, small logic chips containing a few gates, and so forth, is generally simpler (if one takes a broad perspective and counts the complexity that has to be dealt with by the designers of the microcontroller), it also often: 1. takes more space. (It's a lot of discrete components as opposed to a single chip.) 2. weighs more. 3. costs more. (A simple microcontroller costs under a dollar. Individually packaged transistors are cheaper but one needs more of them.) 4. is harder to design. (Programming is easier than designing a circuit.) Calling microcontrollers computers is a bit of a stretch, because they are not what most people think of when they hear the word computer. But strictly speaking they are computers, just small ones. -- Norman Yarvin yarvin@cs.yale.edu "I have observed that persons of good sense seldom fall into disputes, except lawyers, university men, and men of all sorts that have been bred at Edinborough." -- Ben Franklin From kls Sat Jul 1 02:24:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jul 95 02:24:42 On 30 Jun 95 03:47:16 , mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) said: > A control column is that big heavy thing with the "Y" yoke on top, > that is situated between each pilot's legs. > > A sidestick is a small handgrip situated on each sidewall of the airplane. > JF> I prefer the term "sidestick". I had visions of a "joystick" the JF> size of a video game's in front of the pilot :-) Just a note about terminology. What we now call sidesticks, which is to say a handgrip mounted at the pilot's side, were called "side arm controllers" back in the X-15 days. About when the YF-16 was selected the terminology switched to "sidestick". I have never heard the controller that the pilot manipulates to control the pitch and roll of the aircraft called a "joystick", but I have heard this term used to refer to various controllers for lasing systems, cameras, etc. These are usually much smaller than sidesticks and aren't handgrips at all, but usually little rods. The Space Shuttle uses a Rotational Hand Controller (RHC), which is a handgrip mounted on a column in front of the pilot. The interesting thing about the RHC is that the pitch pivot point is in the middle of the pilot's palm, instead of at the base of the handgrip. This makes it feel very peculiar until you get used to it. (I once hand-carried an RHC from JSC to Dryden; the paperwork specified its replacement cost as $1,000,000 but they told me that was on the low side and suggested I not check it, as I'd signed for it.) Surely I'm not the only person here who's flown both center and sidesticks? I like sticks that move and hate sticks that don't, no matter which type. It's quite amazing how much difference a little motion (say a quarter of an inch on a sidestick and a half an inch on a center stick) can make. It moves the plane from a Cooper-Harper 9 or 10 up to a 4 or 5, even for an amateur like me. -- Mary Shafer DoD #362 KotFR SR-71 Chief Engineer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html From kls Sat Jul 1 02:24:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jul 95 02:24:42 For what it's worth, they count the chips that run the toilets in the total number of computers on the 767. One chip per blue room adds up nicely, but it's not exactly what I'd call major processing power. -- Mary Shafer DoD #362 KotFR SR-71 Chief Engineer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html From kls Sat Jul 1 02:24:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer) Subject: Re: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos References: <3sf57t$htt@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <3t1n7f$3fv@status.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jul 95 02:24:43 rna@status.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) wrote: >Timothy Francis Mcdonough wrote: >>HSCT will no doubt contribute to the demise of the superjumbo. >The new generation SST? Don't hold your breath. The economics of that >are even more dismal. Without massive government aid this thing won't >get beyond the pipe-dream stage. Governments are broke, and the >environmentalists will scream bloody murder about the effects on such >a thing on the ozone layer. >--------====### legal notice ###====------------------------------------------- >Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form, in >whole or in part. License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft >for $499. Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms. I kept your legal notice in here to stay, um, legal. Anyway, the analyses by Boeing, Douglas, Honeywell, and NASA dispute several of your claims. Based on the current reference configurations and associated Boeing marketing analysis, this airplane will make money. Enough, in fact, to cover its development cost (which Concorde never will do -- too small a fleet) and reward those who invest in it. The current High-Speed Research (HSR) program, of which I am a part, is just a drop in the bucket in terms of what the airframers will be (and are already) spending out of their own pockets. They wouldn't do this if there wasn't money to be made. The environmental issues were tackled first, and have been addressed by new designs for extremely low-emission engines. Discussions about the expected real-world performance of some of these designs have been discussed in the trade press (e.g., Aerospace America, Aviation Week). A lot of work went into this... don't brush it off without finding out the facts. While there are certainly some major technical challenges to be met, and I agree that holding your breath until product launch might make Dr. Kevorkian's day, many high-level people at the companies involved are indeed planning to produce this aircraft. And they won't do it with "massive government aid." The joint NASA/industry HSR program is all there is in terms of gov't funding, and it's a very small part. --Mike Michael T. Palmer (work=m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov, home=palmer@infi.net) Crew/Vehicle Integration Branch, Flight Dynamics and Control Division M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001 USA Voice: +1 804 864-2044, Fax: +1 804 864-7793 From kls Sat Jul 1 02:24:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: psagdeo@aol.com (Psagdeo) Subject: Re: Future airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: psagdeo@aol.com (Psagdeo) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jul 95 02:24:43 While that is certainly true, I believe that the aircraft MGTOW is in the range of 1.5 to 2.0 million pounds range as a result of a very long range presumed to be needed by these aircraft. I have seen calculations for up to 7,000 n.m. I personally believe that it is totally unnecessary to impose such a range requirement on these aircraft. My best estimate is that the range should be limited to 3,500 to 5,000 n.m. This will reduce the fuel load required substantially, and, along with the use of modern flow control technologies, such as, LFC, and more efficient structural design, the aircraft take-off weight can be limited to about 1.2 milllion pounds. The LAX manager is on record saying that the airport can handle aircraft up to 1.3 million pounds. A look at the globe shows that it is these 3,500 n.m. to 5,000 n.m, routes that will have the greatest need for such aircraft. I would appreciate any thoughts on these. Pradip Sagdeo From kls Sat Jul 1 02:24:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Future airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jul 95 02:24:43 >While that is certainly true, I believe that the aircraft MGTOW is in the >range of 1.5 to 2.0 million pounds range as a result of a very long range >presumed to be needed by these aircraft. I have seen calculations for up >to 7,000 n.m. Those weights are rather on the high side -- what I've seen is more like 1.2 million pounds. One of the detractions of a 747 stretch is exactly that it can't handle the weights needed to avoid a range penalty as compared to the current 747-400. >I personally believe that it is totally unnecessary to impose such a >range requirement on these aircraft. My best estimate is that the >range should be limited to 3,500 to 5,000 n.m. How did you happen to come up with those numbers, and what makes you think that range should be so limited?! >The LAX manager is on record saying that the airport can handle >aircraft up to 1.3 million pounds. A look at the globe shows that it is >these 3,500 n.m. to 5,000 n.m, routes that will have the greatest need for >such aircraft. The biggest market for these aircraft is trans-Pacific, while the only airlines strongly interested in such a project are British Airways and Singapore Airlines. Your 5,000 nm range is insufficient for LAX to either LHR (BA's hub) or SIN (Singapore's hub). In fact, I can't think of a single route out of LAX where even 5,000 nm (never mind 3,500) would be sufficient. Even the easiest useful route across the Pacific (LAX-NRT) would be pushing the limits of a 5,000 nm range, at least with a decent payload. Other routes that might have the density to support such an aircraft are even longer, e.g., NRT-LHR or NRT-JFK. Without range, the market for a super-jumbo is virtually nil. -- 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 news Wed Jul 5 19:00:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!noc.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: tbenz@halcyon.com (Tom Benedict) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos Date: 5 Jul 1995 17:37:00 GMT Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <3teijs$q0t@kragar.kei.com> References: <3sf57t$htt@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <3t1n7f$3fv@status.Stanford.EDU> In article <3t1n7f$3fv@status.Stanford.EDU>, rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu wrote: > In article , > Timothy Francis Mcdonough wrote: > >HSCT will no doubt contribute to the demise of the superjumbo. > The new generation SST? Don't hold your breath. The economics of that > are even more dismal. Without massive government aid this thing won't > get beyond the pipe-dream stage. Governments are broke, and the > environmentalists will scream bloody murder about the effects on such > a thing on the ozone layer. A few years ago I read a letter to the editor in Air Transport World from R.E.G. Davies. He argued that the the Pacific is the market in which an HSCT needs to be successful. Unfortunately, the preferred departure and arrival times for trans pacific flights are not possible with supersonic flight times. I dont' recall the details, but perhaps others will be familiar with this. tom benedict tbenz@halcyon.com From kls Fri Jul 7 03:24:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: CRJ and London City Airport Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:24:57 Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA I read recently that Fokker is trying to get the F70/100 certified for London City Airport (I think the issue is a steep glide slope). Does anyone know if the Bombardier/Canadair CRJ can do London City Airport successfully? Considering that in some way it's just a big biz-jet, and considering the clientele that LCY tries to attract, you'd figure this would be a good match. RNA From kls Fri Jul 7 03:24:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: robmark@nwu.edu (Robert Mark) Subject: Head Up Display Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:24:58 Organization: Northwestern University Transportation Center I am currently writing a case study about the Head Up Display -- HUD -- like the ones Flight Dynamics is installing in most of Southwest's 737s. But rather than simply learning more about how the technology works, I'm interested in HOW the technology became successful. What barriers have emerged to the development of a practical HUD? How have manufacturers like FD overcome these problems? What kind of lessons have been learned during the design and implementation of this technology that might transfer to other forms of technology as well. How does an airline make the business decision as to whether or not a HUD is viable for them? I'm in the market for your perspective or resources you can lead me to who might be able to fill in some of these gaps. Since this is an ongoing project, feel free to e-mail me at any point with information that might happen to come to mind. Thanks in advance for your help From kls Fri Jul 7 03:24:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pilot@leland.stanford.edu (Nick Strauss) Subject: Re: 757 Range/Payload References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:24:58 In article , niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk wrote: > > So what's the longest scheduled 757 sector then? > Not sure how many miles but Icelandair's Keflavik-Orlando is up there. > Doesn't Am.Trans Air do a long flight (with stops) from Norfolk VA > to the Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean? According to a Boeing press release thing I've got "The twinjet is used to serve city pairs are as far away as 3,594 nautical miles (6,656 kilometers) apart and as close as 59 nautical miles (109 kilometers)." That's Boeing verbatum, including the grammer mistake. Doesn't say the cities or who flies 'em. --Nick From kls Fri Jul 7 03:24:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dmarble@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Duane F Marble) Subject: Re: US News Article/Beoing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:24:58 A recent editorial in the Columbus Dispatch was also highly negative about the 777 testing and ended up suggesting that wise flyers may wish to avoid the aircraft on long over-water flights. I can think of no reason why the local paper here would want to make an editorial statement on this issue. They certainly lack any basis for reaching such a judgement themselves. -- Duane F. Marble E-mail: marble.1@osu.edu Department of Geography Telephone: (614) 292-2250 The Ohio State University Fax: (614) 292-6213 Columbus, Ohio 43210 Home Page: http://thoth.sbs.ohio-state.edu From kls Fri Jul 7 03:24:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: richard@RMIT.EDU.AU (Richard A. Muirden) Subject: Re: Cabin Noise on UA 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:24:59 "Jan P. Andrews" writes: >A audio engineer colleague just returned from a trip to our Chicago >bureau. He flew a UA 777 from O'Hare to, I believe, Dulles. >My colleague commented that the 777's cabin was interesting, the seats >comfortable and the mini video screen entertaining. He was made very >uncomfortable, however, by what he said was a loud approx. 7.5-KHz >acoustic "whine" that he believed originated in the ventilation system. Interesting. I heard nothing like this on the (first) flight I was on. Perhaps it has developed in a few short weeks of use :-\ I thought the plane was among the most quiet I had been on - which is saying something considering the size of those engines! -richard -- Richard A. Muirden, Sys. Admin |Fan of Shostakovich, "Star Trek" and BOEING! Mailto: richard@rmit.EDU.AU |The Boeing 777 - The Magnificient Sevens!!! Phone: (+61 3) 9660 3814 |I created alt.fan.shostakovich! Fly: UA,AN,WN http://www.rmit.edu.au/richard |Can *YOU* beat my 113 Shost CD's? :-) "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!" * "I pity all of us who must fly Airbus!" * 1995: Remembering 20 years since the death of Shostakovich (1906-75) * From kls Fri Jul 7 03:24:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jgiffar@ibm.net (Johan Giffard) Subject: Re: B777 seating References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jgiffar@ibm.net (Johan Giffard) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:24:59 >>>>>> "Karl" == Karl Swartz writes: > >One of the advantages of the 777 is the flexible seating. There is >also a configuration that allows a 3-4-3 in economy class. What are other advantages that passengers will see? I have seen reference to video games, seating rrom, etc. Are these standard, or on an airline- by-airline basis? From kls Fri Jul 7 03:25:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos References: <3sf57t$htt@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <3t1n7f$3fv@status.Stanford.EDU> 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: 07 Jul 95 03:25:00 In article , Michael T. Palmer wrote: >rna@status.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) wrote: > >>Timothy Francis Mcdonough wrote: >>>HSCT will no doubt contribute to the demise of the superjumbo. > >>The new generation SST? Don't hold your breath. The economics of that >>are even more dismal. Without massive government aid this thing won't >>get beyond the pipe-dream stage. Governments are broke, and the >>environmentalists will scream bloody murder about the effects on such >>a thing on the ozone layer. >While there are certainly some major technical challenges to be met, >and I agree that holding your breath until product launch might make >Dr. Kevorkian's day, many high-level people at the companies involved >are indeed planning to produce this aircraft. And they won't do it >with "massive government aid." The joint NASA/industry HSR program is >all there is in terms of gov't funding, and it's a very small part. Well, I'm already on record as saying I'll be extremely surprised if we have anything larger than a 747-stretch flying by 2005. I'll be even more surprised if there's a commercial second-generation SST (taking Concorde to be the first-generation) flying by then. In fact, it seems to me that one day we might see a time when the Concorde has been retired and there's no longer any commercial supersonic service. RNA -- --------====### legal notice ###====------------------------------------------- Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form, in whole or in part. License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $499. Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms. From kls Fri Jul 7 03:25:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: robeves@octave.demon.co.uk (Robert Eves) Subject: Re: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: robeves@octave.demon.co.uk Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:25:00 In article m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov "Michael T. Palmer" writes: > [...re SST] > The environmental issues were tackled first, and have been addressed > by new designs for extremely low-emission engines. Discussions about > the expected real-world performance of some of these designs have been > discussed in the trade press (e.g., Aerospace America, Aviation Week). > A lot of work went into this... don't brush it off without finding out > the facts. What about the sonic boom? I thought most countries banned Concorde from going supersonic over land, and this severely restricts viable routes. -- Robert Eves From kls Fri Jul 7 03:25:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:25:01 >What about the sonic boom? I thought most countries banned Concorde from >going supersonic over land, and this severely restricts viable routes. I saw some requirements from JAL a few years ago for the HSCT, using three different routes for NRT-JFK. The first was entirely over water and added well over 2,000 miles to the route a subsonic flight would normally take. While this added an hour or more to the flight, the biggest impact was the additional range required. (JAL was saying it had to be able to serve that market non-stop, regardless of route.) The first alternate assumed a waiver for supersonic operation over lightly populated parts of eastern Siberia, instead of staying off- shore and going through the Baring Strait. This saved considerable distance, but still required a dodge of eastern Canada. The other alternative included waivers for both Siberia and Canada, with a route that minimized supersonic overflight of populated parts of Canada by flying over Hudson Bay then quickly cutting over to the Atlantic. For that route, at least, the manufacturers have a tradeoff. They can avoid the sonic boom issue, but they must add substantial range (and/or reduce payload) to do so. Many other interesting routes would be entirely overwater (mainly the Pacific, but also the Atlantic, including those routes which currently have Concorde service) and the plane could probably be justified just by those routes. That does leave out some prime candidates, though, such as Europe to S.E. Asia. Possibly LHR-SYD, too, though it may be easy enough to fly that with an overwater route that doesn't add much to the distance. (Damn, I need to buy the globe!) -- 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 Jul 7 03:25:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Jan P. Andrews" Subject: Re: GE90 Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: National Public Radio Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:25:01 I belive I recall reading that the Rolls-Royce RB211 series of engines initially had difficulty passing the bird impact test, delaying somewhat the delivery of the Lockheed L-1011. Is this correct? Jan P. Andrews, Project Engineer, Audio Enginering Division National Public Radio, Washington DC USA jandrews@npr.org From kls Fri Jul 7 03:25:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: GE90 Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:25:01 >I belive I recall reading that the Rolls-Royce RB211 series of >engines initially had difficulty passing the bird impact test, >delaying somewhat the delivery of the Lockheed L-1011. Is >this correct? Yes, and for very similar reasons -- Rolls-Royce initially designed the RB.211 with composite fan blades instead of titanium. When the composite blades failed the bird strike tests, they had to go back and redesign the fan, costing them a year and enough money to push them into bankruptcy, with Lockheed riding down the financial loo on their coattails. Fortunately for GE, the technology has improved enough in 25 years for them to be likely to succeed, though not without a lot of hard work. -- 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 Jul 7 03:25:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "E.A. Singh" Subject: Lauda Air Boeing Disaster 1991 - Causes? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Computer Science, University of Liverpool, UK Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:25:02 Hi there, Can anybody enlighten me on the cause of the Lauda Air Boeing Crash in 1991? Where can I obtain futher information regarding the cause of this accident. I believe that one of the reversers deployed shortly after takeoff, but as far as my limited knowledge of aerodynamics is concerned I have been led to believe that accidental reverser deployment does not lead to fatal consequences in most cases. Eddy From kls Fri Jul 7 03:25:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cambridge.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: Boeing 717? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:25:03 In article , George Swetnam wrote: >Perhaps I'm walking into the most frequently asked FAQ in the group, but >it occurred to me that 717 is the only model number in the series > >707...7n7...777 > >that I haven't heard of Boeing using for an airliner. Did Boeing ever >work on a model by this type, or did 717 get skipped for some cultural >reason? > Boeing produced a prototype jet transport in the mid-1950s, which was called the Boeing 367-80 (the odd number was intended to try to confuse the competition). From this they developed two aircraft, a commercial passenger jet with model number 707, and a military transport (primarily intended to be used as a tanker) which they gave model number 717. However, the US military has its own numbering scheme for its aircraft which is consistent across different manufacturers, and military aircraft are generally referred to by the designation given by the military, not that given by their manufacturers. Thus the aircraft known to Boeing as the 717 is far more commonly known as the C-135. The most common varient is the KC-135 tanker, although there are others. One final point on this matter. A C-135 is _not_ the same thing as a Boeing 707 adapted to military use. There are very significant differences between the aircraft (the 707 has a wider fuselage). There are 707s adapted for military use, but they are given other designations (E3 for one. E5 also I think. There are a couple of others). Michael. -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. mjj12@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk All my instincts, they return / And the grand facade, so soon will burn / Without a noise, without my pride / I reach out from the inside - Peter Gabriel From kls Fri Jul 7 03:25:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kenpac@ix.netcom.com (J. Kenneth Ehlers, Jr ) Subject: Re: Boeing 717? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:25:04 In gswetnam@mitre.org (George Swetnam) writes: > >Perhaps I'm walking into the most frequently asked FAQ in the group, but >it occurred to me that 717 is the only model number in the series >707...7n7...777 > >that I haven't heard of Boeing using for an airliner. Did Boeing ever >work on a model by this type, or did 717 get skipped for some cultural >reason? The Boeing 717 does exist, it is called the KC-135 or C-135 and all were initially delivered to the USAF and many are still flying with the Air Force. There were 820 KC/C-135's built at Renton. The first 29 KC-135A's were designated 717-100A's. Later procurements of the KC/C-135 were designated 717-146 and 717-148. The first flight was on 31 AUG 1956 and final delivery was in Jan 1965. Ken From kls Fri Jul 7 03:25:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing 717? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:25:04 >Later procurements of the KC/C-135 were designated 717-146 and 717-148. That seems unlikely -- the model numbers of all Boeing jetlines include a customer code that identifies who the aircraft was built for. A 717-146 model indicates the aircraft was built for Japan Air Lines (JAL), while a 717-148 would have been for Aer Lingus. Customer code 26 (i.e., 717-126) is listed as being a 707-era code for MATS, part of the USAF and a transport unit, I think. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of? The only other USAF customer codes are 53 (for the VC-137, include the 707-353B incarnation of Presiden- tial transport more commonly known as Air Force One) and G4 (for the VC-25A, the current 747-2G4B Presidential 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 Fri Jul 7 03:25:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rxm@netcom.com (R. Morris) Subject: Re: Boeing 717? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:25:04 In article , gswetnam@mitre.org (George Swetnam) wrote: > Perhaps I'm walking into the most frequently asked FAQ in the group, but > it occurred to me that 717 is the only model number in the series > > 707...7n7...777 You didn't get the sequence quite right. It was 307, 317, 707, 720, 727, 737 ... Wasn't the military KC-135 the Boeing "717". So, why after all the 7's did the 720 get out of series? From kls Fri Jul 7 03:25:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Adler Subject: Re: Boeing 717? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Emery Worldwide Airlines Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:25:05 There actually was a 717. The original attempt was to make it a short field version of the 707. It ultimately became the 720. Instead of the short field version of the 707, Boeing decided to produce the 727. From kls Fri Jul 7 03:25:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Boeing 717? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:25:05 The Boeing 717 is the model number applied to the C-135 family of USAF tankers and transports. It was originally intended to use common jigs and tooling for the 707 and 717 (KC-135), but Douglas put an end to that idea when they announced their (paper) DC-8 with six abreast seating. That forced Boeing to add the now famous double bubble to the 707 fuselage to accommodate 6 abreast seats. By changing the fuselage cross section, the 707 and 717 could not be built on the same jigs. The basic wing structure of the first 707-120 and 200 (and 720) models was nearly identical to the KC-135, btw. Cheers, Jennings Heilig From kls Fri Jul 7 03:25:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing 717? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:25:05 >It was originally intended to use common jigs and tooling for the 707 >and 717 (KC-135), but Douglas put an end to that idea when they >announced their (paper) DC-8 with six abreast seating. That forced >Boeing to add the now famous double bubble to the 707 fuselage ... I don't recall the reasoning, but the U.S. Air Force also didn't like the width of the 367-80, so the KC-135 ended up with wider fuselage than the -80, though not as wide as the 707. The -80 is thus unique. -- 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 Jul 7 03:25:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: Boeing 717? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISFSI Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:25:06 gswetnam@mitre.org (George Swetnam) wrote: >Perhaps I'm walking into the most frequently asked FAQ in the group, but >it occurred to me that 717 is the only model number in the series >707...7n7...777 >that I haven't heard of Boeing using for an airliner. Did Boeing ever >work on a model by this type, or did 717 get skipped for some cultural >reason? "The first order for Boeing jet transports was placed by the USAF for tanker-transport versions. These were initially identified by Boeing as Model 717 and were publicised as the Stratotanker." Bowers, _Boeing Aircraft Since 1916,_ page 463 First twenty-nine KC-135As were assigned Boeing model designation 717-100A, followed by 717-146 and -148; also C135 A Stratolifters were 717-157s, KC-135Bs were -166s, and C-135Fs were -164s. Now, one _might_ say that military culture is a wee bit different from that of commercial airliners..... From kls Fri Jul 7 03:25:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Subject: Re: Boeing 717? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:25:06 gswetnam@mitre.org (George Swetnam) shaped the electrons to say: >Perhaps I'm walking into the most frequently asked FAQ in the group, but >it occurred to me that 717 is the only model number in the series >707...7n7...777 >that I haven't heard of Boeing using for an airliner. Did Boeing ever >work on a model by this type, or did 717 get skipped for some cultural >reason? B717 was originally used on a 707 variant, that became the B720 (a shortened B707), and was reassigned to the KC-135 series. The C-135, KC-135, RC-135, EC-135, etc, etc is the Boeing model 717. Despite looking very much like a 707, it has a thinner fuselage as originally intended for the 707 - it was widened when the DC-8 was announced and it had a wider body. The C-137 (VC-137 usually) and E-3 Sentry (AWACS), E-6 TACAMO, and E-8 J-STARS are all based on a 707 body. There are many common parts, but I'm not sure of the exact percentage. -- megazone@world.std.com (508) 752-2164 MegaZone's Waste Of Time Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.stories - Maintainer: Ani Difranco Mailing List - Mail to majordomo@world.std.com with 'subscribe ani-difranco' in the body. From kls Fri Jul 7 03:25:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: psagdeo@aol.com (Psagdeo) Subject: Re: Future airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: psagdeo@aol.com (Psagdeo) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:25:07 Even the most optimistic performance will result in a weight greater than 1.5 million pounds if the range is anywhere near 7,000 n.m. and the passenger load is above 800. The keyword is optimistic. We can always come up with the weights we want if we tweak the aerodynamics and propulsion of the aircraft. The premise that the aircraft is primarily for trans-Pacific routes is questionable. Granted that there is sufficient traffic out of LAX and a larger aircraft could be used. However, there is a greater need for a HSCT on those routes than a VLA to reduce flight times. The ranges of 3,500 to 5,000 n.m. will serve most trans-Altantic, European, Asian and Pacific rim routes well. Few of the routes in these areas require a range greater than 5,000 n.m. Superjumbos with almost global range may be technologically feasible, but well-nigh impossible in every other respect. I was a proponent of VLA for a long time. After working through a number of conceptual designs, I am beginning to see Boeng's wisdom of going slow on such and enormous project. Pradip Sagdeo From kls Fri Jul 7 03:25:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Future airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:25:07 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: > >The biggest market for these aircraft is trans-Pacific, while the >only airlines strongly interested in such a project are British Airways >and Singapore Airlines. Don't forget the Europe-Asia, Europe-Australia, and intra-Asia markets. Clearly, BA does not have any trans-Pacific operation, and SIA is not a major trans-Pacific operator (with less than four daily flights). The reason why only BA and SIA showed strong interests in the proposed aircraft is because most other airlines have been struggling for the past five years but not BA nor SIA. If the project is launched, you can count on a financially-healthy Japan Airlines (if that will ever happen) to be the largest operator for the aircraft, just like JAL is the largest B747 operator. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Fri Jul 7 03:25:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: b17864@vaxb.phx1.aro.allied.com Subject: Re: Future of airliners? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AlliedSignal Engines Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 03:25:07 In article , Jennings Heilig writes: > The Russians have a LNG powered Tu-154 flying around for quite a while > now. Only the right engine is LNG powered, but it's been proven > technically feasible. I believe I read that they used the regular Tu-154 > engine suitably modified to burn LNG. > > Anyone else have any info on this?? Gas turbines are very flexible in their choice of fuel. About 10 years ago we modified a "derelict" J-47 from our boneyard to run on natural gas for use as a piece of lab test equipment. The only modification required were some new fuel nozzles and a some minor changes to the fuel metering and plumbing to accomodate the gaseous fuel. The engine ran with no problems. In fact the exhaust smoke and emissions were greatly improved, and since we were running the test in S. California, that made everyone very happy :=) There are some technical problems with using a new fuel on an aircraft; - Are the BTUs per cu ft or per cu lb less than Jet-A? - What is the weight penalty associated with the insulation to carry liquified natural gas or methane? - What is required for production and distribution of the fuel to various airports world wide. I'm sure there are a host of other problem as well, but for the most part I believe that techincal solutions to these exist or can be solved relatively easily. Probably the biggest limiting factor is changing the fuel is economic, how much are the airlines (and us passengers) willing to pay for the privledge? Anyways, these are just my opinions. Mark Johnston AlliedSignal Engines Phx AZ From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: GE90 Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:18 As a brief follow-up on the RB-211. This is a 'short core' engine, that is, it is physically shorter then either the GE or P/W. With the #2 engine of the L-1011 mounted along the axis of the fuselege using a 'S-bend' tunnel for air flow, Lockeed was unable to accomodate either the GE or P/W engines when the RB-211 fell behind schedule. Douglas, unable to use the 'S-bend' because of the Lockeed patent, had a more flexible engine mounting scheme so while the lack of Rolls engines was an 'inconvenience' to certain customers, it did not delay the introduction of the airplane. For a promised savings of 900 pounds per plane, Lockeed is no longer in the commercial transport business. I was at a meeting within Douglas related to the addition of the RB-211/524 engine to the MD-11 when the Rolls engineer mentioned that their engines were '300 pounds lighter' then their competitors. I had a feeling of deja vu. This is well documented in an excellent book, 'The Sporty Game.' Brian From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: GE90 Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:18 >With the #2 engine of the L-1011 mounted along the axis of the fuselege >using a 'S-bend' tunnel for air flow, Lockeed was unable to accomodate >either the GE or P/W engines when the RB-211 fell behind schedule. Lockheed could have accomodated a longer engine, and initially was offering a choice of the RB.211 or GE's CF6. The longer GE engine would have required substantial redesign and the loss of several rows of seats at the aft end of the cabin, but it could have been done. >For a promised savings of 900 pounds per plane, Lockeed is no longer >in the commercial transport business. I think you're getting a bit confused there. Lockheed preferred the S-duct over the straight-duct, as used on the DC-10, for several reasons, one of which was that the latter would have required several hundred pounds of additional structure in the fin to support the #2 engine. However, the S-duct would not have prevented them from using the longer GE (or PW) engine, as noted above. Lockheed's big mistake was that they badly misjudged the concerns (justified, as it turned out) of RR's ability to deliver an entirely new engine. MacDAC won round one with American's DC-10 order. Then Lockheed won initial orders from Eastern, TWA, and Air Holdings, with Delta's order coming a few days later. Lockheed knew that United preferred the L-1011, albeit with GE engines. Lockheed was confident that United would not split the market by buying the DC-10, and with a number of orders already in place with the RB.211, they decided to drop the GE engine as an option, thereby saving considerable expense. That decision to save $100 million in development costs, not any weigth considerations, pushed United to buy the DC-10, with GE engines, and ultimately cost Lockheed their place in the commercial airliner market. >I was at a meeting within Douglas related to the addition of the RB-211/524 >engine to the MD-11 when the Rolls engineer mentioned that their engines were >'300 pounds lighter' then their competitors. That doesn't make sense -- the three shaft design has always resulted in a weight penalty for the RB.211, though RR has claimed that the increased efficiency of the design more than compensates for the added weight. From AW&ST, here are the weights of the GE and PW engines for the MD-11: GE CF6-80C2D1F 9,634 lbs PW PW4460 9,400 lbs The RB.211-524H, used on the 747 and 767, is about the same thrust, and weighs 9,499 lbs, only 135 lbs lighter than the GE engine and a bit *heavier* than the PW engine. >This is well documented in an excellent book, 'The Sporty Game.' Yes, it is, though it sounds like it's been a while since you read it. -- 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 Jul 7 14:26:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: GE90 Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:19 kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >Yes, and for very similar reasons -- Rolls-Royce initially designed >the RB.211 with composite fan blades instead of titanium. When the >composite blades failed the bird strike tests, they had to go back >and redesign the fan, costing them a year and enough money to push >them into bankruptcy, with Lockheed riding down the financial loo >on their coattails. I think its an oversimplification to blame the entire mess surrounding L-1011 on the RR delay, although it was certainly a factor. Other factors included Lockheed's reputation at the time as compared to Douglas's (Lockheed was still smarting from the bad press the surrounding the Electra), and the fact that Douglas was able to offer stretched/extended-range DC-10 variants, where Lockheed chose to shorten the L-10ll in order to arrive at an extended-range version (the TriStar 500). The whole thing was rather unfortunate, because IMHO Lockheed built a far better machine with the L-10ll than Douglas did with the DC-10 (just compare the service records of the two planes, if you doubt this!). Even the much-maligned Electra airframe turned out to be incredibly tough and reliable in service as the Navy P-3, and there is no doubt that the RB.211 engine family was also an engineering success. But alas for Lockheed, better engineering doesn't always mean better sales, so today Lockheed is out of the airliner business and travelers are being herded onto over- streched DC-9-80s and yet another incarnation of the DC-10. -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: whurwitz@world.nad.northrop.com (Wayne M. Hurwitz) Subject: Re: Surge on GE90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northrop Grumman Information Services Center, Hawthorne, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:19 In article simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) writes: >> I have a question... When an engine such as the GE90 >> is starting, what controls which direction the combusted >> material is expelled from the combustion chamber? I guess >> only? > >The engine is pun up by the starter through the gearbox, which is directly >driving the high speed turbine/compressor shaft. This generates airflow Is this correct for the GE90? My experience is that engines are started with air turbine starters, which actually inject air into the turbine to rotate the shaft. The compressed air source comes from either an APU or cross bleed from an engine that is already running. But then I deal mostly with military applications, which may be different. On the other hand, it seems like it would take an awful lot of electrical power to spin up a GE90, which would be prohibitive when sizing a starter/generator. -- _________________________________________________________________________ Wayne M. Hurwitz | Phone: (310) 948-6567 Northrop Grumman Corporation | Fax: (310) 942-6464 B-2 Business & Advanced Systems | Email: whurwitz@world.nad.northrop.com From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca"@SATURN.GOV.BC.CA Subject: Re: CRJ and London City Airport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BC Systems Corporation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:20 In article rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) writes: >I read recently that Fokker is trying to get the F70/100 certified >for London City Airport (I think the issue is a steep glide slope). > >Does anyone know if the Bombardier/Canadair CRJ can do London City >Airport successfully? Considering that in some way it's just a big >biz-jet, and considering the clientele that LCY tries to attract, >you'd figure this would be a good match. Two major factors affect ops. at LCY. A steep approach is mandatory not because of obstructions but due to the noise abatement agreement under which planning permission was originally granted. Secondly, the runway is relatively short with no overrun at all. It was expected to handle DHC Dash-7s only and although extended since, would require additional land or landfill for future development. The BAe 146 (which is certified) and the Fokkers have airbrakes on the rear fuselage. I think it is this feature which gives them the ability to meet the LCY profile. Bombardier RJ does not have them (?). LCY was never intended for private jets, even if they were capable of using it. The only facilities are the 6 terminal gates, and there is no room for any expansion. There isn't even room to park on the ramp. -- Brian Maddison (bmaddiso@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca) From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: J.E.Bos@nl.cis.philips.com (J.E. Bos) Subject: Re: CRJ and London City Airport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Philips Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:21 rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) wrote: >Does anyone know if the Bombardier/Canadair CRJ can do London City >Airport successfully? Considering that in some way it's just a big >biz-jet, and considering the clientele that LCY tries to attract, >you'd figure this would be a good match. The glide slope is 6 degrees. The airport is, according to Jeppesen, open to aircraft that have a procedure for this established in the AOM. (I think it was the AOM...) - Jan From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: benten@shell.portal.com (Muhammad Saleh Benten) Subject: Conference Announcement Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Portal Communications (shell) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:23 INTERNATIONAL AIRLINE INDUSTRY CONFERENCE-1995 MEETING FUTURE CHALLENGES Jeddah, Saudi Arabia November 21 - 23,1995 CALL FOR PAPERS General Scope The Theme of the conference is "Meeting Future Challenges". The conference is intended to bring together scholars and proctitioners with interest in the airline industry to exchange ideas, experience, and research, from three different perspectives Management, Marketing, and Aviation Technology. In addition, an exhibition by major aircraft manufacturers, suppliers & vendors wi11 be held in parallel with the conference to display state-of-the art technology. Track 1 Marketing Strategies and Practices in the Airline Industry: Current and Future Trends This track seeks papers pertaining to the current trends in marketing strategies and practice in the airline industry. Topics include, but are not limited to Application of Advance Technology on Customer Services Strategies, The Effect of Marketing Activities on Consumer's Travel Related Attitudes and Behaviour, Global Competitive Strategy and Strategic Alliances, The Global Marketing Mix, Segmentation and Target Marketing, and Benchmarking. The track also seeks papers on more mainstream topics such as Marketing Strategy and Management (Product and Brand Management Pricing), Sales management, and Marketing channels (channel management, channel member relations and channel technology). Track 2 Advances in Aviation and Aerospace Technology Papers invited for presentation in this track are expected to discuss state-of-the-art technological advances in the aviation and aerospace field. Discussion on advances in use of information technology (IT), instruments, and equipment that lead to a safe, secure, and economical flight are invited. Suggested topics include but not limited to Navigation systems, Networking and Communications, Advances in Materials Sciences, Maintenance, Mega Planes etc. Track 3 Global Management and its Changing Roles in the Airline Industry Papers in this track will discuss the global management issues and techniques that lead to efficient and effective organizations in a competitive and dynamic environment. Papers are invited on topics including, but not limited to, the following: Business Processes Re-engineering, Changes and Development, Globalisation of Management, Management of Diversity, Total Quality Management and other Management systems, Human Resources Management, Service Management and Privatisation. Submission of Papers Prospective authors should send a letter of intent and return the attached form by July 31, 1995. Four copies of extended summery in Arabic or Erglish not exceeding 1000 words must be submitted by September 15,1995. The author(s) must clearly indicate the area of the paper. Notification of acceptance wil be mailed by September 30,1995. Accepted manuscripts will be published n the Conference Proceedings. Authors must submit by October 31, 1995, a camera-ready ful paper in English (A4 size) in single space single-column format. Authors should leave 2.5 cms (1.0 inch) left/right side margin ond 3.0 cms (1.25 inches) top/bottom margin. The presenters Bio-Data is also required for introduction purposes. Authors of accepted papers will be provided round trip air transportation from their domicile city to Jeddah, as well as boarding and accommodation. The conference wil be held at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, between November 21-23,1995. Assistance will also be provided in obtaining visas for Saudi Arabia. Please make submissions and address all correspondence to: Mr. Zain Ameen, Vice President - Marketing Services Technical Programme Chairperson. SAUDIA, P.0 Box 167, Jeddah 21231, Saudi Arabia. Phone: +966(2)686-2313 Fax: +966(2)686-4475 SITA Telex: JEDKGSV IMPORTANT DATES 31 July 1995 Submission of Author's Intent Form 15 September 1995 Submission of 1000 word summary 30 September 1995 Notification of Acceptance 31 October 1995 Submission of full paper Please Fax or Mail this form no later than 31st July ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author's Intent Form INTERNATIONAL AIRLINE INDUSTRY CONFERENCE-1995 MEETING FUTURE CHALLENGES Jeddah,Saudi Arabia November2l-23,1995 Name Telephone Fax Home Home Office Office Address City Zip Code Country Email Check as Appropriate: __ I plan to present a paper in Track ___ __ I wish to receive further Information about: __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Boeing 717? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:23 On 07 Jul 95 03:25:04, rxm@netcom.com (R. Morris) wrote:- > So, why after all the 7's did the 720 get out of series? That is the first I've heard of a "non-7" Boeing. When I went on the guided tour of the Boeing 747 assembly line in May this year, someone asked why everything in Boeing ends with "7", and the answer is: nobody knows! 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 Fri Jul 7 14:26:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: Boeing 717? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISFSI Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:24 M.J.Jennings@amtp.cambridge.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) wrote: > Boeing produced a prototype jet transport in the mid-1950s, >which was called the Boeing 367-80 (the odd number was intended to >try to confuse the competition). Not entirely correct: Model 367-80 was the 80th (!) design study of an improved version of the Model 367, aka the C-97. From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: king@reasoning.com Subject: Do airliner engens run at approximately constant speed, varying only torque? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: king@reasoning.com Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:24 Help me out a bit with a problem i'm having understanding aircraft turbines. It is my understanding that the rotation speed of a turbine can't vary much if you care about fuel efficiency lest the compression ratio vary as well, either overheating the engine [when the compression ratio is "too high"] or making the combustion happen into too cold an airstream letting the Carnot efficiency go into the dumps at least for the first bolus of fuel that burns in each packet of air [when the compression ratio is "too low"]. Is this correct, that the turbine speed is always just a wee bit more than that speed that would be implied by the fan's geometry and the plane's air speed [to add momentum to the air stream] and that that's of course relatively constant? When one of two engines quits and the pilot decides to ask the other engine for 95% power instead of something in the 60% range, is it the case that the RPMs don't increase much, in fact they might decrease when the plane inevitably slows down, but that fuel flow of course increases? At the low speeds near takeoff i assume that engine efficiency indeed suffers and everyone accepts this? Or do airliner bypass fans have variable pitch? What measurement is presented to the pilot as an indication of the power he has asked for and what he has received? Turbine inlet temp, perhaps? -dk From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Airbus - fly by wire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:25 In article shipping@singnet.com.sg writes: >The facts speak loudly: > > - most pilots flying the A320 et al, can't wait to return to > 'normal' aircraft. I don't think that's true. The A320 is a new airplane, it's pretty, and it's easy to fly, once one has been suitably indoctrinated. If pilots wish to leave it, it's probably just part of natural career progression (wasn't it Wiener who noted the average time in type for a 757 pilot was 18 months)? The issues revolve around management issues and authority issues: how easy is it to fly when the shit hits the fan? Despite feeling good, how aware are pilots of flight management modes? How reliable is the flight control software? That sort of thing. Many of these issues also relate to other modern aircraft, but the A320/30/40 suffer from them more. "Why" is what we should be debating. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: Airbus - fly by wire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:26 shipping@singnet.com.sg writes: >The facts speak loudly: Could you indicate the source of your facts please? >- most pilots flying the A320 et al, can't wait to return to 'normal' aircraft. The A320 pilots which I have spoken to find it an easier airplane to fly and seem to like it. >- the aircraft exhibits what most A320 et al pilots simply refer to as 'unexplained phernomina' This is a common complaint of any aircraft which includes systems which are capable of making decisions. I have the same complaint from time to time about my Jeep Grand Cherokee (limited) which has several computers in it. >- from the first A320 flight, things have gone sque-if, if you can recall the first public A320 flight crashed. Airbus blamed the pilot, who ended up flying in outback Australia, speaking with him the first flight experienced 'unexplained phernomina' A complacent pilot, grandstanding, put a perfectly good airplane into the ground. He forgot his basic flying skills including energy management. >- the current adoption of automation takes the pilot out of the 'operating loop' and is rise to the increase in pilot fatigue - through bordom , and lack of control Would you like to have a pilot manually flying your airplane for up to 20 hours? The issue is better put as 'lack of situational awareness during critical and abnormal events.' - Airbuses 'common cockpit' philosophy, if put into practise as fully as AI claims, a lot of problems are bound to arise. The fact is that pilots are under extreme demands today (extra flying hours long shifts etc) give rise to accidents (such as the incorrect application of engine reverses on a BA's 737 a few years back). The extra complications may prove to ultimately prove to be quite disasterous. The Airbus common flight deck is a great economic encentive to operators. Common type ratings allow greater flexibility in crew scheduling, and more economical crew training. The common flight deck also lowers maintenace and maintenance related schedule changes as maintenance technicans also can take advanage of this commonality. Could someone help me out here re the referenced 737 incident? I'm not sure how it is germane. I will (and have) take issue with some aspects of Airbus Industries flight deck design, but feel that such wholesale condemnation of Airbus is unwarranted. In almost any incident there are always two questins to ask: 1) What did the aircraft design do make the incident possible? 2) What did the flight crew do to make the incident possible? The Airbus flight deck philosophy effects the way SOME information is presented to the flight crew. In extreme circumstances, SOME information might be presented in a manner which might help the flight crew in recognizing what is happening and what they can do to break the accident chain. But this does not warrant the condemation of the aircraft, and by inference the regulatory agencies who approved the type design and the companies who purchase and operate the aircraft. Brian Reynolds From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:26 Mary Shafer (01 Jul 95 02:24:42) writes:- > I have never heard the > controller that the pilot manipulates to control the pitch and roll of > the aircraft called a "joystick", ... I thought "joystick" was originally RAF 2nd World War slang for the usual control column, as found on the Spitfire, for example. -- Pete Mellor From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cjparker@HK.Super.NET (Chris Parker) Subject: Re: Airbus yoke vs Sidestick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hong Kong Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:26 In article , mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) wrote: >So, these planes are all different from one another. Only the 320 and 340 >supposedly have the same interface. And the A330. Regards, Chris ------------------------------------------------------ Internet: cjparker@hk.super.net Fax: +852 2650 4292 CompuServe: 100267,102 Tel: +852 2658 5515 From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jf@avic.dk (Jens Fallesen) Subject: Re: Airbus yoke vs Sidestick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: DKnet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:27 In article mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) writes: >The 300 had the "traditional/mechanical" cockpit. >The 310 had the steering columns, and what seems to be a sidestick, and had > some CRTs. > >The 320 has CRTs and electronic components and no steering column/yoke. > >So, these planes are all different from one another. Only the 320 and 340 >supposedly have the same interface. As of now, the 300/310 are different from the rest, but the 319 and up all have the same cockpit and instrument design (the 340 with a slight difference due to the two extra engines). Actually, the commonality means that pilots certified for any 319+ aircraft is automatically certified for any other, the 340 requiring a short 4-engine course. I also think I read in Flight International that Airbus are planning to make FBW versions of 300 and 310 compatible with the rest. Surely a very good competitive advantage for Airbus when supplying airlines with different sized aircraft in their fleets. -- Jens Fallesen AVIC * Hedegaardsvej 41, st th * 2300 Copenhagen S * Denmark From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus yoke vs Sidestick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:27 >Actually, the commonality means that pilots certified for any 319+ >aircraft is automatically certified for any other, the 340 requiring a >short 4-engine course. That's a common misconception. I think the A319/A320/A321 all share a common type rating, but the A330 and A340 each require a separate type rating. However, given a rating on one of the types, relatively minor differences training is all that's required to get a rating on one of the other types, as opposed to going thru a completely new training program as might otherwise be required. An article in Airways provides the training and transition training times: A320 26 days, including 51 simulator hours A320 => A340 12 days, including 21 simulator hours A330 => A340 6 simulator hours A340 => A330 no simulator time The article also mentions that an A340 simulator can be converted to an A330 simulator in about 20 minutes, by changing the throttles and a few overhead panels. >I also think I read in Flight International that Airbus are planning >to make FBW versions of 300 and 310 compatible with the rest. That would be a pretty radical change. Airbus is planning to drop the A300 within a few years, replacing it with a shortened A330 (called a A329 in some references), which makes further investment in the A300 improbable. >Surely a very good competitive advantage for Airbus when supplying >airlines with different sized aircraft in their fleets. There's certainly the obvious reduction in number of crews and crew training costs, but there's also another advantage. A United pilot told me that, as First Officer on the 747-400, he barely makes the required three landings per 90 days to keep his license current. Relieve FOs, who normally fly only the middle portions of the really long flights, have to resort to the simulators to maintain their currency. Lufthansa would have the same problem with their A340 pilots, except when scheduling crews they can intermingle A320/A321 (and soon A319) flights amongst the longer A340 pilots, thereby keeping their pilots current while doing useful work. -- 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 Jul 7 14:26:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: aboyd@qnx.com (Andrew Boyd) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: QNX Software Systems Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:28 Pete Mellor wrote: >I can state quite categorically that no *fatal* crash of an A320 due >a computer aborted take-off has ever occurred. If a lesser incident >has happened due to such a cause, I would be most interested to hear >about it, but I would be extremely surprised if anything serious enough >to be described as a "crash" has ever happened ... A friend of mine flies A310s for the military. He says that 95% of the time, you sit there and watch it fly the a/c. The other 5% of the time, you stop it from doing something wrong :( According to him, the recent airbus crash in romania was another stupid computer trick ... apparently, in a left climbing turn, thrust was reduced (probably for noise abatement) and the right throttle stuck open. So, the airbus computer helpfully reduced the thrust on the left engine to zero (in the climbing left hand turn) and they rolled upside down. Oops. He keeps his hands on the throttles near the ground :) -- #include From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: whurwitz@world.nad.northrop.com (Wayne M. Hurwitz) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northrop Grumman Information Services Center, Hawthorne, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:28 In article bernhard@eurecom.fr (Christoph Bernhardt) writes: >>>>>> "JF" == Jean-Francois Mezei writes: > > JF> In a FBW system, the computer can make lickety split decisions > JF> if something arises. If the information given to the computer > I think I'm having a semantics problem. I agree with an earlier comment in this thread that a FBW system refers to the electronic linkage between the pilots input to the effector, whether its a wing flap or the engine PLA. i.e. the computers simply translate the pilots stick or throttle input to an electronic signal that goes to the appropriate controller. This effectively replaces what used to be hydro-mechanical. What everyone else is talking about is the Flight Control System, which involves all the other automated functions, such as autopilot and navigational control, which are implemented to decrease pilot load. Am I wrong? -- _________________________________________________________________________ Wayne M. Hurwitz | Phone: (310) 948-6567 Northrop Grumman Corporation | Fax: (310) 942-6464 B-2 Business & Advanced Systems | Email: whurwitz@world.nad.northrop.com From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Adam Dobrzycki Subject: Re: 757 Range/Payload References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:29 In article , niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk wrote: > > So what's the longest scheduled 757 sector then? > Not sure how many miles but Icelandair's Keflavik-Orlando is up there. Two 757-served flights of considerable length that I am aware of are: American: VVI-MIA, great circle separation of ~4850 km BA: GLA-BOS, great circle separation of ~4500 km Note that there is no MIA-VVI flight. AA 757s do a circle: MIA-LPB-VVI-MIA; I don't think even a 757 is capable of taking off from LPB with a load of fuel needed to get all the way to Miami. Adam -- Adam Dobrzycki AXAF Science Center adam@head-cfa.harvard.edu Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Ph.: 617-495-7383 60 Garden Street, Mail Stop 6 Fax: 617-495-7356 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Lotter Subject: Need 777 per pass. fuel effic. info Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EnviroAccount Software Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:29 Can someone help me out? I need basic info on the per passenger fuel effiency of the B777. Average MPG per passenger (based on average % capacity) is what I'm looking for, along with the same data for the most common other airliners. Thanks. Don Lotter From kls Fri Jul 7 14:26:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Need 777 per pass. fuel effic. info References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:26:29 >Can someone help me out? I need basic info on the per passenger fuel >effiency of the B777. Average MPG per passenger (based on average % >capacity) is what I'm looking for From kls Fri Jul 7 14:38:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Need 777 per pass. fuel effic. info References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:38:58 >Can someone help me out? I need basic info on the per passenger fuel >effiency of the B777. Average MPG per passenger (based on average % >capacity) is what I'm looking for >From the latest Airways, which has a lengthy article on the 777: A market: 450 lbs (204 kg) per seat (328 seats, 4,000 nm trip) B market: 380 lbs (172 kg) per seat (305 seats, 4,000 nm trip) That's 147,600 lbs of fuel total. United only puts 293 seats on a 777, and load factor numbers won't be available for a while, and that distance is longer than anything the 777 is currently flying (4,000 nm is roughly DEN-LHR; longest right now is ORD-FRA at about 3,773 nm), so it's hard to come up with a real answer. Guessing a 75% load and assuming the same fuel/mile figures (dumb, but simple) gives 634 lbs per passenger or about 94.5 gallons; dividing that into 4,342 miles gives a figure of 45.9 MPG per passenger. >along with the same data for the most common other airliners. This has come up in this newsgroup in the past; check out the archives at ftp.kei.com. More complete (and current) raw data is published in Aviation Daily, which you should be able to find at a good library. -- 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 Jul 7 14:38:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "NIGEL_HOLLINGWORTH" Subject: New Journals Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 95 14:38:58 A NEW JOURNAL FOR 1996.......... ********************************************************** COMPUTER MODELING AND SIMULATION IN ENGINEERING (CMSE) ********************************************************** Editor: S.N.Atluri, Georgia Institute of Technology Editorial Advisory Board: S.Attaway, Sandia National Labs; K.J.Bathe, MIT; U.Chandra, CTC; G.Donohue, FAA; D.Etter, Univ.Colorado; M.T.Jenny, MITRE; R.Loewy, Georgia Inst. Technology; E.Onate, Univ.Barcelona; B.Prasad, EDS/GM/Delphi; V.Shankar, Rockwell Int.; R.L. Spilker, Rennsselaer Polytechnic Inst.; J.Tracy, McDonnell Douglas Aerospace; G.N.Vanderplaats, VME Engineering; G. Yagawa, Univ.Tokyo. Aims and scope: The central aim of CMSE is to publish application-oriented papers that utilize computer modeling and simulation techniques in order to understand and resolve industrial problems or processes that are of immediate and contemporary interest. The scope of CMSE is broad since most real industrial problems do not fall into well- defined subject-oriented categories. Articles will address issues that include, but are not limited to the design, development and analysis of both natural and engineered solids, fluids, structures, materials and elements. Examples of specific topics may include: * integrated product and process design * structural and machine design * computational fluid dynamics * multidisciplinary design optimization * manufacturing processes * design of new materials Further information. ******************* o Call for papers o Instructions for Authors E-mail: satya.atluri@cad.gatech.edu o Journal brochure o Subscription information o Sample copy E-mail: sagescience@sagepub.com New Journal for 1995..... ****************************************** JOURNAL OF VIBRATION AND CONTROL ****************************************** EDITOR ****** Ali H. Nayfeh, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University AIMS AND SCOPE ************** The scope of the journal encompasses all linear and nonlinear vibration phenomena occurring in the following fields: Mechanical, Structural, Civil, Aeronautical, Electrical, Control Ocean, Materials. Original contributions, review articles, tutorials and letters will be published based on analytical, computational, and experimental analyses of topics such as, but not limited to: Vibration and control of structures and machinery, vibration absorbers, signal analysis, aeroelasticity, neural networks, random vibrations, identification, structural control, acoustics, adaptive and smart structures, noise and noise control, waves in solids and fluids, shock waves and sound abatement, modal analysis, earthquake engineering. FURTHER INFORMATION: ******************* o Call for Papers o Instructions for Authors E-mail:- ali@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu o Journal brochure o Subscription information o Sample copy E-mail: sagescience@sagepub.com From news Fri Jul 7 15:56:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: alaw@us.oracle.com (Alvin Law) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos Date: 7 Jul 1995 19:08:31 GMT Organization: Oracle Corporation Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <3tk0nf$4v8@kragar.kei.com> References: <3sf57t$htt@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <3t1n7f$3fv@status.Stanford.EDU> <3teijs$q0t@kragar.kei.com> In article <3teijs$q0t@kragar.kei.com> tbenz@halcyon.com (Tom Benedict) writes: > A few years ago I read a letter to the editor in Air Transport World from > R.E.G. Davies. He argued that the the Pacific is the market in which an > HSCT needs to be successful. Unfortunately, the preferred departure and ------------------------------------------ > arrival times for trans pacific flights are not possible with supersonic ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > flight times. I dont' recall the details, but perhaps others will be ------------ > familiar with this. I tend to disagree with the above statement. Take a typical trans-Pacific flight, my favorite SFO-HKG, for example. Assuming at a speed of Mach 2 you can cut down the flight time by 35%. Going westbound, the flight time goes down from 14 hours to 8-9 hours. This would enable a late morning departure from San Francisco arriving Hong Kong in the early afternoon, or a late afternoon departure arriving in the early evening. Going eastbound, a 1800 departure from Hong Kong would put you in San Francisco around 1000, or a late night departure arriving in the early afternoon, or in the really extreme case, an early morning departure arriving midnight. All these flight times enable a wider option for connecting flights into other parts of SE Asia or major cities in North and Central America. Other city pairs have similar situations, like JFK-NRT, ORD-NRT, LAX-HKG, etc. JFK-SIN could be tricky because you can opt for trans-Atlantic instead. -- "And this is all I have to say about that..." - F. Gump ___ (o o) +-oo0-\_/-0oo---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Alvin W. Law ..... Oracle Corporation ....... Email: alaw@us.oracle.com | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ORA-03113: end-of-file on communication channel From news Fri Jul 7 20:30:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@status.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Boeing 720 Date: 7 Jul 1995 18:11:56 -0700 Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <3tkm0s$7mg@status.Stanford.EDU> References: Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu In article , Pete Mellor wrote: >On 07 Jul 95 03:25:04, rxm@netcom.com (R. Morris) wrote:- > >> So, why after all the 7's did the 720 get out of series? > >That is the first I've heard of a "non-7" Boeing. When I went on >the guided tour of the Boeing 747 assembly line in May this year, >someone asked why everything in Boeing ends with "7", and the >answer is: nobody knows! I heard the 720 designator was a sop to United, which would buy them but only if they weren't labelled "707". They're just a short 707, is my understanding. Why not "707"? I think it was an issue of pride---United was otherwise a DC-8 shop. Anyone know any more? RNA From kls Sat Jul 8 15:01:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jf@avic.dk (Jens Fallesen) Subject: Re: CRJ and London City Airport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: AVIC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jul 95 15:01:49 In article rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) writes: >Does anyone know if the Bombardier/Canadair CRJ can do London City >Airport successfully? Considering that in some way it's just a big >biz-jet, and considering the clientele that LCY tries to attract, >you'd figure this would be a good match. At present, the BAe 146 / Avro RJ has a regional jet monopoly at London City Airport. As of April 13, 1995 the following airliners are cleared: BAe 146 Avro RJ70 / RJ85 / RJ100 DHC Dash 7 DHC Dash 8 DHC 6 (Twin Otter) ATR 42 ATR 72 (subject to final clearance) Fokker F50 Saab 340 Saab 2000 (subject to final clearance) Dornier 328 (subject to final clearance) Dornier 228 Shorts 360 Cessna Citation V Cessna Citation II (subject to final clearance) Beechcraft B200 Partenavia P68C Falcon DA10 Mitsubishi MU2 Cessna 421 (Golden Eagle) Piper PA31 (Navajo) (subject to final clearance) Gulfstream IV This information has been taken directly from their information package. -- Jens Fallesen AVIC * Hedegaardsvej 41, st th * 2300 Copenhagen S * Denmark From kls Sat Jul 8 15:01:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Peter.Gugerell@peng.ping.at, gugerell@inmedias.ping.at Subject: Re: Lauda Air Boeing Disaster 1991 - Causes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Vienna, Austria Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jul 95 15:01:50 > "E.A. Singh" writes: > Hi there, > > Can anybody enlighten me on the cause of the Lauda Air Boeing Crash in 1991? > Where can I obtain futher information regarding the cause of this > accident. I believe that one of the reversers deployed shortly after > takeoff, but as far as my limited knowledge of aerodynamics is concerned > I have been led to believe that accidental reverser deployment does not > lead to fatal consequences in most cases. >>>> Tha aircraft crashed because of the deployment of one reverser during climb, 15 minutes after takeoff. Wind tunnel test showed, that this aircraft type goes out of control when one reverser deploys during climb or cruise. The aircraft had a bad history of reverser malfunctions. Anyhow, the exact cause for the deployment was never established. Capt. Peter Gugerell From kls Sat Jul 8 15:01:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Peter.Gugerell@peng.ping.at, gugerell@inmedias.ping.at Subject: Re: Airbus - fly by wire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Vienna, Austria Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jul 95 15:01:50 > shipping@singnet.com.sg writes: >... > The facts speak loudly: > > - most pilots flying the A320 et al, can't wait to return to > 'normal' aircraft. I never met any A320 pilot who "couldn't wait to return to 'normal' aircraft". > - from the first A320 flight, things have gone sque-if, if you > can recall the first public A320 flight crashed. Airbus > blamed the pilot, who ended up flying in outback Australia, > speaking with him the first flight experienced 'unexplained > phernomina' The first public A320 flight did not crash. Capt. Peter Gugerell Austrian Airlines From kls Sat Jul 8 15:01:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jul 95 15:01:51 In article whurwitz@world.nad.northrop.com (Wayne M. Hurwitz) writes: >In article bernhard@eurecom.fr (Christoph Bernhardt) writes: >>>>>>> "JF" == Jean-Francois Mezei writes: >> >> JF> In a FBW system, the computer can make lickety split decisions >> JF> if something arises. If the information given to the computer >> > > I think I'm having a semantics problem. I agree with an earlier comment >in this thread that a FBW system refers to the electronic linkage between >the pilots input to the effector, whether its a wing flap or the >engine PLA. i.e. the computers simply translate the pilots stick or >throttle input to an electronic signal that goes to the appropriate >controller. This effectively replaces what used to be hydro-mechanical. > What everyone else is talking about is the Flight >Control System, which involves all the other automated functions, >such as autopilot and navigational control, which are implemented >to decrease pilot load. Am I wrong? Yes. "FBW" is a colloquialism, which addresses a difference in the design of the flight control system. They are not separate components of some "bigger" system. The autopilot is normally referred to as "the autopilot." Navigation functions are part of some flight management system. Sometimes, the line between navigation and autopilot functionality can become quite blurry. The FCS is the basic functionality which all higher-level systems must use in order to keep the right side up. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Sat Jul 8 15:01:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rwi@whidbey.whidbey.com (Richard Isakson) Subject: Re: Boeing 720? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Whidbey Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jul 95 15:01:52 In sci.aeronautics.airliners rxm@netcom.com (R. Morris) said: > >So, why after all the 7's did the 720 get out of series? > In the early part of the 707 program Boeing was certain that United was going to be a customer and gave them ALL the information on the airplane except the airfoil sections. United turned around and gave the information to Douglas and the DC-8 was born. United made a large order for DC-8s and no 707s. A great many bad things were said between Boeing and United. Among these was a statement by the president of United that United would NEVER buy 707s. The early DC-8s turned out to be a dog. They didn't use transonic airfoil sections and they were never given the Boeing sections because United didn't have them. Boeing made a great deal of money off United when they re-did all the United the DC-8 wings at the United base in San Francisco. When it came time for a new jet order, United decided to go with Boeing for a 707 type airplane. But they had said that they would NEVER buy a 707 so Boeing re-did the 707 for Uniteds route structure and renamed it the 720. There probably were 13 707 derivative designs done between the 707 and the 720. At least this is the story that's told at Boeing. -- Rich (rwi@whidbey.com) From kls Sat Jul 8 15:01:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: etech@netcom.com (Eric Chevalier) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: <3tkm0s$7mg@status.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The End of the Line! Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jul 95 15:01:52 I seem to recall reading a book many years ago that claimed the 720 was actually designated by Boeing as the "707-020". I don't recall whether this was just an internal designation or a temporary designation, and I only remember seeing this reference in one book (of many that I've read over the years). From kls Sat Jul 8 15:01:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: <3tkm0s$7mg@status.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jul 95 15:01:52 >I seem to recall reading a book many years ago that claimed the 720 was >actually designated by Boeing as the "707-020". Boeing's customer code for itself is 20 (I have no idea why it's not 00) so that's a reasonable internal designation. I recall seeing references to the 707-320 Intercontinental, but I don't know if any aircraft actually ended up with the 20 customer code -- the first 757, 767, and 777 all have a 00 code, so perhaps 20 was just 707 era and they've switched since then. -- 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 Jul 8 15:01:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: GE90 Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jul 95 15:01:53 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: > >That doesn't make sense -- the three shaft design has always resulted >in a weight penalty for the RB.211, though RR has claimed that the >increased efficiency of the design more than compensates for the added >weight. From AW&ST, here are the weights of the GE and PW engines for >the MD-11: > > GE CF6-80C2D1F 9,634 lbs > PW PW4460 9,400 lbs > >The RB.211-524H, used on the 747 and 767, is about the same thrust, >and weighs 9,499 lbs, only 135 lbs lighter than the GE engine and a >bit *heavier* than the PW engine. > First of all, to compare with the RB.211-524H, you should really use the firgures of GE's CF6-80C2BxF and Pratt's PW40[5,6]x (for Pratt's number, it doesn't make a difference, because AW&ST listed them all at 9,400 libs). The Trent 600, which was cancelled, would have been the equivalent of -80C2D1F or PW4460. The previous poster was correct to say the RB.211 on the L-1011 were lighter than the comparable GE or P&W engines. The reason why the -524G/H is heavier is because of the "integrated exhaust nozzle" design (GE/SNECMA called it long-duct mixed-flow design which is used in the CFM56-5C on the A340). The Trent 800 which is used on the B777 does not have the integrated exhaust nozzle, and the Trent 800-powered B777 is about 2,000-3,000 lb lighter than the PW4084-powered B777 per aircraft, and about 6,000 lb lighter than the GE90-powered B777. Nevertheless, the R-R engines always seem to be less fuel efficient. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Sat Jul 8 15:01:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Engine-out protection on the 777 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jul 95 15:01:53 AvLeak has been running an interesting series of letters to the editor regarding United's unusual-attitudes training. The curriculum apparently calls for the practice of rolling wings level following an engine failure after but near V1. This flies in the face of the technique most private pilots learn, which is to use the rudder to correct the yaw. A pilot pointed this out, and was firmly chastised--by other pilots, who identified themselves as "jet" pilots--as not knowing what he was talking about, aerodynamically, and from the perspective that it's more important to maintain directional control, since one does not have a whole lot of protected airspace to deal with at that point. I note, however, that the 777 offers something called TAC, or Thrust Asymmetry Compensation, which, according to Boeing _Airliner_, states: "TAC counters the airplane yaw caused by an engine failure or throttle split by providing an automatic rudder input during both manual and autopilot flight." So which is it to be? Surely there's a correct aerodynamic answer, which can transcend the usual bickerings of my-instructor-was-smarter-than-your- instructor. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Sat Jul 8 15:01:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Future of 757, 767 References: <3teiri$q0t@kragar.kei.com> <3tjvns$4v8@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jul 95 15:01:54 In article <3tjvns$4v8@kragar.kei.com>, Jim Martin wrote: >In article <3teiri$q0t@kragar.kei.com>, vrcresci@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us >says... >>In the Monday July 3 issue of the Wall Street Journal there was an >>article on Boeing. At the tail end of the article the author says >>that one analyst named Nicholas P. Heymann of Natwest Securities Corp is >>soeculating that Boeing will eventually discontinue the 757 and 767 >>lines. There was no explaination in the article of why they might do >>this. I saw that too and wondered what he had been smoking. The only logic I could see for such a statement was that Boeing's recently-announced production rates has the 757 going down to 3 per month and the 767 to 3.5 per month. >>It does not seem reasonable that Boeing would leave such a big hole >>in their product offerings. Agreed. >Wanna guess??? 757 and 767 are 20 year old technologies. Many parts of the third-generation 737, and of the 747-400, are still 1960s technology. Lots of things have been updated, of course, but updates happen to the 757 and 767 too. They're just not as dramatic because, being newer, they don't require as many changes to keep them current. >737-700 and up with stretches getting into the 757 mission area with >better fuel numbers. 777 covers most of the 767 missions-but better >fuel numbers and standardized containers for loading. The 737-800, the biggest member of the family, is closer to the 757 in size than the mid-sized 737-700, but it's still a good 30 seats smaller, and only has about two-thirds the range. That leaves lots of market for the 757, even ignoring a possible stretch which would be wonderful for inclusive tour operators and others who don't mind sacrificing creature comforts. I don't know about fuel numbers, but pushing a 737-800 to its limit -- a mission that would be easy for a 757 -- I'd be very surprised if the 737 could match the 757. The 757 is also a *far* better cargo aircraft, with maximum weights well beyond anything even the biggest 737 can handle. The 767's forte has become long, thin international markets, where a 747 is far too big. A 777 is nearly the size of the 747-100s which the 767s displaced, so I don't see how you could convincingly argue that the 777 is going to eclipse the 767. It also costs about 50% more, which makes it pretty unappealing if you don't need the extra capacity. (The 767 also wins on range for now, though that won't last long.) Right now, here's what Boeing's lineup looks like, with ballpark mixed class seating and *very* rough estimates of prices: model seats price ------------ ----- ----- 737-500,-600 108 $29.5 million 737-300,-700 128 35 737-400 146 40 737-800 158 43.5 757-200 180 60 767-200 195 767-300 220 80 777-200 300 120 777-300 350 140 747-400 420 150 Killing off the 757 and 767 would leave an enormous hole in the middle of Boeing's product line, for no reason. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Sat Jul 8 15:01:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jul 95 15:01:55 >>What about the sonic boom? I thought most countries banned Concorde from >>going supersonic over land, and this severely restricts viable routes. With today's technology which can produce the stealth bomber, is it reasonable to expect that a second generation SST plane would generate a much "quieter" sonic boom ? Can they not create a plane whose shape and materials and engines attenuate the sonic boom ? As well, with a plane at over 30k feet altitude, does the sonic boom sound really bother the folks on the ground ? I know that part of the reluctance to allow the Concorde to land was the high noise during the take-off and landing. Was that the major stumbling block for the Concorde, or was it really the sonic boom while it was at cruising altitude ? From kls Sat Jul 8 15:01:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: darsys@pro-entropy.cts.com (Eric A. Seiden) Subject: Re: Lufthansa Chair/SSTs References: <3sf57t$htt@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <3t1n7f$3fv@status.Stanford.EDU> 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: 08 Jul 95 15:01:55 rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) writes: >even more surprised if there's a commercial second-generation SST >(taking Concorde to be the first-generation) flying by then. > >In fact, it seems to me that one day we might see a time when the >Concorde has been retired and there's no longer any commercial >supersonic service. > Concorde is at most going to make it until 2007. According to an article this year sometime (I tried to find it but couldn't) the latest efforts last year to extend the life of Concorde was succesful but the planes will have to be pulled before 2010 due to extreme metal fatigue. Concorde was originally scheduled to make its last flight in 1995 (when built) because at the time it was thought the planes would be too old. Obviously if you want to fly an SST flight Concorde may be your last and only chance. -- E +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [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 Jul 10 03:18:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Boeing, Airbus members suspend super-jumbo joint project Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 03:18:14 Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Boeing Chariman Frank Shrontz and officials of Airbus members British Aerospace, Aerospatiale, Deutsche Aerospace (DASA), and CASA reportedly met in New York on Friday and agreed to suspend their joint work on a super-jumbo (the VLCT or Very Large Commercial Transport) for at least six months, according to an annoucement by an Aerospatiale spokeswoman. "The aircraft is technically feasible, but at the moment airline companies do not want to commit themselves," she said. Boeing will continue to work on a stretch of the 747, and presumably their own NLA (New Large Airplane) project, while Airbus will continue on its own A3XX project. -- 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 Mon Jul 10 03:18:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: allard@iconz.co.nz Subject: Re: Engine-out protection on the 777 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: 10 Jul 95 03:18:14 In , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: >The curriculum apparently calls for the practice of rolling wings level >following an engine failure after but near V1. This flies in the face of >the technique most private pilots learn, which is to use the rudder to >correct the yaw. >I note, however, that the 777 offers something called TAC, or Thrust >Asymmetry Compensation, which, according to Boeing _Airliner_, states: >"TAC counters the airplane yaw caused by an engine failure or throttle >split by providing an automatic rudder input during both manual and autopilot >flight." >So which is it to be? The first imperative is to retain control of the airplane. Rudder or aileron or a combination. On most modern Jets using more than a certain amount of control wheel deflection will deploy spoilers, not desirable. Once in control the aircraft should be trimmed out using rudder to minimise aileron input. On Boeing aircraft at least, the in trim state is with the control wheel centralised, the yaw controlled by rudder. David Allard. From kls Mon Jul 10 03:18:15 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: <3tkm0s$7mg@status.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 03:18:15 The 720 was originally to have been called the 707-020, but United didn't want people to think it was somehow inferior to the already in servcie 707-120 (like people actually would). In any event, in order to sell the airplane to United, Boeing agreed to give it the 720 designation. As to why all Boeing airliner products start and end with 7, it's very simple: Product recognition. Same reason all Douglas products start with DC and Lockheed products start with L. Once you have a good thing going, don't screw with it. The original 707 and 717 (military) designations were merely happenstance. The production model of the 367-80 ended up with Model Number 707 on Boeing's list. The rest is history. I wanna know what's going to happen in 2045 when we get to the end of the 797-800 series! Cheers, Jennings Heilig From kls Mon Jul 10 03:18:15 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Subject: Reason behind Boeing's "720" Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 03:18:15 To all who are wondering about why Boeing's 720 doesn't follow the standard 7x7 desgination, here's the answer: When Boeing proposed a lighter, shorter 707-120, they naturally called it a 707-020 (similar to what Airbus is doing with the A319, A320 and A321 series). When United came around to choosing this aircraft to complement their DC-8 aircraft, they complained that the "707-020" designation made it sound less advanced that other 707s. So Boeing changed the designation to 720. Yes, it's all marketing. The same thing happened to the DC-10. The DC-10-20 was changed to a DC-10-40 on request of Northwest Orient. (This information was taken from AIRLINERS magazine, which I HIGHLY recommend to all aviation buffs.) From kls Mon Jul 10 03:18:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: <3tkm0s$7mg@status.stanford.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 03:18:16 In article <3tkm0s$7mg@status.stanford.edu> you write: >I heard the 720 designator was a sop to United, which would buy them >but only if they weren't labelled "707". They're just a short 707, >is my understanding. Not even that. Pat Patterson, after pointing out the things that Douglas had got right in the (then paper) DC-8 that the 707 had wrong, said he would never buy an aeroplane with the number 707 -- he didn't like the numbers. So the 707s United did eventually buy (I think) 707-320Bs, they were re-designated 720. The fuselage widths for that series of aircraft were: 367-80 ("Dash-80") 132 inches KC-135 / original 707 layout 144 inches 707 as delivered 148 inches By comparison, the DC-8 has a fuselage width of 147 inches. The 707 was to use the same fuselage as the KC-135 (aka 717) at 144 inches until Patterson's outburst. The floor was also thicker at this point due to the intention to provide underfloor heating, which reduced headroom. United bought DC-8s initially. American bought 707s, but after being presented with the updated specification. Boeing did build a shortened 707, delivered to Qantas for use on the short, humped runway at Nadi, Fiji. No-one else bought them. (Qantas bought 747-SPs too -- they flew the Wellington-Aus routes for a while before both Air NZ & Qantas put 767s on those routes. Wellington's runway is too short for a loaded 747 to take off on even if the traffic densities justified it; even 767s don't have much leeway -- pulling out of Wellington in a 767 is quite a ride.) (Don't get an NZer started about landing in Wellington...) Source: Clive Irving, _Wide_Body:_The_Making_of_the_Boeing_747_, 1993 -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Mon Jul 10 03:18:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 03:18:16 >So the 707s United did eventually buy (I think) 707-320Bs, they >were re-designated 720. The 707-320B Intercontinenal was the biggest, longest range 707. The 720, which United purchased, was quite different, a smaller aircraft intended for medium-range work with some substantial changes from the basic 707. -- 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 Jul 10 03:18:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: <3tkm0s$7mg@status.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISFSI Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 03:18:17 rna@status.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) wrote: >I heard the 720 designator was a sop to United, which would buy them >but only if they weren't labelled "707". They're just a short 707, >is my understanding. Pity this aircraft, it had an identity problem: First model designator was 707-020, changed to 717-020, *perhaps* because shorter fuselage more like the Model 717 (aka KC-135A). Boeing decided, for reasons I don't know, that 717-020 would not do, either, hence 720-020; again, precisely how that model was chosen is unknown. Not really "just a short 707": The wing is quite different from the 707's, with the sweep of the leading edge between the inboard nacelles and hull having been increased to provide a double taper; Krueger leading edge flaps added nearly full-span. 9 feet shorter hull, considerably lighter, although many structural parts and systems from 707 used. From kls Mon Jul 10 03:18:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: <3tkm0s$7mg@status.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISFSI Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 03:18:17 kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>I seem to recall reading a book many years ago that claimed the 720 was >>actually designated by Boeing as the "707-020". >Boeing's customer code for itself is 20 (I have no idea why it's not >00) so that's a reasonable internal designation. I recall seeing >references to the 707-320 Intercontinental, but I don't know if any >aircraft actually ended up with the 20 customer code -- the first >757, 767, and 777 all have a 00 code, so perhaps 20 was just 707 era >and they've switched since then. There was a series of five aircraft built for Braniff as the 707-200 series. Rather confusing: Boeing called these 707-220s, FAA said 707-200. Used JT4A-3, 15,800 lbs thrust (similar to J-75 military engines), for better t-o performance at high-altitude South American airports. One listing even shows these as being delivered as 707-220s, but as BA is Customer Code 27, others indicate 707-227. From kls Mon Jul 10 03:18:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ckd@loiosh.kei.com (Christopher Davis) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: <3tkm0s$7mg@status.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 03:18:18 KLS> == Karl Swartz KLS> Boeing's customer code for itself is 20 (I have no idea why it's not KLS> 00) [...] I don't know if any aircraft actually ended up with the 20 KLS> customer code -- the first 757, 767, and 777 all have a 00 code, so KLS> perhaps 20 was just 707 era and they've switched since then. They appear to have switched at the 727. Appendix VIII of Bowers's _Boeing Aircraft Since 1916_ lists N270L as a "727-200" for "Boeing test" (C/N 19356) which later went to Olympic as SX-CBF. I suspect customer code 20 is still reserved for Boeing, too. However, as usual, there are some anomalies. The first 727-100 and 737-100 were each constructed under their planned purchaser's customer code (727-22 N72700/N1784B, built for United and later RR N7001U if I recall correctly; 737-130 N73700, built for Lufthansa but bent during tests and sold to NASA as N515NA, now at Ohio State I think). The 747 testbed is listed in Bowers as a -121 model. Bowers lists a pair of "737-200" models for TAAG-Angola (D2-TAA/TAB c/ns 21172, 21173; no other details are given). Their normal customer code seems to be M2 as they have a number of 737-2M2s listed as well (including D2-TAA/TAB with those c/ns). This may be a Bowers error; he has a "Lauder Air" buying some 767s too :) The 757 and 767 testbeds are both listed as "-200" models (N757A, N767BA). -- 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 Mon Jul 10 03:18:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Lauda Air Boeing Disaster 1991 - Causes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Leading Edge Aviation Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 03:18:18 >Tha aircraft crashed because of the deployment of one reverser >during climb, 15 minutes after takeoff. >Wind tunnel test showed, that this aircraft type goes out of >control when one reverser deploys during climb or cruise. >The aircraft had a bad history of reverser malfunctions. Anyhow, >the exact cause for the deployment was never established. After the incident an AD was issued to inspect ALL 767 Thrust reverser systems for sensing faults. which could result in unscheduled deployment of the thrust reverser. The T/R system has a sensor which, when out of prox, causes the T/R to restow. if this is at fault there is nothing to prevent a faulty T/R from deploying. This was ALLEGEDLY, but it is not known for sure, The cause of the accident. -- 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 Mon Jul 10 03:18:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Bryan H. Lang" Subject: 747 100/200 differentiation question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: California State University, Chico Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 03:18:19 As a quick visual differentiation between the 747-100 and -200, I had always thought that the trailing edge of the engine pylon worked well. The -100 had an almost straight trailing edge leading up to the wing, whereas the -200 trailing edge extended aft, curved up sharply, then straightened out to the wing. That worked fine until yesterday at Changi. An Olympic 747 SX-OAB had the -100 pylon's trailing edge - but the aircraft was clearly labeled a -200. Were many -200 aircraft made with the straight pylon trailing edge? And is there another reliable way to visually differentiate the 747 classics? Thanks, Bryan From kls Mon Jul 10 03:18:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747 100/200 differentiation question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 03:18:19 >As a quick visual differentiation between the 747-100 and -200, I had >always thought that the trailing edge of the engine pylon worked well. ... >That worked fine until yesterday at Changi. An Olympic 747 SX-OAB had the >-100 pylon's trailing edge - but the aircraft was clearly labeled a -200. You may have been comparing aircraft with two different types of engines -- SX-OAB is a 747-284B with the JT9D-7J engines, similar to those used on a 747-100. An aircraft with Rolls-Royce engines would have a very different looking pylon due to the shorter engine, and there's a fair chance the pylon for the GE engines would be visibly different too. >is there another reliable way to visually differentiate the 747 classics? In general, there is no way to visually differentiate a 747-100 and a 747-200. In specific cases, you may be able to tell by a process of elimination -- if you recognize the engines (RR are especially distinctive but you can differentiate GE and PW as well) then if it has RR or GE engines, it must be a -200, since all -100s had JT9Ds. -- 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 Jul 10 03:18:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 03:18:20 mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org writes: >With today's technology which can produce the stealth bomber, is it reasonable >to expect that a second generation SST plane would generate a much "quieter" >sonic boom ? Can they not create a plane whose shape and materials and engines >attenuate the sonic boom ? A radar invisible SST would not give ATC a happy feeling. 8-) Seriously, Stealth is achieved by going subsonic and using an airfoil composed of flat plates which reflect radar in directions other than back to the source, rendering the aircraft invisible, as opposed to curved surfaces that reflect radar in many directions incluing back to the source and hence to the enemy's screens. >I know that part of the reluctance to allow the Concorde to land was the high >noise during the take-off and landing. Was that the major stumbling block for >the Concorde, or was it really the sonic boom while it was at cruising altitude Take-off noise is the big issue. Supersonic aircraft cannot use a high- bypass engine. Concorde's intakes use a system of "ramps" to bring the (relative) speed of the air coming into the compressor down to 0.5 Mach so that the compressor fan can deal with it. This only works because all air entering the engine goes into the compressor. Bypass would actually slow the aircraft down. Some noise reduction is achieved in subsonic flight by use of the nozzles, which in subsonic configuration channel "unburnt" air around the exhaust, but there weill never be the 5:1 or more bypass ratio found on large subsonic transports. -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Mon Jul 10 03:18:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 03:18:20 >Stealth is achieved by ... using an airfoil composed of flat plates >which reflect radar in directions other than back to the source, >rendering the aircraft invisible, as opposed to curved surfaces that >reflect radar in many directions incluing back to the source and >hence to the enemy's screens. Perhaps you've not seen the B2, which has plenty of curved surfaces. The flat surfaces of the F117A are not a prerequisite for a low radar cross-section. When that aircraft was designed, Lockheed was simply not able to perform the necessary analysis for a more complex shape. Thanks largely to faster computers, a more complex analysis was poss- ible by the time the B2 was being designed, much to the relief of the aerodynamicists, I'm sure. -- 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 Jul 10 03:18:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rhh@tachy.uah.ualberta.ca (Roy Hann) Subject: Re: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rhann@tnc.com Organization: Computing and Network Services, U of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 03:18:21 mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) writes: : >>What about the sonic boom? I thought most countries banned Concorde from : >>going supersonic over land, and this severely restricts viable routes. : : I know that part of the reluctance to allow the Concorde to land was the high : noise during the take-off and landing. Was that the major stumbling block for : the Concorde, or was it really the sonic boom while it was at cruising altitude : ? I was living in England when the Concorde first went into service and I recall that public opinion of the day was that the Americans refused to allow supersonic flight over the US mainly because the US had no SST. The assumption was that the Americans were damned if they were going to let anyone else make a success of SSTs if they couldn't play the game too, and any excuse would do. Noise at take-off is quite awful it is true. I was living 4 miles from RAF Brize Norton where a Concorde made occasional visits for some reason. Every time I hear a Learjet departing over my house here in Edmonton on a cold winter day (say -30C) I recall the Concorde. That darned Learjet must be the noisiest thing in the sky around here--it easily drowns out the 737s. A B-1 is similarly noisy during take-off--the ground shakes. So there are lots of noisy planes that seem to do well. I don't think noise alone could be what makes the Concorde a tough sell. (Not that B-1s are working the same market of course :-) --Roy Hann From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ncm@netcom.com (Nathan Myers) Subject: Boeing 777 has dainty feet Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:53 I have heard recently that the new Boeing 777 jetliner, described in recent news reports as "skating through the approval process", has a little problem that might be interesting to RISKS readers. It seems that an important part of the landing gear is too weak, and will get "used up" (through metal fatigue), and need to be replaced annually. While this is probably not a safety problem, it's an extra expense (frequent inspections and replacements) and an embarrassment. Unfortunately, fixing it isn't just a matter of making the part stronger; it would then be bigger and heavier, affecting fit, balance, and nearby parts. This sort of problem is familiar in the "shakeout period" of all previous jetliners, but it's surprising that it showed up so late in the approval process. (A previous 7?7 has a nonlinearity in the landing gear linkage that caused an oscillation when trying to close the doors; it was fixed by an appalling hydraulic "patch" that cancels feedback during the nonlinear portion of the cycle.) How did this mistake get all the way through Boeing's legendary engineering process? The 777 is the first commercial Boeing to have been modeled entirely on computer before construction. Apparently the part is precisely a factor of two weaker than it should have been. Does this smell like a structural model entry error? I have been unable to find out more about the source of the error, and would welcome more detailed information. Maybe the RISK is in streamlining your engineering process so well, and eliminating so many of the more common mistakes that would have caused delays, that you are already getting final FAA approval before the booboos that only time can reveal are noticed. Or maybe the RISK is just that better communications can leak word of embarrassments few would have known about otherwise. From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: b17864@vaxb.phx1.aro.allied.com Subject: Re: Surge on GE90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AlliedSignal Engines Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:53 In article , whurwitz@world.nad.northrop.com (Wayne M. Hurwitz) writes: > > Is this correct for the GE90? My experience is that engines are started > with air turbine starters, which actually inject air into the turbine > to rotate the shaft. The compressed air source comes from either an > APU or cross bleed from an engine that is already running. But then > I deal mostly with military applications, which may be different. On > the other hand, it seems like it would take an awful lot of electrical > power to spin up a GE90, which would be prohibitive when sizing a > starter/generator. Large turbofan engines are started by an air turbine starter which is mounted to the accessory gearbox. Bleed air (from a ground source, APU, or other engine) spins the turbine up to speed. Power is transmitted from the starter through the gearbox and to the main engine shaft. Small engines (biz jet size or APUs) can use electric starters and they do take a lot of electrical power. Old engines and very small missile engines use impingement starting. This is where air or hot gas is injected into the engine's turbine to initiate rotation. The J-85 used this system (or at least the early ones did) as do most cruise missile engines. Mark Johnston AlliedSignal Engines Phoenix AZ From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Do airliner engens run at approximately constant speed, varying only torque? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:53 king@reasoning.com wrote: >When one of two engines quits and the pilot decides to ask the other engine >for 95% power instead of something in the 60% range, is it the case that >the RPMs don't increase much, in fact they might decrease when the plane >inevitably slows down, but that fuel flow of course increases? This is pretty much the case for *turboprop* engines, where the propellers have variable pitch blades (in fact, piston engine aircraft with variable props run pretty much at constant rpm). When more power is needed, the pitch is changed to take a bigger "bite" of air, the throttle is opened more (an anachronism for a turbine, I know ) and the engine produces more torque keeping the revs constant. As far as I know, turbojets and turbofans don't have the luxury of variable pitch. I defer to those who know more about turbofan design, because there may be another way to modify thrust without changing turbine speed too much, or else (more likely?) modify the combustion dynamics to allow good efficiency across a wider band of actual turbine shaft speeds. (bleed doors, etc.???) I'd like to know the answer to that one myself. -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Peter Herrmann" Subject: Re: Boeing, Airbus members suspend super-jumbo joint project References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: herrmann@ls4.informatik.uni-dortmund.de Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:54 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: |>Boeing Chariman Frank Shrontz and officials of Airbus members British |>Aerospace, Aerospatiale, Deutsche Aerospace (DASA), and CASA reportedly |>met in New York on Friday and agreed to suspend their joint work on a |>super-jumbo (the VLCT or Very Large Commercial Transport) for at least |>six months, according to an annoucement by an Aerospatiale spokeswoman. |>"The aircraft is technically feasible, but at the moment airline |>companies do not want to commit themselves," she said. |> |>Boeing will continue to work on a stretch of the 747, and presumably |>their own NLA (New Large Airplane) project, while Airbus will continue |>on its own A3XX project. I don't understand that nobody ever considered talks between Airbus and MD on a high capacity aircraft. Both companies suffer from not being able to offer an aircraft competitive to the 747. A joint development of an aircraft a little larger than the 747 might give them an opportunity to enter the high capacity market. MD makes efforts in developing the MD 12 project but didn't find a competent partner up to now. Airbus might be this partner. -- ___ //// Peter Herrmann, Dipl.Inf. herrmann@ls4.informatik.uni-dortmund.de UNI DO// Dept.of.Comp.Science IV Subj.: Distr. Systems / Comp. Networks ___ //// University of Dortmund \*\\/// D-44221 Dortmund \\\\/ From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Subject: Re: 747 100/200 differentiation question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BUMCH Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:55 kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>is there another reliable way to visually differentiate the 747 classics? > >In general, there is no way to visually differentiate a 747-100 and >a 747-200. Another helpful, but not fool-proof, cue was the 3-window upper-deck on the -100's. Most of the -100's were made in this configuration but some of the later aircraft in the series also came with the 10(?)-window layout. Thornton From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747 100/200 differentiation question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:55 >Another helpful, but not fool-proof, cue was the 3-window upper-deck on the >-100's. Most of the -100's were made in this configuration but some of the >later aircraft in the series also came with the 10(?)-window layout. I used to think that too. As you note, later -100s were built with the newer configuration, and an upgrade kit is (was) available too, so ten windows could be either one. Three windows doesn't confirm a -100, though, as I've seen at least one photo of a -200 with the "three-holer" config. Thus either config is useless for figuring out which variant you're looking at. -- 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 Jul 10 16:36:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: Re: 747 100/200 differentiation question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:55 In concorde@ecst.csuchico.edu (Bryan H. Lang) writes: > As a quick visual differentiation between the 747-100 and -200, I had always > thought that the trailing edge of the engine pylon worked well. The -100 > had an almost straight trailing edge leading up to the wing, whereas the > -200 trailing edge extended aft, curved up sharply, then straightened out > to the wing. There were many upgrade/growth versions of the JT9D engines. I've noticed the pylon change only when the -7Q was introduced around 1979. The thrust increased from 50,000 lb for the -7J to 53,000 lb for the -7Q. So, I think it's obvious what the enlarged pylons are for. Since, the -200 was first delivered in the early 1970s, there must be many -200s with the "straight trailing edge" pylons. > > Were many -200 aircraft made with the straight pylon trailing edge? And > is there another reliable way to visually differentiate the 747 classics? Most of the -100s have only three windows on the upper deck, while the -200s have ten windows. However, as many have pointed out before, it is not always true. -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org | ======================================== From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Colin Povey Subject: Re: Future of airliners? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:56 Jennings Heilig writes: >The Russians have a LNG powered Tu-154 flying around for quite a while >now. Only the right engine is LNG powered, but it's been proven >technically feasible. I believe I read that they used the regular Tu-154 >engine suitably modified to burn LNG. Yes, I read several years ago about this aircraft. It apparently flew fine. However, there was a large amount of space devoted to the LH2 tank, making long flights impractical. Colin Povey From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: ckd@loiosh.kei.com (Christopher Davis) Subject: Re: Future of 757, 767 References: <3teiri$q0t@kragar.kei.com> <3tjvns$4v8@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Baseball First -- Everything Else Second Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:56 KS> == Karl Swartz KS> Right now, here's what Boeing's lineup looks like, with ballpark mixed KS> class seating and *very* rough estimates of prices: KS> model seats price KS> ------------ ----- ----- [...] KS> 757-200 180 60 KS> 767-200 195 KS> 767-300 220 80 [...] This fits into my perception of the 757 as the "narrowbody widebody". It has a higher seat count than most narrowbody airliners (not far below the smaller widebodies, as shown in the table) and usually has many of the "widebody" amenities such as video screens and armrest audio systems. KS> Killing off the 757 and 767 would leave an enormous hole in the middle KS> of Boeing's product line, for no reason. I'd be interested in seeing a model/seat/price table that covered all three manufacturers, just to get an idea of where the head-to-head matchups are and where the gaps in various product lines are. (The fourth variable is, of course, range...but that really needs a seats v. range scatterplot to be properly presented, and ASCII does scatterplots so very badly...) -- 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 Mon Jul 10 16:36:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rching@saclink1.csus.edu (Russell K Ching) Subject: Boeing 757-100 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: California State University Sacramento Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:56 Speaking of the 720 relative to the 707, why hasn't Boeing marketed the 757-100? It would seem this shorter version would fit well into the 175-seat market where the A320 seems to reign. Russ From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing 757-100 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:56 >Speaking of the 720 relative to the 707, why hasn't Boeing marketed the >757-100? It would seem this shorter version would fit well into the >175-seat market where the A320 seems to reign. They have -- it's called the 737-800. You won't see a 757 in that market because of cost; a stretched 737 is far cheaper than a short 757 would be. (145-150 seats is closer to what you'd see on a typical mixed-class A320; 175 seats is more like the A321.) -- 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 Jul 10 16:36:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Martin Fiddler Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:56 On 27 Jun 95 01:43:14 Robert Dorsett wrote: >The DC-9 does not have airstairs. You are confusing it with the 727, which >lowers airstairs out the back. No I'm not!! I've been on a DC9 (Adria Airways) from Tirana (Albania) to Ljubjana (Slovenia) and entered via the rear stairs. Several times! They lower from the back, complete with a kerosine-covered handrail. >The DC-9 does have an emergency exit in the back tailcone, but it is not >used for normal operations. I agree - on the rear pressure door, in flight, there were instructions about emergency exit, where the tailcone is jetisoned and a slide deploys. There are still passenger stairs as well, though! Martin From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: petercoe@netcom.com (Peter J. Coe) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:57 tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) writes: >PSA had some L-1011s with airstairs that let passengers enter through the >lower galley. Not sure if both our recollections are failing, but the Courtline Tristars had airstairs fitted in the front cargo bay, that came out in a wonderful piece of mechanical wizadry to meet up with the front door. I thought that they were the only airstair option on the Tristar, and because of the immense weight and cargo penalties, Courtline were the only people that took the option. They of course then promptly went bust. I blame the world's tackiest colour scheme. From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail 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: 10 Jul 95 16:36:57 >The DC-9 does not have arstairs. You are confusing it with the 727, >which lowers airstairs out the back. >The DC-9 does have an emergency exit in the back tailcone, but it is not >used for normal operations. The original DC9-10 did not have aft airstairs but every DC-9 derivate since the -30 has had aft-mounted airstairs. I have worked an Air Canada DC-9 that did not have aft airstairs but did have the forward airstairs. I believe it was a -30 ( this was 7 or 8 years ago ) so perhaps the rear stairs are an option. All of DLs DC-9/MD80 and MD90 have aft airstairs and no forward stairs. Deltas 737s (301-333) have forward stairs but the airplanes picked up from WAL did not. Those airplanes that don't have the stairs have ballast in the forward bag bin. This weight takes up a space about 2 1/2 to 3 feet square and is about 4 inches thick. I think it's better to just keep the stairs on the airplane since it makes it much easier to deal with when the airplane is moved away from the gate to be worked on or just parked overnight. From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wdockery@pipeline.com (Wayne Dockery) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Pipeline Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:57 FYI- On the Delta Shuttle between La Guradia, Boston, and Washington, DC, passengers are allowed to disembarque from the rear stairs on their 727 shuttle fleet. The only time they don't allow it is due to inclement weather conditions. The only thing bad about those stairs is the strong smell of jet fuel that lingers long after your in the terminal. -- Wayne Dockery (wdockery@pipeline.com) From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dlmurphy@scooter.neosoft.com (Dennis L. Murphy) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 968 5800 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:57 In article rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: >The reason you see the 727 stairs down all the time is as a counter- >balance, so the airplane doesn't rock back on its tail with a light >fuel load. Youwill often see a supporting rod as well. If you're interested, find a copy of the Tallahassee Democrat, circa March, 1969 or 1970. They have a beautiful picture of a Eastern Airlines 727-100 sitting on its tail at the Tallahassee Municipal Airport. Seems that the aircraft came in late at night and someone "forgot" that the airstair door needed to remain "down and locked" under certain conditions (i.e., light fuel load, etc.) Imagine the surprise of Eastern's crew when they arrived at the airport to find the aircraft in an "unusual" attitude! From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lous@sr.hp.com (Lou Salz) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett Packard Sonoma County Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:58 Robert Dorsett (rdd@netcom.com) wrote: : In article Martin Fiddler writes: : >Why don't all aircraft have them? Is it something to do with the rear : >mounted engines on the above two models? I guess it's much more complex : >from the rear pressure bulkhead aspect, but that doesn't explain why, say, : >the B737 doesn't have them but the DC9 does. : The DC-9 does not have arstairs. You are confusing it with the 727, which : lowers airstairs out the back. I don't think Martin is the one that's confused on this one. In the last 6 months I have been on 3 MD80s and 1 DC9 that had stairs in the rear that were being used to load passengers. The airlines involved were Austral in Argentina, Finn Air in Italy and Alitalia in Italy. : The reason they exist at all is for remote field operations. I don't consider Buenos Aires (AEP) or Milan (LIN) to be "remote field operations". Both cities have populations well into the millions. Both airports use buses to move passengers between the gates and the planes. I suspect rear stairs are still in use at these airports because when combined with front stairs, they speed the boarding process. I still kind of enjoy the chance to board a plane this way every once in a while. Seeing the plane on the outside up close and climbing up the stairs past the screaming APU keeps you from getting too isolated from the machine you're flying on. Lou Salz lous@sr.hp.com From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: avfoto@ix.netcom.com (Jay Selman ) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:58 Several responses to this topic have hit on various aspects of the subject of passenger stairs in aircraft tails. Don't forget that the early Convair 240s, as well as the Martin 202/404 series, also had ventral airstairs. More recently, of course, most of the aircraft with rear-mounted jet engines have used ventral stairs. Contrary to an earlier posting, there are many DC9s and MD80s out there with actual ventral airstairs. Even the Russian-built YAK-40 has ventral airstairs, which would lead one to presume that they are used as a counterbalance to an inherently tail-heavy aircraft. This is certainly true with the 727-200, and I have personally witnessed a TU154 sitting on its tail, as well. Re the 737s, several airlines have stairs installed in the rear left exit, especially those aircraft used in combi configuration. Piedmont Airlines, back in the early 80s, also came up with the great idea of removing the forward integral airstairs to save weight...only to find that it knocked the w&b figures all to hell. They were then reinstalled, and deactivated. Ventral airstairs also tok a hit in the 70s when D.B. Cooper and several wannabes found that they provided a nifty way of exiting a 727 inflight. As a result, many airlines installed an airflow-activated lock that would not permit the stairs to be opened in flight. From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:58 And don't forget the most famous use of a 727 aft airstair... It allowed good old D.B. Cooper to make his fateful exit from the NW flight over Oregon..... Jennings Heilig From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tony Blades Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tonyB@seavixen.demon.co.uk Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:58 In article: Martin Fiddler writes: > Certain aircraft - the DC9 / MD80 family, and the british BAC-111, have > stairs that lower from beneath the tail. Obviously these are very useful > at remote airfields, as portable stairs are not needed for the passengers > to enter and exit. Possibly there are other aircraft with the same > facility too. I currently fly B737s and before that flew DC-9s for 10 years. Most of out B737s are equipped with airstairs at the forward main door. We do operate some aircraft which we obtained from another airline, which don't have airstairs at all. There is indeed a weight penalty carrying airstairs, but this is, I believe, far outweighed by the convenience of having them fitted. Although nearly all all of our opertions are to airports which have peassenger jetways, there are numerous occasions when your are parked on stands which are not so equipped, and there are many occasions when the jetways themselves are u/s. Most models of DC-9 produced after the -15 were fitted with aft airstairs, but whilst it was very nice to have two sets of airstairs, another set being installed at the front exit, I believe it to be and expensive luxury. The structure of the stairs and the surrounding area add a great deal to the weight of the aircraft. If you want any further info, please feel free to e-mail me Tony Blades tonyB@seavixen.demon.co.uk From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rma@winternet.com (Rich Ahrens) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:59 Phillip Byrd (pbyrd@ritz.mordor.com) wrote: : As recently as last year I was on an old Continental 737 which still : carried the fold-up stairs inside the aircraft at the rear door. I believe Alaska Airlines uses similarly equipped 737s as well. My last experience on one was in Yakutat a few years ago. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.winternet.com/~rma/ | |rma@winternet.com|--------------------------------------------------| |rma@netcom.com | "Philosophy is useless, theology is worse" - M.K.| ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rwatters@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us (Ray Watters) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Ridgecrest Community Television Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:59 In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: > The DC-9 does not have arstairs. You are confusing it with the 727, which > lowers airstairs out the back. Actually, the DC9 does have rear airstairs...at least the older models. > The reason you see the 727 stairs down all the time is as a counter-balance, > so the airplane doesn't rock back on its tail with a light fuel load. You > will often see a supporting rod as well You are correct, however it is most important on the 727-200 series. On a light load, an extra 5000 pounds of fuel would be put in the center tank. Further, coach passengers would be moved to first class. From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "E.A. Singh" Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Computer Science, University of Liverpool, UK Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:59 I do know that a lot of UK based 737's have the stairs built in under the 1L door and these are not removed .... I fly regularly 737-200's Ryan Air (The Irish one, not the US carrier!) from Liverpool Speke Airport to Dublin Int'l, about a 25 minute flight and *always* the inbuilt stairs are used... I guess for short commuter hops - especially at small fields (like Liverpool) having the stairs makes a lot of sense, it saves time (these planes only stay 20 minutes or so and then they complete the return leg) and perhaps money (do carriers have to- -pay for stairs as an extra???) --eddy From kls Mon Jul 10 16:36:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Colin Povey Subject: Re: Cabin Noise on UA 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:59 "Jan P. Andrews" writes: >My colleague commented that the 777's cabin was interesting, the seats >comfortable and the mini video screen entertaining. He was made very >uncomfortable, however, by what he said was a loud approx. 7.5-KHz >acoustic "whine" that he believed originated in the ventilation system. > >Does anyone familiar with this craft (or at least UA's configuration of >it) have any thoughts or comments on this? Boeing had several problems with some ventilation ducts in the 777. One came loose during a flight with the Secretary of Transportation on board, requiring a reduction in crusing altitude. Sounds like they still have some work to do in this area. From kls Mon Jul 10 16:37:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:37:00 (Andrew Boyd) wrote on 07 Jul 95 14:26:28:- >> I can state quite categorically that no *fatal* crash of an A320 due >> a computer aborted take-off has ever occurred. ... > > A friend of mine flies A310s for the military. He says that 95% of > the time, you sit there and watch it fly the a/c. The other 5% of > the time, you stop it from doing something wrong :( OK, I'll believe him! :-) The point about the discussion, though, was what crashed when, where and due to which causes. My mailing was meant solely to correct the impression given in an earlier contribution that an **A320** had crashed due to a computer aborted take-off. As I said, none ever has. The A320 differs fundamentally from the A300 and A310, in that it has a software-based "Electrical Flight Control System" (EFCS). This is what qualifies it as "fly-by-wire". The A300 and A310 have conventional flight control systems. Let's just get a few things straight! 1. A "Flight Management System" is not the same as a "Flight Control System". 2. The civil aircraft with a digital software-based FCS are (in order of entry into service): A320, A340/A330, B777. 3. No crash of any of these aircraft has been nailed to the door of the FCS alone (although it has been argued that in some cases the behaviour of the EFCS was a contributory factor). The airliners list ought to be able to get the basic facts straight. I seem to recall that this is where I came in in 1992, and I suggest that those wanting to get involved in these discussions should look in the archives (on ftp.kei.com) first. 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 Jul 10 16:37:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cyberoid@u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) Subject: Take-off chills: Altitude with an attitude! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Worldesign Inc., Seattle Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:37:00 I'm a frequent flyer and you'd think by now I would be immune, but I still get the chills on take-off -- especially when the pilot hits the throttle and the plane tips higher and higher as it reaches for the sky. I keep remembering stories of planes whose controls misrepresented the situation, so that the pilots kept inclining the aircraft at more extreme angles until they finally stalled out and fell out of the sky. What keeps this from happening? Do pilots actually come close to stalling out, or do they stay way below the critical edge? How much do take-off regulations, requiring steep climbs, affect the possibility of stalling out? I sure would like to know the answers. Of course, it doesn't matter, 'cause the next time they point the nose skyward, I will still feel that emptiness in my gut and worry! :-) Bob From kls Mon Jul 10 16:37:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spreidel@aol.com (Spreidel) Subject: UA 747SP??? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: spreidel@aol.com (Spreidel) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:37:00 Does anyone know if United Airlines still owns or flies the 747 SPs they acquired in the Pan Am deal? I'd appreciate it if you could email me with any info you have. Thanks! --Jeff From kls Mon Jul 10 16:37:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: UA 747SP??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jul 95 16:37:00 >Does anyone know if United Airlines still owns or flies the 747 SPs >they acquired in the Pan Am deal? The lone 747SP-27 (originally built for Braniff) was sold several years ago. The other ten (all 747SP-21 models) are still owned by United but are stored, N146UA at MZJ and the other nine at LAS, and are unlikely to return to service with United. United's last revenue service with an SP was UA 59 IAD-SFO on October 20th, 1994, operated with N145UA, the only one which received the new colors. -- 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 Jul 12 01:42:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ryan75@primenet.com (Ryan Michael Stevens) Subject: Re: 747 100/200 differentiation question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Primenet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jul 95 01:42:29 In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) >Subject: Re: 747 100/200 differentiation question >Date: 10 Jul 95 03:18:19 >>is there another reliable way to visually differentiate the 747 classics? >In general, there is no way to visually differentiate a 747-100 and >a 747-200. In specific cases, you may be able to tell by a process >of elimination -- if you recognize the engines (RR are especially >distinctive but you can differentiate GE and PW as well) then if it >has RR or GE engines, it must be a -200, since all -100s had JT9Ds. But alas, even this rule doesn't always hold true. Saudia has 8 747-168Bs, all fitted with RR RB211-524C2s. These aircraft are a bit of an anachronism, since they were built in the early '80s (81-82), a time when most carriers were purchasing -200s. Ryan (ryan75@primenet.com) From kls Wed Jul 12 01:42:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 has dainty feet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jul 95 01:42:29 In article you write: >I have heard recently that the new Boeing 777 jetliner, described in recent >news reports as "skating through the approval process", has a little problem >that might be interesting to RISKS readers. > >It seems that an important part of the landing gear is too weak, and will get What's your source for this? USENET? Hardly an authoritative source on *anything*. There's been nothing in AvLeak, a far more authoritative gossip-rag, or any other major industry publication. -- 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 Jul 12 01:42:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rwi@whidbey.whidbey.com (Richard Isakson) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 has dainty feet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Whidbey Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jul 95 01:42:30 In sci.aeronautics.airliners ncm@netcom.com (Nathan Myers) said: >It seems that an important part of the landing gear is too weak, and will get >"used up" (through metal fatigue), and need to be replaced annually. While this >is probably not a safety problem, it's an extra expense (frequent inspections >and replacements) and an embarrassment. >How did this mistake get all the way through Boeing's legendary engineering >process? Engineering fixes will be part of the airplanes life as long as it's being used. Engineering is an art, it's not a science. To expect an airplane to come out of the design process in a state of perfection is to expect the impossible. -- Rich (rwi@whidbey.com) From kls Wed Jul 12 01:42:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Need 777 per pass. fuel effic. info References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jul 95 01:42:30 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >United only puts 293 seats on a 777, and load factor numbers won't be >available for a while ... Guessing a 75% load ... Right after posting this, I saw something from United saying that loads for the 777 flights, since service introduction on June 7, have been almost 90%! I'm not sure how that compares to expected loads on the routes that the 777 has been flying, keeping in mind that summer is the peak travel season so high loads are expected. -- 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 Wed Jul 12 01:42:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: GE90 troubles make page 1 of the Wall St. Journal Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jul 95 01:42:31 Wednesday's Wall St. Journal has a long article on page 1, column 1, on the GE90's problems. It notes that the GE90-powered 777 test fleet has now been grounded for over two months. It also says that the FAA issued a "leter of discontinuance" on June 26, formally halting tests of the 777/GE90 combination. The article highlights doubts about GE's ability to meet the Sept. 28 deadline to deliver British Airways' first two GE90-powered 777s, and goes on to describe how the failures have cost GE some sales (Korean's order in particular) which in turn has long-term ramifactions, since losing an order from a given airline now almost certainly means no chance of GE winning any followup orders from that airline. GE says that the problems are to be expected with a brand new engine, and points out that P&W-powered 767s have over seven times the in-flight shutdown rate of GE versions, but that's small solace if early bugs drive customers away from the GE90. -- 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 Jul 12 01:42:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jul 95 01:42:31 In article , aboyd@qnx.com (Andrew Boyd) writes: > A friend of mine flies A310s for the military. He says that 95% of > the time, you sit there and watch it fly the a/c. The other 5% of > the time, you stop it from doing something wrong :( > > According to him, the recent airbus crash in romania was another > stupid computer trick ... apparently, in a left climbing turn, > thrust was reduced (probably for noise abatement) and the right > throttle stuck open. So, the airbus computer helpfully reduced > the thrust on the left engine to zero (in the climbing left hand > turn) and they rolled upside down. Oops. According to the official investigation report, a problem with the throttle had been reported on this aircraft during the previous flight and a few others before. Nothing had been done to fix it. When the copilot noticed the problem, the pilot just replied : "That one doesn't work", and did nothing. Absolutely no input from the pilot has been recorded on the FDR until it was far too late. Moreover, I never read or heard any comment suggesting that this was anything else than a failure on this particular aircraft. Apparently it had nothing to do with a computer misconception, bug, or whatever you want to call it. JF From kls Wed Jul 12 01:42:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: inlandcruz@aol.com (InlandCruz) Subject: Survey: Future Info Sys in Airlines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: inlandcruz@aol.com (InlandCruz) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jul 95 01:42:32 Of those few of you that are involved in ground-side aviation issues, it would be appreciated if you could answer the following questions which will be included in a Masters thesis on Airline Information Systems. I am currently a manager with America West Airlines. Please e-mail the questions back to me directly or post a new message for me to read. If you know of any other area on the Internet where this survey would be more appropriate, please let me know...Thanks for your help. Please be as technical as you wish... 1) What is your impression of the stand-alone PC's in use in the airlines today? Are they outdated? Software outdated? Reliable and user-friendly? What do you mostly use them for? What do you see PC's used for in the future? 2) What is your impression of the Reservations Systems computers in use in the airlines today? Could they be improved? How? Are they reliable? Are they user friendly? Should they be windows-based? Other comments? What do you see in the future with CRS's? 3) What type of Weight and Balance system do you use? Is it relatively error free? Reliable? Could it be improved? How? Is it user-friendly? Where do you see this system in the future? 4) What is your general feelings on Automated Cockpits? Do you feel safer with this type of system? Are there any concerns you can associate with them? How about GPS and the proposed automated air traffic control system? Where do you see the future going with these? 5) What type of crew scheduling and aircraft routing system do you use? Is it easy to use? Windows-based? Reliable? What type of hardware is it on? Could it be improved? How? Where is the future headed in this area? Thanks for your participation...it is much appreciated! Please be as technical as you wish with this. From kls Wed Jul 12 01:42:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R Ebright) Subject: Re: Future of 757, 767 References: <3teiri$q0t@kragar.kei.com> <3tjvns$4v8@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jul 95 01:42:32 In article , Christopher Davis wrote: >This fits into my perception of the 757 as the "narrowbody widebody". It >has a higher seat count than most narrowbody airliners (not far below the >smaller widebodies, as shown in the table) and usually has many of the >"widebody" amenities such as video screens and armrest audio systems. As I recall it, Boeing wanted a smaller seat count 757 in its original proposals. But the launch customer (the first guy to order enough to cause you to build) was Eastern and the density on their US East Coast routes caused them to want a higher seat count... so Boeing changed the design to get the order. -- A/~~\A 'moo2u from osu' Jim Ebright e-mail: ebright@bronze.coil.com ((0 0))_______ "'Eternal Vigilance Is The Price of Liberty' used to mean \ / the \ we watched the government - not the other way around." (--)\ OSU | - Bill Stewart, AT&T From kls Wed Jul 12 01:42:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Future of 757, 767 References: <3teiri$q0t@kragar.kei.com> <3tjvns$4v8@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jul 95 01:42:33 >As I recall it, Boeing wanted a smaller seat count 757 in its original >proposals. But the launch customer (the first guy to order enough to cause >you to build) was Eastern and the density on their US East Coast routes >caused them to want a higher seat count... so Boeing changed the design to >get the order. Eastern actually would have preferred the smaller aircraft, but they co-launched the 757 with British Airways. BA was the only carrier really pushing for the bigger aircraft, much as they are now almost alone in wanting a 600-800 passenger super-jumbo. Eastern grudgingly went along with BA. John Nance, in The Sport Game, claims this was a major error by Boeing since the 727-200 had a market to itself in the 150-seat class, and the smaller 757 would have been the logical replacement. The 757 as built was too big for this market, which left room for Airbus to come in with the A320, much as McDonnell Douglas' insistence on building a tri-jet DC-10 in direct competition with the L-1011, instead of doing a smaller twin-jet, left the door open for the A300. With delivery of the 700th 757 coming soon, it's hard to see his logic, but remember how the 757 got off to an awfully slow start and only started selling briskly after years of market growth. -- 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 Jul 12 01:42:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: st38557@vm.cc.latech.edu (Robert Westbrook) Subject: Re: Do airliner engens run at approximately constant speed, varying only torque? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Louisiana Tech University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Jul 95 01:42:33 In article , Steve Lacker wrote: > king@reasoning.com wrote: > > >When one of two engines quits and the pilot decides to ask the other engine > >for 95% power instead of something in the 60% range, is it the case that > >the RPMs don't increase much, in fact they might decrease when the plane > >inevitably slows down, but that fuel flow of course increases? > > This is pretty much the case for *turboprop* engines, where the propellers have > variable pitch blades (in fact, piston engine aircraft with variable props run > pretty much at constant rpm). When more power is needed, the pitch is changed > to take a bigger "bite" of air, the throttle is opened more (an anachronism for > a turbine, I know ) and the engine produces more torque keeping the revs > constant. As far as I know, turbojets and turbofans don't have the luxury of > variable pitch. I defer to those who know more about turbofan design, because > there may be another way to modify thrust without changing turbine speed too > much, or else (more likely?) modify the combustion dynamics to allow good > efficiency across a wider band of actual turbine shaft speeds. (bleed doors, > etc.???) I'd like to know the answer to that one myself. As far as I know, high bypass turbofans measure their thrust output through the N1 (rpm of the fan) gauge, as opposed to EPR (engine pressure ratio, which compares the static pressure of the tailpipe to static pressure of the inlet, which I suppose could be considered ambient), which is the best measure of thrust for medium bypass engines like the JT8, or pure turbojets. RPM will of course increase when the throttle is put to firewall, and the fan turning faster is the primary source of thrust in fan engines. I don't think there is any tourquemeter to be found on a modern high bypass engine, since all (or most) of the torque goes toward spinning that fan. I've never heard of variable pitch fan or rotor blades in a turbine engine, but there are variable pitch IGV's (inlet guide vanes) and stator vanes, but these only serve to smooth out the flow of air into and thru the engine and to prevent compressor stalls. The 707-321 I used to work on did have spring-loaded blow-in doors on the inlets, or as I've heard some people call them, "auxillary air doors." They would really start flapping if there was a mild oscillating compressor stall... You could see them bouncing as you heard a "whoomp whoomp whoomp whoomp..." :-) Robert -- College Republicans, Shreveport Astronomical Society, Mars Underground, NRA Cat Fanatic (Have you hugged your Cornish Rex today?) A&P Mechanic (727's, 707's mainly) From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: What Makes Software Safe? (was Concord Loses #3) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:28 expaero@aol.com (ExpAero) wrote on Fri Jun 30 12:05:30 1995:- > Consequently, under DO-178A, software must be developed to a rigor > appropriate to the consequences any potential "anomalous behavior" whether > redundant n-version software is used or not. Is there a typo here? I remember that DO-178A *did* have a get-out clause in the small print which allowed the manufacturer to claim that, although a given system might be critical, provided it had a fault-tolerant design, the *software* in that system need only be developed to DO-178A Level 2, instead of Level 1 as would normally be the case. I seem to remember that this loophole disappeared in version B of DO-178. Interestingly enough, Airbus tried to argue with the FAA that the software in the A320 EFCS was only Level 2 on account of the overall fault-tolerant architecture of the flight control system. (The A320 was certificated under DO-178A, the A340 and A330 were certificated under DO-178B, even though the B version had not come into force officially at the time.) The FAA were not overwhelmed by this argument. Pete ---- 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 Jul 17 04:29:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ryan75@PrimeNet.Com (Ryan Michael Stevens) Subject: Re: 757 Range/Payload References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Primenet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:29 In article pilot@leland.stanford.edu (Nick Strauss) writes: >In article , >niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk wrote: >> So what's the longest scheduled 757 sector then? >According to a Boeing press release thing I've got "The twinjet is used to >serve city pairs are as far away as 3,594 nautical miles (6,656 >kilometers) apart and as close as 59 nautical miles (109 kilometers)." I just picked up the July/August copy of Airways, and was reading the article on Ladeco when I came across this posting. According to this article, Ladeco flies a non-stop, SCL-MIA sector, with a total length of 4,242mi., with a carded flight time of 8hr 40min (pg 42, column 1, 5th paragraph). So far, this appears to be the longest sector I've seen for this aircraft. Ryan From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: herrmann@ls4.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Peter Herrmann) Subject: Re: Future of 757, 767 References: <3teiri$q0t@kragar.kei.com> <3tjvns$4v8@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: herrmann@ls4.informatik.uni-dortmund.de Organization: University of Dortmund Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:30 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: |>John Nance, in The Sport Game, claims this was a major error by Boeing |>since the 727-200 had a market to itself in the 150-seat class, and |>the smaller 757 would have been the logical replacement. The 757 as |>built was too big for this market, which left room for Airbus to come |>in with the A320, much as McDonnell Douglas' insistence on building a |>tri-jet DC-10 in direct competition with the L-1011, instead of doing |>a smaller twin-jet, left the door open for the A300. With delivery of |>the 700th 757 coming soon, it's hard to see his logic, but remember |>how the 757 got off to an awfully slow start and only started selling |>briskly after years of market growth. It was definitely right to build the 757-200. But, IMHO, John Nance is correct. Boeing's decision, not to build the 757-100, was an enormous strategic error which facilitated Airbus (and MD) to attack the 150-seat market. The 737-400 could not compete with the A320 and the 737-800 is quite late after more than 700 A320s are sold already. Further, the A320s opens the way to its derivations A321 and A319 (and, perhaps, to the A330s and A340s) in many airlines. A useful scenario might have been to start with the 757-100 in the early Eighties and to offer the 757-200 four or five years later. But, of course, it is easier to realize this now than in 1980. :-) -- Peter Herrmann, Dipl.Inf. herrmann@ls4.informatik.uni-dortmund.de Dept.of.Comp.Science IV Subj.: Distr. Systems / Comp. Networks University of Dortmund D-44221 Dortmund From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: Re: Future of 757, 767 References: <3teiri$q0t@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:30 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>As I recall it, Boeing wanted a smaller seat count 757 in its original >>proposals. >John Nance, in The Sport Game, claims this was a major error by Boeing >since the 727-200 had a market to itself in the 150-seat class, and >the smaller 757 would have been the logical replacement. The 757 as The "smaller" 757 would be the never produced 757-100, but then again the 737-400 must have been fairly far along in design at this point. The last 737-400 I was on had a mixed layout for 140. I take it that the per-seat operating costs of the 737-400 are sufficiently below a 757-100 to make the construction of the latter unprofitable. Alaska Airlines claims the 737-400 is the most efficient airliner per passenger mile, any truth? -tim From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Future of 757, 767 References: <3teiri$q0t@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:31 I too wondered what the guy was smoking when he wrote the article. Both the 757 and 767 are past break-even and are cash cows at this point. I think what confused this guy is the news that Boeing is discontinuing production of the 767-200, which is the older, short body 767. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jul 17 04:29:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: The Boeing Family Observed Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:31 Last Monday (7/10), transiting Dulles, I was able to observe a rare sight - practically the entire Boeing family. On the ground I observed: 707-320 (Luftwaffe) 727-100 and -200 (including a UPS aircraft reengined with RR Tays) 737-200, -300, -400 and -500 (no -100 that I saw) 747-100/200 and -400 757-200 767-200 and -300 777-200 (United) Of course, I flew in on a DC-10 and flew out on a Jetstream 32! ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jul 17 04:29:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "E.A. Singh" Subject: PW4000 vs GE90 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Computer Science, University of Liverpool, UK Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:32 Hi there Can anybody enlighten me on the type of control mechanisms used on the PW4000 and whether it is completely computer controlled? Is it controlled by a FADEC system? What about the reliability of this Engine? Any pilots flying this and can compare say against the GE90 ? --eddy From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: 747-300 Question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:32 Karl and I have chatted briefly about this, but I'm searching for a definitive answer. I have a photo here of 747-366 (SCD) SU-GAM of Egyptair. Her c/n is 24162, and she was delivered in 1988, toward the end of -300 production. The photo clearly shows this aircraft (definitely a -300 series) with the wingroot leading edge fairing like the -400 series. In the same book, there is a photo of 747-3D7, also a late production -300 of Thai Airways, which has what appear to be PW4000 type nacelles similar to the -400 series. The wingroot is not visible in this photo, and the engines on the -366 above appear to be standard -300 style JT9D nacelles. Does anyone know how these apparent hybrids came to be, why, how many were built, and who got them? I've heard that Varig had/has at least one -300 with both the -400 style wingroots and the later style nacelles, which would, for all intents and purposes, make it look externally just like a 747-400SR, except that the only ones of those built thus far are flying in Japan. Any information on this would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Jennings Heilig From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Do airliner engens run at approximately constant speed, varying only torque? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:33 In article st38557@vm.cc.latech.edu (Robert Westbrook) writes: > As far as I know, high bypass turbofans measure their thrust output >through the N1 (rpm of the fan) gauge, as opposed to EPR (engine pressure >ratio, which compares the static pressure of the tailpipe to static >pressure of the inlet, which I suppose could be considered ambient), which >is the best measure of thrust for medium bypass engines like the JT8, or >pure turbojets. The 777, which has probably the highest highest-bypass engines around, sets thrust through EPR (to *three* decimal places, no less :-)). EPR is a standard convention for thrust management, for reasons which have already been delved into extensively in this newsgroup. One manufacturer that still uses N1 extensively is GE, with some variations of the CF6. >RPM will of course increase when the throttle is put to >firewall, and the fan turning faster is the primary source of thrust in >fan engines. To answer the original question, since N1 ratings are high, anyway, one will not see as much variation as with a piston engine. An 18-30% variation between flight idle and takeoff thrust would be typical on the JT8D-15. -- 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 Jul 17 04:29:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Do airliner engens run at approximately constant speed, varying only torque? 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 Jul 95 04:29:33 > As far as I know, high bypass turbofans measure their thrust output >through the N1 (rpm of the fan) gauge, as opposed to EPR (engine pressure >ratio)... Only General Electric uses N1 as the power setting parameter. PW and RR both use EPR. RR actually combines fan and core thrust in measuring EPR (they call it Integrated EPR). PW only uses core thrust. From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@irc.ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) Subject: Re: Do airliner engens run at approximately constant speed, varying only torque? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:34 In article , st38557@vm.cc.latech.edu says... > As far as I know, high bypass turbofans measure their thrust output >through the N1 (rpm of the fan) gauge, as opposed to EPR (engine pressure >ratio, which compares the static pressure of the tailpipe to static >pressure of the inlet, which I suppose could be considered ambient), We had a discussion on this topic earlier: EPR is the ratio of total pressures, not static pressures. > The 707-321 I used to work on did have spring-loaded blow-in doors on >the inlets, or as I've heard some people call them, "auxillary air doors." >They would really start flapping if there was a mild oscillating >compressor stall... You could see them bouncing as you heard a "whoomp >whoomp whoomp whoomp..." :-) I have an old technical paper on the design of 707 inlets with blow in doors. I hadn't realized that these devices made it into production!! Krish From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:35 The rear ventral stairs were added when the number of passengers exceeded the regulatory passenger/door ratio. When the DC-9 was lengthened again, the dual overwing exits were added. The rear stairs are VERY noisey becasue the two air-cycle machines used for air-conditioning and pressurization are on either side of the stairs as you use them. The 'strong kerosene' smell is due to the APU being mounted above the stairs with it's exhaust exiting from the aircrafts right, again in the area of the stairs. When closed, the stairs retract upwards, but the ceiling comes down until it it on top of the stairs. This forms the emergency 'passage' from the pressure door out to the slide area. The slide, incidently, is automatically deployed by a lanyard pulled when the tail cone drops. The lanyard, in addition to causing the slide to inflate, also causes the tailcone to be pulled to one side, out of the way of the slide. For the D.B. Cooper fans, the FAA required all ventril stairs to be disabled unless there is weight on wheels. This prevents someone from using it as a parachute exit. Brian From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:35 >For the D.B. Cooper fans, the FAA required all ventril stairs to be disabled >unless there is weight on wheels. This prevents someone from using it as a >parachute exit. I was up at United's SFO Maintenance Center on Saturday for an open- house they had to celebrate the 1st anniversary of employee ownership, and they had a demo of a 727's flight surfaces and other large moving parts that you don't normally see at work. One thing which was noted was a little device with a fin which would move in an airflow to block the center door closed. It was spring loaded so when the airflow died down, it would spring back and allow the door to open. There might also be a tie-in to the WOW switch on the mains, but this is what a UA test pilot said was the anti-D.B. Cooper device. There was also a DC-10 which had the tailcone dropped down, and there is a ladder built into it for access without any ground support. Not much appears to be accessible from there, so I'm not sure why they bother to carry around the weight, but it's there. (Ok, not an exit, either, but you could see a DC-10 with the ladder down and think it had stairs in the tail like the 727.) -- 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 Jul 17 04:29:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:35 > ventral airstairs. Even the Russian-built YAK-40 has ventral > airstairs, which would lead one to presume that they are used as a ********* I wouldn't exactly call what the Yak-40 has "stairs" :) It's more like an extension ladder. Not one of the USSR's most outstanding ergonomic designs. Jennings Heilig (No disclaimer required - nothing to disclaim) From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: paulw@tenmail.mincom.oz.au (Paul Weir) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Mincom Pty. Ltd. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:36 In article avfoto@ix.netcom.com (Jay Selman ) writes: >From: avfoto@ix.netcom.com (Jay Selman ) >Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail >Date: 10 Jul 95 16:36:58 >Several responses to this topic have hit on various aspects of the >subject of passenger stairs in aircraft tails. Don't forget that the >early Convair 240s, as well as the Martin 202/404 series, also had >ventral airstairs. Thank goodness somebody else remembers the Convairs. You see and hear of them so rarely these days. They made a comparatively brief appearance in Australian commercial aviation but when they did, they really made an impact (on me anway!!!) The rear stairs closing into the tail, the long, long nose wheel and the twin exhausts on the engines... Wow! They don't make aircraft like that anymore...sadly., From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: showie@uoguelph.ca (Steve Howie) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Guelph Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:37 Dennis L. Murphy (dlmurphy@scooter.neosoft.com) wrote: : In article rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: : >The reason you see the 727 stairs down all the time is as a counter- : >balance, so the airplane doesn't rock back on its tail with a light : >fuel load. Youwill often see a supporting rod as well. I think the rear stairs on the 727 can also be used to "clear out" stale air and ventilate the cabin after landing. When I flew to Montego Bay on a *very* old 727 .. the airstair was lowered after the plane was parked, but the FA didn't allow anyone to deplane by that route - just the conventional front door. There was a definite breeze through the cabin. Anyone who has sat on the runway at MoBay will vouch for what welcome relief this is! This was the only time they did this on the trip YYZ->MBO-Santiago de Cuba->YYZ 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 Mon Jul 17 04:29:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: 747 100/200 differentiation question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:37 > As a quick visual differentiation between the 747-100 and -200, I had always > thought that the trailing edge of the engine pylon worked well. The -100 > had an almost straight trailing edge leading up to the wing, whereas the > -200 trailing edge extended aft, curved up sharply, then straightened out > to the wing. > > That worked fine until yesterday at Changi. An Olympic 747 SX-OAB had the > -100 pylon's trailing edge - but the aircraft was clearly labeled a -200. > > Were many -200 aircraft made with the straight pylon trailing edge? And > is there another reliable way to visually differentiate the 747 classics? I always thought that the 100 had a different wing design altogether. The 100 has a single piece flap design and the 200 and onwards a triple-slotted fowler flap set-up. This is also the case on SPs. Well, that is my experience anyway. Simon. From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747 100/200 differentiation question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:37 >I always thought that the 100 had a different wing design altogether. >The 100 has a single piece flap design and the 200 and onwards a >triple-slotted fowler flap set-up. This is also the case on SPs. I think you've got that backwards -- the SP has a single-piece flap, whereas the other 747s, including both -100 and -200, have a triple- slotted flap design. Other than the odd flaps on the SP, and the wingtip extension (usually with winglets) on the -400, all of the 747s have essentially the same wing as the original 747-100 had. -- 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 Jul 17 04:29:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:38 Stop me if you've heard this one before, but ... rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes on Thu Jun 22 12:21:24 1995:- > A control column is that big heavy thing with the "Y" yoke on top, that > is situated between each pilot's legs. > > A sidestick is a small handgrip situated on each sidewall of the airplane. Q: Why does the A320 have a sidestick and not a control column? A: So that, when the Flight Control System software goes down, the pilot has room to bend forward and kiss his ass goodbye! -- 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 Jul 17 04:29:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jf_avon@citenet.net (Jean-Fran\gois Avon) Subject: Re: US News Article/Beoing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CiteNet Telecom - Commercial Internet Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:39 > I can think of >no reason why the local paper here would want to make an editorial >statement on this issue. They certainly lack any basis for reaching >such a judgement themselves. > Have a look in rec.aviation.misc and read threads with names like Are larger engines more dangerous? and Ralph Nader to take on the 777. There KIS something going on... From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Boeing 720? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:39 I've been away for a couple of days and I came back to find this interesting thread on the 720. First - Douglas and Boeing both developed transonic airfoils, for the DC-8 and 367-80, respectively. The difference was that Boeing got lucky and theirs worked. Douglas ran into an early drag rise problem that necessitated a new leading edge being introduced after several aircraft had left the assembly line. (Drag rise is the sudden increase in drag that happens as the Mach number is increased) I have both the 707-100 wing and the early DC-8 wing and I would rate Douglas's airfoils as more sophisticated, but alas, they didn't live up to expectations. Dick Shevell has written about this and indicates that the initial wind tunnel tests of the airfoils were conducted at too low of a Reynolds number. For the record, the initial DC-8's wing airfoils were the DSMA-128 inboard, DSMA-87 at midspan and the DSMA-88 at the tip. After the new leading edge was added, the DSMA-87 became the DSMA-277, and I am not certain of the designations of the other airfoils. The 367-80 wing uses recambered NACA 63.5, 64.5 and 65 series airfoils. I believe the 707 wing also has a leading edge mod that was added to the outboard wing. The 720 grew out of the threat from the Convair 990's high cruise speed. Bill Cook (Boeing Chief of Engineering at the time) says he knew that Boeing had made the 707-100's inboard wing airfoil too thick. When challenged to get a higher cruise Mach number to equal the 990, he proposed adding a leading edge glove to reduce the thickness to chord ratio. Boeing legend is that the glove is worth .02 in cruise Mach number. If you look closely, the 727 wing has a bit of a inboard leading edge glove on it too. The 707-320's inboard trailing edge extension (called a Yehudi, because they were "fiddling around" in the wind tunnel when they developed it), also lowers the root thickness to chord ratio, accomplishing a similar improvement. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jul 17 04:29:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chusmann@world.nad.northrop.com (Christopher H. Husmann) Subject: Aging Aircraft (was Re: Boeing 717?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northrop Grumman Information Services Center, Hawthorne, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:40 I attended the AIAA conference on structures last April. One of the speakers, whose name I could look up if pressed, commented that the Air Force expects to keep flying KC-135s until the year 2034. Since this gent was from the Air Force and his paper had been through the same wringer mine have to go through, I assume this was a fairly official statement. The comment was also made that some of these tankers would be 80 years old at that time. Imagine some young pilot flying the plane his Great-Grandfather flew. Of course, I'm told we already have third generation B-52 pilots. Talk about aged aircraft. Christopher H Husmann Northrop-Grumman Military Aircraft Division One Northrop Ave MS 3260/W1 Hawthorne, CA 90250 Phone (310) 331-7140 FAX (310) 331-6916 chusmann@world.nad.northrop.com Unless otherwise specified, Northrop Grumman has nothing to do with any of the above. From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: <3tkm0s$7mg@status.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:40 On 10 Jul 1995, John Liebson wrote: > First model designator was 707-020, changed to 717-020, *perhaps* > because shorter fuselage more like the Model 717 (aka KC-135A). > I don't think Boeing ever assigned the 717 model number to the 720 series, as it was always part of the 707 family. Admittedly, it *was* a *very* different animal (can you say Dutch Roll?), but on the CAA/FAA Type Certificate it's still a 707. The 717 model number only applied to the military C-135 family, which, aside from a cosmetic external similarity, was a *completely* different airplane from the skin on down. If there is any Boeing documentation indicating a 720 ever being called a 717-anything, I'd love to get a copy of it. Cheers, Jennings Heilig From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: <3tkm0s$7mg@status.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:41 > There was a series of five aircraft built for Braniff as the 707-200 > series. Rather confusing: Boeing called these 707-220s, FAA said > 707-200. Used JT4A-3, 15,800 lbs thrust (similar to J-75 military > engines), for better t-o performance at high-altitude South American > airports. One listing even shows these as being delivered as 707-220s, > but as BA is Customer Code 27, others indicate 707-227. > In general, people (inluding Boeing) use designations like 707-220 to indicate the general type of airplane being discussed. When you get into customer specifics, they then use the full formal delivery designation, i.e. 707-227 for Braniff's -220s. In that particular case, no one else bought -200 series airplanes so there's no confusion. However, with the -300 series 707s, you could potentially be talking about a lot of different airplanes, so you have to say -320, -320B/C, etc. I think most of this comes from common useage. As an example, you don't hear many people calling the new Boeing the "Seven Seventy-Seven", most people are calling it the "Triple Seven" simply because it's easier to say. Cheers, Jennings Heilig From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eric@lfs.loral.com (Eric Burch) Subject: Re: Boeing 717? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: LFS-G CODA/I Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:42 In article , Pete Mellor writes: |> That is the first I've heard of a "non-7" Boeing. When I went on |> the guided tour of the Boeing 747 assembly line in May this year, |> someone asked why everything in Boeing ends with "7", and the |> answer is: nobody knows! One story I dimly remember reading (I think it was a book that talked about the development of the 747) was that Boeing's popular commercial pre-WWII airliner was the "272" and the "707" was chosen because somebody liked the "xyx" numbering scheme and the first few commercial jets were to be designated "707", "717", and "727". Or it may be a bad memory. -- Eric Burch -- Loral Federal Systems -- Gaithersburg, MD eric@lfs.loral.com usual disclaimers apply imagine a " :-) " after each period above From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: <3tkm0s$7mg@status.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISFSI Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:42 Jennings Heilig wrote: >history. I wanna know what's going to happen in 2045 when we get to the >end of the 797-800 series! Given that the cancelled first Boeing SST was the 2707, I suspect the numbering of future Boeing aircraft may well already be known. From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lbader@aol.com (Lbader) Subject: Similar vs. Dissimilar Microprocessors Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: lbader@aol.com (Lbader) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:42 Lots of discussion on n-version software. But how about similar vs. dissimilar processors for safety-critical flight control systems? Any comments? Also interested in any comments on ADA language vs. C++ for safety-critical systems. From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: GE90 troubles make page 1 of the Wall St. Journal References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:43 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >Wednesday's Wall St. Journal has a long article on page 1, column 1, >on the GE90's problems. It notes that the GE90-powered 777 test fleet >has now been grounded for over two months. It also says that the FAA >issued a "leter of discontinuance" on June 26, formally halting tests >of the 777/GE90 combination. > >The article highlights doubts about GE's ability to meet the Sept. 28 >deadline to deliver British Airways' first two GE90-powered 777s, I read an article from the newswire that GE has passed the bird-ingestion retest with the new platform fix last week. GE is now retrofitting the flight-test engines and expected to resume the flight test soon. I also read a report in Flight International saying that as long as they can resume the flight test before mid-July, Boeing and GE will be able to meet September deadline. >and >goes on to describe how the failures have cost GE some sales (Korean's >order in particular) which in turn has long-term ramifactions, since >losing an order from a given airline now almost certainly means no >chance of GE winning any followup orders from that airline. There are always exceptions, aren't there? JAL switched from P&W to GE when they ordered the B747-400, but went back to P&W for the B777. Lufthansa ordered the V2500 for the A320 but switched to the CFM56 before the planes were delivered. Later, they ordered the V2500-powered A321, but switched back to the CFM56 again with their recently-ordered A319s. >From what I have heard, even long before the failed bird-strike test in May, GE didn't have much chance with Korean's order. P&W and R-R were all along the front-runners in the Korean competition. R-R was rumored to basically give the engines free to KAL. I think one reason why P&W got the order is because P&W is the only engine company made a firm commitment to the 98,000 lb thrust engine which will power the B777-300. >GE says >that the problems are to be expected with a brand new engine, and >points out that P&W-powered 767s have over seven times the in-flight >shutdown rate of GE versions, but that's small solace if early bugs >drive customers away from the GE90. > Even with its initial problem in the early 80s, the PW4000 is doing quite well now. Similarly, IAE had many many problems initially. Now the V2500 has more than 30% of the market that it competes in. So, I think it's too early to call. BTW, I think "GE90" and "JT9D" kinda rhyme with each other. The JT9D is the most short-lived commercial turbofan engine, I wonder if ... ;-) -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: Cabin Noise on UA 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISFSI Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:44 Colin Povey wrote: >Boeing had several problems with some ventilation ducts in the 777. One came >loose during a flight with the Secretary of Transportation on board, requiring >a reduction in crusing altitude. Sounds like they still have some work to do >in this area. The way to fix the problem is known; the particular aircraft involved in this incident had not yet had the fix applied, and the aircraft, being a test article, had had all sorts of changes made to it, which exacerbated the problem. From kls Mon Jul 17 04:29:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 has dainty feet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Jul 95 04:29:44 In article rwi@whidbey.whidbey.com (Richard Isakson) writes: >>How did this mistake get all the way through Boeing's legendary engineering >>process? > >Engineering fixes will be part of the airplanes life as long as it's being >used. Engineering is an art, it's not a science. To expect an airplane to >come out of the design process in a state of perfection is to expect the >impossible. IF the statement is true (big IF), it would go against a 50-year Boeing trend to over-engineer its landing gear. Douglas, on the other hand, is known for under-engineering its gear; it's hard to find a DC-9 flight test program, for example, that doesn't have at least one NTSB write-up. -- 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 Jul 24 03:05:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk ("Niels M. Sampath") Subject: Re: 747-300 Question References: 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: 24 Jul 95 03:05:07 In article you write: > Karl and I have chatted briefly about this, but I'm searching for a > definitive answer. I have a photo here of 747-366 (SCD) SU-GAM of > Egyptair. Her c/n is 24162, and she was delivered in 1988, toward the > end of -300 production. The photo clearly shows this aircraft > (definitely a -300 series) with the wingroot leading edge fairing like ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > the -400 series. In the same book, there is a photo of 747-3D7, also a -snip- When did -200 production end? Could it have been a -200 which was converted to `SUD' (stretched upper deck) (as per some KLM `-300s' I believe) during construction perhaps? -- Niels From kls Mon Jul 24 03:05:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747-300 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Jul 95 03:05:07 >When did -200 production end? Late 1980s, if not early 1990s -- there was at least a little bit of overlap between the 747-200 and 747-400. >Could it have been a -200 which was converted to `SUD' (stretched >upper deck) (as per some KLM `-300s' I believe) during construction >perhaps? Could have been, but wasn't. Both KLM and UTA have 747-200B(SUD) aircraft, which were built as standard 747-200B models then modified with a Stretched Upper Deck *after* entering service, and JAL has similarly modified 747-146B(SR) aircraft. All three also received 747-300s from the factory, some of JAL's being 747-300(SR) models. Other than these three cases, all first generation 747s with the longer upper deck are 747-300s, at least as far as I've been able to trace. -- 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 Jul 24 03:05:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: 747-300 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Jul 95 03:05:08 In article , Jennings Heilig wrote: > >I have a photo here of 747-366 (SCD) SU-GAM of Egyptair. ... >The photo clearly shows this aircraft >(definitely a -300 series) with the wingroot leading edge fairing like >the -400 series. I have not noticed the difference between the -300 and -400 leading-edge fairing, so, I can't answer this question. Ummm..., I'll take a look. >In the same book, there is a photo of 747-3D7, also a >late production -300 of Thai Airways, which has what appear to be PW4000 >type nacelles similar to the -400 series. ... >I've heard that Varig had/has at least one >-300 with both the -400 style wingroots and the later style nacelles, They are not PW4000-type nacelles. Both Thai and Varig use GE's CF6 engines. The nacelle for the CF6 engines looks like PW4000's nacelles, i.e., the tail cone is not visible unless one looks into the exhaust. >which would, for all intents and purposes, make it look externally just >like a 747-400SR, except that the only ones of those built thus far are >flying in Japan. > I don't think the -400SR has the antenna(?) at the wing tip, right? -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Mon Jul 24 03:05:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: auyoung@unixg.ubc.ca (FLY CPA) Subject: Re: 747-300 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Jul 95 03:05:08 I noticed the 744 type wing root on the Egyptair 743 too! (Maybe we have the same book) I also believe a Cathay Pacific 742 cargo plane (VR-HVX Line # 776) has the same treatment. I sent my question to the Airliners magazine last month to see if they know anything about this, but I am still waiting for the answer. If I get a reply and if they don't mind me posting here, I will no doubt do so. Regards James Au Young From kls Mon Jul 24 03:05:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spreidel@aol.com (Spreidel) Subject: UAL Maintenance Engineers? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: spreidel@aol.com (Spreidel) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Jul 95 03:05:08 I work for NASA, and we're looking for a 747SP to be used as an astronomy platform. From information generously given to me by many of the readers of this newsgroup (thanks!), I've found out that United has quite a few of the type stored in Las Vegas. Is there a UAL employee out there whom I could contact about possibly setting up a walk-around, crawl-though tour of one of the stored aircraft? Please e-mail me if you or anyone you know can help me out. Thanks again, -Jeff From kls Mon Jul 24 03:05:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: PW4000 vs GE90 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: 24 Jul 95 03:05:08 >What about the reliability of this Engine? A recent Wall Street Journal article on the GE90 noted that the shutdown rate of the PW4000 was 7 times higher then that of the CF6. I personally wouldn't put any PW engine design that's newer than a JT8D on my airplane. From kls Mon Jul 24 03:05:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Michael Jennings Subject: Re: GE90 troubles make page 1 of the Wall St. Journal References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Jul 95 03:05:09 In article you write: >In article , >Karl Swartz wrote: >>Wednesday's Wall St. Journal has a long article on page 1, column 1, >>on the GE90's problems. It notes that the GE90-powered 777 test fleet >>has now been grounded for over two months. It also says that the FAA >>issued a "leter of discontinuance" on June 26, formally halting tests >>of the 777/GE90 combination. >> >>The article highlights doubts about GE's ability to meet the Sept. 28 >>deadline to deliver British Airways' first two GE90-powered 777s, > >I read an article from the newswire that GE has passed the bird-ingestion >retest with the new platform fix last week. GE is now retrofitting the >flight-test engines and expected to resume the flight test soon. I also >read a report in Flight International saying that as long as they can >resume the flight test before mid-July, Boeing and GE will be able to meet >September deadline. > Have you any idea how large the penalties that GE is going to have to pay BA are going to be if they don't deliver on time? Given that BA is paying an absurdly low price for the engines anyway, it seems that getting BA as the launch customer could be a very expensive exercise for GE. > >There are always exceptions, aren't there? JAL switched from P&W to GE >when they ordered the B747-400, but went back to P&W for the B777. >Lufthansa ordered the V2500 for the A320 but switched to the CFM56 before >the planes were delivered. Later, they ordered the V2500-powered A321, >but switched back to the CFM56 again with their recently-ordered A319s. And of course Qantas have done this twice, for some inexplicable reason. Their first Boeing 747s had JT9D engines, and they later changed to RB211s (although the Pratt powered aircraft are now largely gone from the fleet). Their first 767s (purchased well after they had switched to R-R for the 747s) had PW4000s, but later ones had CF6s. (Both types are still well represented in the fleet). They also have CF6 (I think) powered A300s that they inherited from Australian airlines. It is quite a consistent fleet from the point of view of aircraft (discounting their four A300s which I think they would like to get rid of they only fly three types - 737s, 747s and 767s) but from the point of view of engines it's an awful mess. Possibly they will order GE90 powered 777s so that they can have a fleet containing every large turbofan engine in existence :-) >>From what I have heard, even long before the failed bird-strike test in May, >GE didn't have much chance with Korean's order. P&W and R-R were all along >the front-runners in the Korean competition. R-R was rumored to basically >give the engines free to KAL. I think one reason why P&W got the order >is because P&W is the only engine company made a firm commitment to the >98,000 lb thrust engine which will power the B777-300. > This doesn't strike me as a huge issue. Rolls don't seem to be having any trouble getting the Trent to operate with those sort of thrusts, and the thought of their not producing a suitable engine strikes me as almost inconceivable. >>GE says >>that the problems are to be expected with a brand new engine, and >>points out that P&W-powered 767s have over seven times the in-flight >>shutdown rate of GE versions, but that's small solace if early bugs >>drive customers away from the GE90. >> > >Even with its initial problem in the early 80s, the PW4000 is doing quite >well now. Similarly, IAE had many many problems initially. Now the V2500 >has more than 30% of the market that it competes in. So, I think it's too >early to call. > >BTW, I think "GE90" and "JT9D" kinda rhyme with each other. The JT9D is >the most short-lived commercial turbofan engine, I wonder if ... ;-) > GE will get the bugs out eventually. The GE90 is such a big investment that they will commit the resources to get it right. The possible loss of corporate prestige if they don't means that they have to, and they have the resources to do so. As you say though, they might have lost a lot of the market by then. As much as anything I think GE's problem is that they have built too large an engine for the market. If the manufacturers were building lots of new large aircraft, having an engine that was designed for higher thrust from the ground up and which had more growth potential would be an advantage. As things are, the 777 appears to be its only market, and the other manufacturers can compete in this one. BTW, have you any idea how big the engines are likely to be for the rumoured 747 stretches? Are GE90 like engines going to be necessary? Four of those firing at once is likely to be an awe inspiring amount of thrust. Michael. -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. mjj12@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk "Forrest Gump!! Man, I violently *hated* that reactionary piece of subtle pseudohip drivel... Then again, I don't even like movies. But Jesus -- a movie that really makes the audience wish they were obedient and stupid?? What gives?? It's like something out of the depths of a Stalinist purge." - Bruce Sterling From kls Mon Jul 24 03:05:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: PW4000 vs GE90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Jul 95 03:05:09 > Can anybody enlighten me on the type of control mechanisms used on the PW4000 > and whether it is completely computer controlled? Is it controlled by a FADEC > system? What about the reliability of this Engine? Any pilots flying this and > can compare say against the GE90 ? As far as I know, the 4000 is indeed controlled by a FADEC system, though I have no idea about any reliability reports. Simon. From kls Mon Jul 24 03:05:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Future of 757, 767 References: <3teiri$q0t@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Jul 95 03:05:09 In article , Peter Herrmann wrote: > >It was definitely right to build the 757-200. But, IMHO, John Nance is >correct. Boeing's decision, not to build the 757-100, was an enormous >strategic error which facilitated Airbus (and MD) to attack the 150-seat >market. The 757 was originally designed to replace the 727. (I remember an early 757 ad saying that it would cost the same to operate the 727 and the new 757 which had 40 more seats.) Furthermore, it was no coincidence that the 727 production line was closed not long after the 757 was launched. The 757 has been doing quite well since the late 80s, but Boeing definitely failed its original intent. Arguably, the second-generation B737 did help Boeing to fill the 727 gap. Despite being a smaller aircraft, my observation is that there are more 727s replaced by the 737 than 757 partly due to, IMHO, the deregulation of the airline industry in the US. There was another 150-seat project that Boeing had seriously considered: the 7J7 with prop fan/unducted fan. Boeing did not proceed with the project because the new engine technology was perceived as too risky by the airline industry, and the oil crisis had subsided. >The 737-400 could not compete with the A320 and the 737-800 is >quite late after more than 700 A320s are sold already. It's more like 600 A320s, unless you include the A321 and A319. Also, I don't know if the 737-800 is "quite late". There are still some 1,300 B727 yet to be replaced. The A319/320/321 is a well-rounded family of narrow-body aircraft. However, with nearly 3,000 B737s in service and on order, Boeing has an extremely huge B737 customer base. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Mon Jul 24 03:05:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bedluvil@iglou.com (B. E. Dankberg) Subject: Re: Future of 757, 767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IgLou Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Jul 95 03:05:10 herrmann@ls4.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Peter Herrmann) wrote: > .. Stuff Deleted ...... >It was definitely right to build the 757-200. But, IMHO, John Nance is >correct. Boeing's decision, not to build the 757-100, was an enormous >strategic error which facilitated Airbus (and MD) to attack the 150-seat >market. The 737-400 could not compete with the A320 and the 737-800 is >quite late after more than 700 A320s are sold already. Further, the >A320s opens the way to its derivations A321 and A319 (and, perhaps, to >the A330s and A340s) in many airlines. >A useful scenario might have been to start with the 757-100 in the early >Eighties and to offer the 757-200 four or five years later. But, of >course, it is easier to realize this now than in 1980. :-) >From all the analysis I've seen, the only advantage the A320 has on the 737-300/-400 would be when operating relatively long routes 1500nm + originating from high altitude locations. Specifically for United this was known as the "Denver Bump" and the 737 had some performance limitations that the A320 didn't. As far as competition goes, both direct and indirect operating costs on most routes typical of 150 - 180 seaters, unless the government is buying or Airbus is giving it away, the A320 series lose by a long way against the 737 series. regards... From kls Mon Jul 24 03:05:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Curmudgeon Subject: Re: Boeing 777 has dainty feet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 968 5800 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Jul 95 03:05:10 rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: >In article rwi@whidbey.whidbey.com (Richard Isakson) writes: >>>How did this mistake get all the way through Boeing's legendary engineering >>>process? >IF the statement is true (big IF), it would go against a 50-year Boeing trend >to over-engineer its landing gear. Douglas, on the other hand, is known >for under-engineering its gear; it's hard to find a DC-9 flight test program, >for example, that doesn't have at least one NTSB write-up. Boeing builds great airplanes but any pilot will readily complain at the cockpit comfort and fatigue-producing and hearing-loss-causing noise levels. At higher (CI's:-))speeds it's almost impossible to think let alone talk. After a long day in a brand new Boeing 737-300, one's ears ring well into the pillow. McDonnell-Douglas cockpits ARE more user-friendly and infinitely quieter. From kls Mon Jul 24 03:05:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bedluvil@iglou.com (B. E. Dankberg) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 has dainty feet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IgLou Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Jul 95 03:05:10 rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: >In article rwi@whidbey.whidbey.com (Richard Isakson) writes: >>>How did this mistake get all the way through Boeing's legendary engineering >>>process? >> >>Engineering fixes will be part of the airplanes life as long as it's being >>used. Engineering is an art, it's not a science. To expect an airplane to >>come out of the design process in a state of perfection is to expect the >>impossible. > >IF the statement is true (big IF), it would go against a 50-year Boeing trend >to over-engineer its landing gear. Douglas, on the other hand, is known >for under-engineering its gear; it's hard to find a DC-9 flight test program, >for example, that doesn't have at least one NTSB write-up. Sorry I missed the origination of this thread but the title implies the triple-7 has some landing gear problem. I haven't heard of any. I once had the chance to crawl inside landing gear wheel well when the #2 airplane WA002 was in production, and I can tell you, that gear is not dainty. Unless of course Seqioua's look thin to you! The wheel well was the size of my entire 2.5 car garage and there was nothing small or frail about that 6 wheel truck. If anyone has heard of any reported gear problems I would of course be interested in hearing. Regards... From kls Mon Jul 24 03:05:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Subject: ROLLS ROYCE TRENT 800's ON 777's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BUMCH Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Jul 95 03:05:11 Boeing is testing a 777 with Trent 800's that's painted in the livery of Cathay Pacific. However, I read an article in Aviation Week that said Thai International would be the first to operate a Trent-powered 777. My question is, why would Boeing not fly the test plane in Thai colors if the carrier will be the launch customer? Also, which carriers have selected the Trents to power their 777's? Thornton From kls Mon Jul 24 03:05:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Keith Edmunds Subject: Three out of four on a -747? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Midnite Hax Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Jul 95 03:05:11 On more than one occasion I've noticed three contrails from a B-747. Is it likely that one engine would be shut down? Keith ------------- Keith Edmunds Reading, UK ------------- From kls Mon Jul 24 03:05:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Prince error ruled out - official Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Jul 95 03:05:12 Prince of Pilots ---------------- - A short story by your favourite romantic writer, Silvy Krin * It was a windy day on the isle of Islay in June 1994, as the royal BAe 146 Whistler 4-engine jet approached on its short finals with 11 people on board. Sitting in the right seat, RAF Squadron Leader Graham Laurie was wondering if he had made the right decision in allowing his distinguished passenger to take over as "pilot flying" (PF) a few minutes previously. A landing in these conditions could be tricky, even for someone as experienced as the man who occupied the left seat, HRH the Prince of Wales. "Should be OK", he thought, reflecting on the Prince's 20 year unblemished flying record (apart from that time he failed the aptitude test in the simulator in 1980, and that near-miss in 1970 over Sussex). No. It would be foolish to worry. Had not Charles made his first solo flight in 1968 while training with the Cambridge University Air Squadron, gained his pilot's wings at Cranwell in 1971, and qualified as a helicopter pilot serving with 845 Royal Naval Air Squadron, being nominated "best student on the course"? Many times his royal superior officer had asked to take the controls during their flights together, and he, the most trusted pilot of No. 2 Royal Squadron at RAF Northolt, had always been happy to oblige. There had never been any problem before (well, nothing too serious), and the approach to Port Ellen airport seemed to be going smoothly so far, but something troubled the Squadron Leader. Had his judgement been influenced by the fact that, although he was the captain of the Queen's Flight and responsible under God for its safety, his royal master technically outranked him as a Group Captain? He watched their approach carefully. Strange that the navigator had not said an awful lot about the meteorological data. Something seemed not quite right. Should he say something? Something like: "Err ... excuse me, Sir, but shouldn't the nose be pointing forward for touch-down?" The ground seemed to be approaching very fast ... too fast! Should he shout "I have control!" and seize the control column, overruling his superior officer and the future King of England? Perhaps "Excuse me, Sir. I think perhaps you need a bit of help here?" might be more in keeping with royal protocol. It was too late. With a sickening thud, they were on the deck, and the Squadron Leader felt the g force ramming him down into his seat. The landing gear tyres screamed, then burst with loud explosions. With a horrible lurch, the 'plane slewed to starboard off the runway. They were on the grass! The nose gear bit deep and then collapsed. The 'plane jarred to a sudden stop, looking like some strange winged beast grazing on the soft Scottish bog. They were shaken, but unhurt! From the passenger cabin just behind them boomed the unmistakable voice of Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh: "You spilt my gin and tonic, you stupid f***ing b*st*rd!". "Shit!" said the Prince. "I just have, Sir", said the Squadron Leader. -------------------------------------- Over a year later, the Squadron Leader looked back on his shattered career. The final report on the investigation had just been presented to Parliament on 19th July. He was mainly responsible! Although the navigator had been severely criticised for not providing essential data, it was *he*, the trusted royal pilot, who carried the can! Even though he was PNF on the short final, it was *his* negligience that had caused the accident. Oh, how he wished that he had that flight all over again! In fantasy, he flew the approach once more. What should he have done? "If you think I'm going to let you land this kite in these conditions, you've got another think coming, sunshine, err ... I mean, Sir!" Perhaps even at the eleventh hour, he could have saved the flight. "Let go of the bloody controls, you bat-eared twit! I mean, please let me take over, your Royal Highness." No, it was too late. Never again would he be allowed to supervise another pilot as an instructor. To his credit, HRH had volunteered to give evidence to the Board of Enquiry, and was reported to have been "extremely upset" that the Squadron Leader had been saddled with all the blame. He was still the royal pilot, and indeed, had flown the Prince on many official engagements since the accident, but his reputation had suffered a severe blow. Forever the boys in the Northolt mess would snigger as he came in, and make cutting remarks about "the guy who daren't take the controls off that idiot". Looking on the bright side, the Prince had announced on the day the report came out that he would never again fly a 'plane himself. A palace spokesman had been quick to point out to the gentlemen of the fourth estate that this in no way implied any "loss of nerve" on the part of HRH. At least, the Squadron Leader thought, the Prince's voluntary self-grounding and the fact that he would never again be allowed to supervise HRH (or indeed anyone), should cut his dry-cleaning bills down quite a bit. He mentally totted up the Prince's hours on type, and reflected bitterly that (at least from the point of view of one's career) it is safer to fly an A320 than with HRH, particularly if one happens to be PNF when HRH is PF. "Shit!" said the Squadron Leader, but there was nobody listening. Copyright Silvy Krin, 1995 -------------------------------------- * "Silvy Krin" is the nom-de-plume of the famous romantic writer who pens stories about the Royal Family and other distinguished persons of the British Establishment in the pages of Private Eye. My apologies for borrowing both her name and her style. All the basic facts in the above fictional piece are as correct as can be established from today's Guardian and Daily Mail, apart from the presence of the Duke of Edinburgh on the Queen's Flight. (Other than the two on the flight deck, none of the 11 people on board were named.) All of the thoughts and private conversations attributed to real persons are, of course, the product of poetic licence, but if the DoE had been on board, the fictional reaction ascribed to him would have been entirely in character. Estimates of the cost of repairs to the royal aircraft (to be paid for by the loyal British taxpayer) vary from 1 million to 15 million pounds sterling. -------------------------------------- Peter Mellor, Third spike from the left, Top of Traitor's Gate, The Tower, London. Tel: Ring the Tower and ask to speak to the Ravens department. E-mail: yeomen@theguard.tower.hmpleasure ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Jul 24 03:05:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hrz090@aixrs1.hrz.uni-essen.de (Dr. Erdelen) Subject: Unjamming Gear on 747 - how? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Jul 95 03:05:12 Low and behold, airlinerers, well now, let's see if we can get this thread by our esteemed moderator.. :-) Yesterday night's sequel of "Airport" (TV soap operatoid centered around Duesseldorf airport, EDDL) treated us to a jammed nose gear on an approaching 747 (not that EDDL could take on a 747 in Real Life (tm) - runways too short. Having no gear on landing might help, though). Here's what the resourceful crew came up with (directed by ATC): - put pax through get-cushion-double-up-and-yell(for-TV-effect) routine - dive steeply to the accompaniment of many merry warning sounds - pull up sharply, thereby... - pulling g's and poppin' gear (on second attempt) Airliners Question (I hope, Karl read this far): - Is poppin-jammed-gear-by-pullin-g's an acknowledged procedure for airliners, or at all a viable RL(tm), as opposed to TV, option? Thanks for any info. [Oh, yes: *no* fatalities except the drug courier with his stomach full of coke-filled condomes, one of which was ruptured by the g's... I *love* TV.] Regards, MArtin From kls Tue Jul 25 03:06:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ory034@unity.ncsu.edu (Kurt G Reinbold) Subject: B737 v. A320 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 95 03:06:39 Organization: North Carolina State University What are the range capabilities with a full capacity (pax, cargo, fuel) of B737-300/400/500/600/700/800 compared to the A319, A320, A321. If engine type is relevant, please comment. Include what the approximate full capacities are for pax, cargo, and fuel for each aircraft model. Thanks. From kls Tue Jul 25 03:06:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: 747-300 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 95 03:06:40 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>Could it have been a -200 which was converted to `SUD' (stretched >>upper deck) (as per some KLM `-300s' I believe) during construction >>perhaps? >Could have been, but wasn't. Both KLM and UTA have 747-200B(SUD) >aircraft UTA _had. At least one of UTA's 747-300 was lost to a fire on the ground, I believe, and of course the rest were swallowed into the black-hole we call Air France when AF took over UT, making AF an airline with 747-100,200,300 and 400. RNA From kls Tue Jul 25 03:06:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Aircraft Order Update (7/20/95) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 95 03:06:43 This list is getting too long. Since articles in sci.aeronautics.airliners are archived, in the next update I'll only list the total for the first half plus new orders. Special thanks to Stephen Nicoud at Boeing for providing me some of the info. I listed Saudia's order as firm orders, even though MD has not officially announced it yet. *** 1995 Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (July 20, 95) *** | |300/ | /* 737 \ / 777 \| 80/ | | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 200 300| 90 11| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N| MS | 3 | | | N| LO | | 1 | | N| CP | | 1G | | N| VP | | | 2G| | KL | | 2G 3G | | | GE | 2I 2I | | | | IW | | | 2P | | MU | | | 9I | | CJ | | | 11I | |U Land | | | 2P | | KE | | | 3P | | CV | | 1G | | | 5X | | 5R | | | AC | 10C | | | | BQ | | 2 | | | SV | | 5U 23U | 29I 4P| | AF | | 8 7 | | |Shandong | 3 | | | DM | | 6 | | | QF | | 3 2G | | | YP | 2I 4I | | | | UA | | 2P 4P | | | LTU | | 1R 1P | | | GMI | | 12 | | | JL | | 4 | | | SK | | 35 | | | ML | 4I | | | | LH | 20C | | | | LA | | 3P | | | IY | 2U | | | | BG | 2P | | | | NH | 10U | 3G 3P | | |Bavaria| | 2 | | | AI | | 2P | | | 3Q | | 3R | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 4 30 8 16 0 3 |25 42 14 2 13 10 15 26 0 | 56 6 | | 9 5 | A I R B U S ( 6 1 ) | B O E I N G ( 1 4 7 ) |M D(62)| Known Cancellations |___________________________________________________________________________| | GF | | -6G | | | NH | | -4G | | | AF | |-3 -1G -3G | | | 3Q | | -3R | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 4 30 8 16 0 3 |22 42 14 2 8 7 12 20 20 | 56 6 | | 9 5 | A I R B U S ( 6 1 ) | B O E I N G ( 1 2 7 ) |M D(62)| Letters of Intent |___________________________________________________________________________| | NH | | 10P| | | TG | | 6R| | | KE | | 4P| | | BR | | 4 | | | CI | | 4U | | | UX | | 8 | | | NG | | 2 | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 4 30 8 16 0 3 |22 42 14 12 8 7 12 28 20 | 56 6 | | 9 5 | A I R B U S ( 6 1 ) | B O E I N G ( 1 6 5 ) |M D(62)| 1 N in the first column indicates new (or missed) order since the last update. 2 The engine selection (other than the A340, B737) is indicated by the letter behind each order number. B,C,G,I,P, or R stands for BMW-RR, CFMI, GEAE, IAE, P&W, or R-R, respectively; U for undecided/unknown. 3 The A300/310 is kept under one column, so is the 737-300/400/500 (*345), as well as the MD80/90/95. (The MD80/90/95 order can be easily distiguished by engine selection: P for MD80, I for MD90, and B for MD95 [if launched]). 4 airline code: AC - Air Canada AF - Air France AI - Air-India BG - Biman Bangladesh BQ - EuroBelgian BR - EVA Airways CI - China AL CJ - China Northern CP - Canadian CV - Cargolux DM - Maersk GE - TransAsia GF - Gulf Air GMI- Germania IW - AOM French IY - Yemenia JL - Japan AL KE - Korean Air LA - Lan-Chile LH - Lufthansa LO - LOT Polish ML - Midway MS - EgyptAir MU - China Eastern NG - Lauda Air NH - All Nippon QF - Qantas SK - SAS SV - Saudia TG - Thai Int'l UA - United UX - Air Europa VP - VASP YP - Aero Llyod 3Q - Yunnan (China) 5X - UPS 5 Send an e-mail to me (chuanga@iia2.org) for any order that I have left out. Make sure the orders are announced firm orders with a verifiable source. - -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org ------- end ------- From kls Tue Jul 25 03:06:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dade0788@aol.com (DadE0788) Subject: B737 Overwing Exits Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: dade0788@aol.com (DadE0788) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 95 03:06:44 Instructions for operating the overwing exit doors on older 737's require that the door panel be opened and placed in the passenger row in front of you. Other planes have the operator ditch the door panel out the opening. With planes flying so full, how could they possibly be serious about putting it in a row of seats. (specifically, this comes from Continental's 737's) Bob From kls Tue Jul 25 03:06:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Goose and GE90 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 95 03:06:44 A cartoon was reported (in the tour operator's trade press in the UK) to have been pinned up on the walls of a certain (unspecified) small UK airline:- Frame 1: Somewhat distraught goose sees that it is about to fly into the intake of a BA aircraft engine. Frame 2: Goose is behind the engine, mopping its brow, and saying "Thank heavens, a GE90". 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 Tue Jul 25 03:06:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Wanted: PDCS Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 95 03:06:45 It recently struck me that with most airlines ditching their 727 Performance Data Computer Systems, there must be an awfully good used market for these things. Most airlines getting rid of them are either doing without, or replacing them with notebook computers, which are cheaper to maintain. If anyone knows where I can find a cheap, used PDCS (at least some of these must be getting scrapped), please let me know. I'd be after a CDU, computer, and mode annunciator, if the price was right. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Tue Jul 25 03:06:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "M.A. van der Eijk" Subject: Re: Three out of four on a -747? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delft University of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 95 03:06:45 Keith Edmunds wrote: >On more than one occasion I've noticed three contrails from a B-747. >Is it likely that one engine would be shut down? > >Keith Yes, it is possible. It of course does not happen often, but ferry flights (from one, smaller, airport to another, bigger, to perform maintenance on an engine) can be flown with 3 in stead of four engines. Another possibility is that one engine's temperature differs from the other ones. Michiel From kls Tue Jul 25 03:06:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ted Deller Subject: Re: ROLLS ROYCE TRENT 800's ON 777's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, Oakville, Ontario, CANADA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 95 03:06:46 > Boeing is testing a 777 with Trent 800's that's painted in the livery of > Cathay Pacific. I just got back from Seattle, and spent three days watching the action at Boeing Field. Saw the Cathay Pacific B777 on tests twice. Both times I saw takeoffs... and everything seemed to go smoothly. The thing that struck me on the second day was how much the tail stabilizers gyrated up and down as the engines revved to takeoff thrust. There was quite a lot of motion there, I thought. Although a lot of thrust can only be expected to set up some sort of motion, I suppose! (g) There are sure a lot of sad looking B777's sitting around Everett, waiting for engines to be mounted. Ted From kls Tue Jul 25 03:06:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rado1@ibm.net (Mark Radovich) Subject: Noisy Cockpits (Was: Boeing 777 has dainty feet) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 95 03:06:46 Curmudgeon wrote: >Boeing builds great airplanes but any pilot will readily complain at the >cockpit comfort and fatigue-producing and hearing-loss-causing noise >levels. At higher (CI's:-))speeds it's almost impossible to think let >alone talk. After a long day in a brand new Boeing 737-300, one's ears >ring well into the pillow. >McDonnell-Douglas cockpits ARE more user-friendly and infinitely quieter. I've found B767 cockpit noise levels to be the lowest of any aircraft I've flown. Although I have never flown a B737, when visiting the flight deck, the noise level did seem high. Mind you a B747 flight deck isn't that quiet either. Does anybody have any noise readings for various types of airliner? Are there certification standards for noise levels in cockpits? It would be interesting to make comparisons. Mark Radovich rado1@ibm.net From kls Tue Jul 25 03:06:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Aging Aircraft (was Re: Boeing 717?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 95 03:06:47 Yes indeed, everyone you talk to in the tanker community in the USAF will tell you the same story. There's absolutely *no* replacement in sight for the KC-135, nor is one really needed. What we *do* need is more capability from the existing fleet, but due to current fiscal policies, that's not likely to happen. If we were to spend a very small sum per airframe to put wingtip pods on the entire fleet, we would almost double the offload capability. That also opens up dozens more receivers to be able to use the aircraft on a single mission, as they now have to add the basket to the end of the boom on the ground. I've got some interesting BMAC drawings showing a mod which would (if it worked) allow them to carry the basket in a tail extension and attach or remove it in flight. The KC-135 gets my vote as the overall best aircraft ever designed, and the fact that they're programmed to stay in service until after most of the designers' grandkids are dead is testimony to that fact. Imagine having a 1943 era B-17G in front line service until the year 2023! That's what we're looking at with the KC-135! Jennings Heilig (No Disclaimer Required blah blah blah...) From kls Tue Jul 25 03:06:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lookout!msagara@uunet.uu.net (Martin Sagara) Subject: Re: Aging Aircraft (was Re: Boeing 717?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: msagara@lookout.ecte.uswc.uswest.com Organization: US WEST Information Technologies Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 95 03:06:47 Christopher H. Husmann (chusmann@world.nad.northrop.com) wrote: : I attended the AIAA conference on structures last April. One of the : speakers, whose name I could look up if pressed, commented that the Air : Force expects to keep flying KC-135s until the year 2034. Yes, I concur with this figure. I became involved with the KC-135 while working on the KC-135 Aircrew Training System proposal when I was with FlightSafety Services Corp (FlightSafety won that contract by the way). Apparently, the KC-135s have fairly low usage rates and that, in part, accounts for their long life. One of the incentives for bidding on the KC-135 ATS was the fact that it was going to be around for a long time. When I found out the that the USAF planned to keep "the Steamjet" around until 2034, I was stunned! I did some checking with a few Casey drivers and confirmed this. At one of the training sites I used to visit (Altus AFB, OK), the local population was overjoyed when the turbofan-powered "R" models were introduced. Apparently the water-injection A models made quite a racket! -- Martin Sagara Member of the Technical Staff U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS msagara@lookout.ecte.uswc.uswest.com I don't in anyway speak for U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, The Phone Company. "Reality is when IT happens to YOU" From kls Fri Jul 28 02:53:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: PW4000 vs GE90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 02:53:18 tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) wrote: >A recent Wall Street Journal article on the GE90 noted that the shutdown >rate of the PW4000 was 7 times higher then that of the CF6. And for years, Southwest Airlines had to report that the dispatch reliability of its CFM-56 powered 737's was lower than its (aging) 727-200's, the JT9 had problems when new, the CF-6 is less reliable than the JT8D, etc. etc. Seems to me that the "old" engine (regardless of maker) in a comparison such as the above *usually* has the lower shutdown rate or higher dispatch reliability. >I personally wouldn't put any PW engine design that's newer than a JT8D on >my airplane. I've never heard a foul word uttered about the PW 2000 series. -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Fri Jul 28 02:53:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gman@bu.edu (George Mantis) Subject: Re: PW4000 vs GE90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boston University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 02:53:18 TriStar500 (tristar500@aol.com) wrote: : >What about the reliability of this Engine? : A recent Wall Street Journal article on the GE90 noted that the shutdown : rate of the PW4000 was 7 times higher then that of the CF6. : I personally wouldn't put any PW engine design that's newer than a JT8D on : my airplane. You should realize, the CF6 is a much older series than the PW4000, so CFM International has had a LOT more time to "iron out the kinks" than Pratt & Whitney. Besides: the GE90 is NOT part of the CF6 series! The GE90 is an all-new engine; the PW4084 is a derivative posessing all of the proven technologies of its predecessors. Therefore, P&W engines on your 777 would be a wise investment. (Case in point: look at all the "adjustments" GE had to make to its GE90 following thenukerouse difficulties they experienced during the 777 flight test program.) Finally: the PW2000 series are at least as reliable as any of the old JT8D's. Check your facts on the B-757 and C17 (which uses the military version of the PW2037). No offense, but I hope you're not involved in technical purchasing for any airlines. --George C. Mantis + + + + + G e O r G e C o N s T a N t I n E M a N t I s + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + g M a N @ a C s . B u . E d U + + + + + + + + + + From kls Fri Jul 28 02:53:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Subject: Cross sectional area of NLA? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Maine System Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 02:53:19 I know that the cross sectional area for the body of the MD-12 is 49.3m^2. Does Boeing have a blueprint for the NLA? From kls Fri Jul 28 02:53:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tanksalot@megaweb.com (Loco Hombre) Subject: Re: Unjamming Gear on 747 - how? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Los Dos Locos Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 02:53:19 > Here's what the resourceful crew came up with (directed by ATC): > - put pax through get-cushion-double-up-and-yell(for-TV-effect) routine > - dive steeply to the accompaniment of many merry warning sounds > - pull up sharply, thereby... > - pulling g's and poppin' gear (on second attempt) > >Airliners Question (I hope, Karl read this far): > - Is poppin-jammed-gear-by-pullin-g's an acknowledged procedure for > airliners, or at all a viable RL(tm), as opposed to TV, option? I have read several articles, none of which come readily to mind, of pilots performing similar manaevers to lower stuck gear. If I remember correctly, Flying magazine had an article about 3 years ago, that detailed the efforts of a 727 crew to lower stuck gear by pulling g's. I also vaguely remember a 737 crew trying that and a 767 crew also...these happened roughly 7 years ago. Haven't heard of any incidents lately, and strangely, don't recall any McDonald or Airbus aircraft doing the g pull-ups...maybe they aren't strong enough? Loco From kls Fri Jul 28 02:53:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: Unjamming Gear on 747 - how? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 02:53:19 In article , Dr. Erdelen wrote: >Airliners Question (I hope, Karl read this far): > - Is poppin-jammed-gear-by-pullin-g's an acknowledged procedure for > airliners, or at all a viable RL(tm), as opposed to TV, option? This is definitely a procedure recommended for small aircraft, but transport category aircraft are only certified to +2.5 G's, so a pilot could try it, but could not put too much pull on the wings, lest they might decide to part company with the rest of the aircraft. __ Keith Barr barr@netcom.com COM-ASMEL-IA-A&IGI Broomfield, Colorado, USA http://chinook.atd.ucar.edu/~barr From kls Fri Jul 28 02:53:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Brad Gillies Subject: Re: Unjamming Gear on 747 - how? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 02:53:19 One of our Canadair Regional Jets (RJ) had this very problem a few weeks ago. The Flight crew actually did fly high G manouvers in order to dislodge the gear. The attemp eventually worked Just before an nose gear up landing. The result was 3 sick passengers and no other damage. Later Brad From kls Fri Jul 28 02:53:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eureka@sam.neosoft.com (Paul Kronfield) Subject: UAL maint eng in China Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eureka International Group of Companies Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 02:53:19 I understand UAL has a maintenance engineer working on C checks for 737 aircraft in Chengdu, Sichuan, China. Does anybody know if there is anything "afoot" between UAL and China Southwest Airlines? Richard Seeger Seascape@neosoft.com From kls Fri Jul 28 02:53:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: Future of 757, 767 References: <3teiri$q0t@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 02:53:20 > It's more like 600 A320s, unless you include the A321 and A319. > Also, I don't know if the 737-800 is "quite late". There are still some > 1,300 B727 yet to be replaced. The A319/320/321 is a well-rounded > family of narrow-body aircraft. However, with nearly 3,000 B737s in > service and on order, Boeing has an extremely huge B737 customer base. I am not sure that a 737 operator will automatically replace their old 737s with new 737s. While Boeing didn't have that gap filled, some airlines started to buy Airbuses. Take for instance, Canadian Airlines with some old 737-200s. A few years ago, when they needed new aircrafts, they chose the A320. Now, when they will wish to replace their old 737s, they have a choice of going with the 320 family (319-320-321), or getting the new revamped 737 family. QUESTION: is the new generation of 737s compatible with the old 737-200s in terms of pilots, maintenance etc ? From kls Fri Jul 28 02:53:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: 747-300 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 02:53:20 > Could have been, but wasn't. Both KLM and UTA have 747-200B(SUD) > aircraft, which were built as standard 747-200B models then modified > with a Stretched Upper Deck *after* entering service, and JAL has Pardon my ignorance, but it would seem to me that stretching the upper deck to make it like that of the 300-400 series would be quite a complex operation. I really wonder why an airline would go through the trouble to add a few more seats. Doesn't that involve moving the stairs ? Doesn't that involve changing structural features to support the extended 2nd floor ? Doesn't that affect a lot of wires and mechanical controls ? Doesn't that change the aircraft's centre of gravity ? Aerodynamics ? Would such a conversion actually make a 200 into a 300 as far as maintenance, performance etc are concerned ? Or would these conversions simply extend the top but keep the rest of the plane as a 200 ? From kls Fri Jul 28 02:53:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: RE: ROLLS ROYCE TRENT 800's ON 777's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 02:53:20 In article Thornton Shepherd (tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu) wrote: > Boeing is testing a 777 with Trent 800's that's painted in the livery of > Cathay Pacific. However, I read an article in Aviation Week that said > Thai International would be the first to operate a Trent-powered 777. > My question is, why would Boeing not fly the test plane in Thai colors if > the carrier will be the launch customer? Also, which carriers have > selected the Trents to power their 777's? Although Cathay ordered the B777 later than Thai did, Cathay probably played a much more significant role in defining the Trent-powered B777 than Thai did. Cathay is Rolls' most loyal customer. Cathay's insistence on an R-R-powered B747-400 resulted in R-R's abandonment of cooperation with General Electric in developing high-thrust engines. Cathay also launched the Trent 700 which powers the A330. Other than Cathay and Thai, Emirates and Transbrasil have also selected the Trent 800 for their B777s. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Fri Jul 28 02:53:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Aviation Daily on upcoming United order Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 02:53:21 The following appeared in Aviation Daily on July 10, p. 27: United may establish a competition betewen the Airbus A319 and the Boeing 737-800 -- neither of which has flown -- as it determines which of the aircraft to order. The A319 is scheduled to fly in September, the 737-800 next year. Minor nit -- the 737-700 is due to be rolled out in December of next year, which means the -800 probably won't see its first flight until the year after next. The interesting part is the pairing of aircraft. This is presumably the upcoming order reported in the Wall St. Journal on May 22, and noted in this newsgroup. That article said the order was expected to be for about 40 aircraft, including 15 large (180+ seat capacity) twins, undoubtedly from Boeing. (757, 767, and/or 777.) The other 25 would be 100-150 seat aircraft. All 40 were to be "replacements for some older aircraft." United said earlier this year that a number of older aircraft would be retired by 1997 or 1998, including the 747-100, DC-10-10, and 737-222 models. The AD report seems to conflict with the earlier reports on several counts. Obviously the 100-150 seat aircraft would be the 737-222 replacements. A same-size replacement would be the 737-500, or the -600 if United is willing to wait until 1998 to even start receiving the new aircraft. The A319 is bigger, comparable in size to a 737-300 (or -700), while the the 737-800 is considerably bigger yet, roughly equaly or maybe slightly larger than the A320. They aren't direct competitors with each other, and neither would be an obvious 737-200 replacement! What it really sounds like is the A319 as a step towards a long-term replacement of the current 737-300 fleet (same size), or the 737-800 as an eventual replacement for the A320 (again, same size, and on leases that can easily be dropped wihtin several years for half of the aircraft). Is United playing hardball with Airbus and Boeing, essentially offering each the chance to not only win a small order but also begin pushing out the other company's products from United's fleet? 8-) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Jul 28 02:53:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Future of 757, 767 References: <3teiri$q0t@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 02:53:21 In article , Tim Takahashi wrote: >In article , >Karl Swartz wrote: >>>As I recall it, Boeing wanted a smaller seat count 757 in its original >>>proposals. > >>John Nance, in The Sport Game, claims this was a major error by Boeing >>since the 727-200 had a market to itself in the 150-seat class, and >>the smaller 757 would have been the logical replacement. The 757 as It was _The Sporty Game_, and it was written by John Newhouse. >The "smaller" 757 would be the never produced 757-100, but then again >the 737-400 must have been fairly far along in design at this point. >The last 737-400 I was on had a mixed layout for 140. Nope. The 757 was under development in the late 1970s, and the 737-400 program didn't launch until around 1984 or 1985. Your memory of the size is correct. >I take it that the per-seat operating costs of the 737-400 are >sufficiently below a 757-100 to make the construction of the latter >unprofitable. Alaska Airlines claims the 737-400 is the most >efficient airliner per passenger mile, any truth? The 737-400s Direct Operating Costs per seat are very low. But only for the single-aisle, short-haul markets. The 757 bridges the gap between the single-aisle airplanes and the twin aisle airplanes. That is, the 757's design is for a different market segment, and it is not as suitable for the short-haul, austere airport environment as the 737. Really, how much demand can their be for a 5,000 nmi 185 seat airplane? After all, the A321 has about that capacity, though nothing like that kind of range, and it hasn't exactly been selling like hotcakes. :-) The lowest cost per seat mile is generated by the 747-400, if we limit the discussion to current production aircraft. The 777-300X will hold that title when it enters production at the end of the decade. An Airbus marketing person's mileage may vary. :-) -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Fri Jul 28 02:53:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels M. Sampath) Subject: Airliner Modelling Mail List Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 02:53:21 Just some info for any scale modellers of airliners out there. I've started a semi-moderated mail list on the topic. Hope that it will be the beginning of some on-line resources for those who are interested in scale airliner models, modelling, techniques into, and research for this hobby. To subscribe, send a message with SUBSCRIBE as the subject to: request@lofgren.demon.co.uk Cheers, -- Niels From kls Fri Jul 28 02:53:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bryan Opalka Subject: Boeing 7J7 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Electronic Data Systems/HMPS/CSW Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 02:53:22 All, With all the talk about the 717 here lately, it got me thinking of another Boeing airliner that I have not heard much about for quite a while...the 7J7. Does anyone know that status of that project? Just curious. Thanks! Bryan Opalka Noble Air ORD Hub Captain CIS: 72130,1362 From kls Fri Jul 28 02:53:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Walter.Baeck@ping.be (Walter Baeck) Subject: Fastest airliner ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Walter.Baeck@ping.be Organization: PING Belgium Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 02:53:22 Hi ! Could anyone tell me what the fastest reported speed is for an airliner till now ? (Could you express this speed in mph or km/hr instead of Mach numbers..?) Actually, I am interested int the fastest air speed reached for any plane, but I fear that reports on military prototypes might be biased. Therefore, I'd like to restrict the query to planes you can fly with yourself (if you've got money enough, that is). But if there are scientific projects which are solidly thrustworthy, could you mention those too, please ? Thanks! Walter Baeck. From kls Fri Jul 28 02:53:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Fastest airliner ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 02:53:22 >Could anyone tell me what the fastest reported speed is for an >airliner till now ? (Could you express this speed in mph or km/hr >instead of Mach numbers..?) Obviously Concorde and the Tu-144 will be tops on that metric, but I suspect that's a little more obvious than what you had in mind! Both cruise at roughly 1,400 mph or Mach 2.1. The Convair 990A Coronado was one of the fastest subsonic jetliners. The 747SP, which is slightly faster than the other 747 models, is the only jetliner I can think of which matches or at least comes close to the Coronado -- it cruises at about 645 mph, I believe. While definitely not a hot-rod by the book, I think a DC-8 holds the speed record for a "subsonic" jetliner -- during a test flight, one went very slightly supersonic, which depending on altitude was around 700-750 mph or so. I'm not sure if a 707 has accomplished that feat or not. (The China Air 747SP which went into a dive over the Pacific on February 19, 1985, after flaming out all four engines, is often speculated to have gone supersonic, but the accident report concludes that the aircraft probably stayed subsonic.) -- 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 Jul 28 03:00:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: carvalho@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Tassio A. Carvalho) Subject: 777-100 versus 767-400 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 03:00:16 Reply-To: carvalho@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Tassio A. Carvalho) Organization: Kindergarten Shortened versions of aircraft have a history of not selling very well. It happened with the B720, 747SP, A310 and others. I wonder what the economics of the 777-100 are when compared to a streched, longer-range 767, both from an airline perspective and the manufacturer. Both planes could be designed having the same mission in mind. From kls Fri Jul 28 03:00:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stefan Borowicz Subject: Aft Air Stair on Alaska Airlines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 03:00:16 Organization: Internetworks, Inc. Good memory! Alaska Airlines' fleet of 737-200QC aircraft all (but one! N741AS) have the aft air-stairs installed...these aircraft are used as our "quck-change" combi (passenger/freighter) aircraft and are used heavily in SE Alaska between Anchorage and Seattle. In full passenger configuration, these aircraft hold 111 passengers, or can carry up to 6 pallets of freight, or a combination of the two. The aft air-stairs are usually only used in combi configuration and/or in stations without jetway facilities. From kls Fri Jul 28 03:00:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: QGL@primenet.com (Norman Herd, Jr.) Subject: Interest in purchase of C-130 Transport Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 03:00:17 Organization: Primenet I represent an investment group which wishes to acquire a C-130 Transport. It will be refurbished and permanently grounded, thus does not need to be flight worthy. If you have a resource for such a purchase, I would appreciate your e-mail. Respond to: QGL@primenet.com From kls Fri Jul 28 03:00:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ztomcich@osf1.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) Subject: airplane fuel question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Jul 95 03:00:17 Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA a friend of mine and i got in a tiny trivial argument over the content of airplane fuel. I always thought it was a very pure version of gasoline. My friend thinks its more along the lines of crude kerosine. Who is right? There is a free movie at stake for this one. Thanks for your help. -- -Ziggy From kls Sun Jul 30 13:02:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: Re: 777-100 versus 767-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jul 95 13:02:06 In article , Tassio A. Carvalho (carvalho @phoenix.Princeton.EDU) wrote: > Shortened versions of aircraft have a history of not selling > very well. It happened with the B720, 747SP, A310 and others. I think the A310 did okay, at least much much better than the B720 and SP. > I wonder what the economics of the 777-100 are when compared > to a streched, longer-range 767, both from an airline perspective > and the manufacturer. Both planes could be designed having the > same mission in mind. Recently, I have not read any reports related to the 767-ERY. Boeing must be concentrating on the 777-100X. If the -100X is launched, I don't think there will be an -ERY. Most of the airlines interested in the medium-capacity, ultra-long-range aircraft want to use the new aircraft to serve secondary markets between Europe/N America and the Far East. Airlines serving the Far East are experiencing brisk growth in cargo revenue at around 15-20% annual growth rate. Airlines like Japan Airlines, Korean Air, Cathay, and Singapore generate 20-25% of their revenue from carrying cargo. Therefore, the -100X will be a much more ideal aircraft than the -ERY because of its larger cargo hold. Perhaps the better cargo-carrying capability is the reason why the A300/310 outsold the B767-2/300 by about 50 aircraft in the Far East. More importantly, the A300/310 has a much larger customer base than the 767-200/300 (since the Japanese airlines owned approximately 1/3 of the 767 fleet in the region). Therefore, I don't think airlines in the region will be terribly enthusiastic about the -ERY. It was reported that American, Cathay Pacific, and Singapore have shown strong interest in the proposed -100X. I'm a little surprised that American, being a large B767 operator, wouldn't be more interested in the -ERY. The latter two airlines, one already has ordered the B777, the other will probably be ordering some by the end of the year, the -100X is definitely a sounder choice for them than the -ERY. The -100X should complement the -200 and -300 very well, and the 777 can be the backbone aircraft for many many airlines. Regional to inter-continental, low-density to high-density routes, the 777 does it all. IMHO, the 777 will be an extremely versatile family of aircraft. Airbus will regret (if they have not already done so) that they rushed the A330/340 to the market. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Sun Jul 30 13:02:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@news2.ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) Subject: Re: GE90 troubles make page 1 of the Wall St. Journal References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jul 95 13:02:07 In article , M.J.Jennings@damtp.cam.ac.uk says... > BTW, have you any idea how big the engines are likely >to be for the rumoured 747 stretches? Are GE90 like engines >going to be necessary? Four of those firing at once is likely >to be an awe inspiring amount of thrust. My guess that the "full-strength" GE90 engines will be a bit much for the stretch 747. Isn't GE pursuing a new generation CF6-80CX engine that might be a better fit? Krish From kls Sun Jul 30 13:02:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: GE90 troubles make page 1 of the Wall St. Journal References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jul 95 13:02:07 >My guess that the "full-strength" GE90 engines will be a bit much for the >stretch 747. Isn't GE pursuing a new generation CF6-80CX engine that might >be a better fit? I doubt they even need that. Using the back of a virtual envelope, assume a stretch gains 20% in weight and thrust. That would give it a MGTOW of over 1,000,000 lbs, significantly higher than they'll be able to pull out of the 747. But 20% more thrust would only be about 67,000 lbs per engine, slightly less than what's needed for an A330. GE still uses the CF6-80 series for the A330, so I don't see them needing to suffer the weight and drag penalties of the GE90 to power a 747 stretch. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~kls/kls.html Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network guru to pay the bills From kls Sun Jul 30 13:02:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tmackay@uoguelph.ca (Anthony Mackay) Subject: Re: Fastest airliner ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Guelph Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jul 95 13:02:07 Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : >Could anyone tell me what the fastest reported speed is for an : >airliner till now ? (Could you express this speed in mph or km/hr : >instead of Mach numbers..?) I think that the Trident Three of BEA (British Airways) and others might rate a mention in this category. I understand that it was very close to transonic in the cruise. From kls Sun Jul 30 13:02:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk ("Niels M. Sampath") Subject: Re: Fastest airliner ? References: 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: 30 Jul 95 13:02:08 In article you write: > While definitely not a hot-rod by the book, I think a DC-8 holds the > speed record for a "subsonic" jetliner -- during a test flight, one > went very slightly supersonic, which depending on altitude was around > 700-750 mph or so. I'm not sure if a 707 has accomplished that feat I read it was a DC-8-40 (R-R Conway engines) later delivered to Canadian Pacific. -- Niels From kls Sun Jul 30 13:02:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) Subject: Re: Fastest airliner ? 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: 30 Jul 95 13:02:08 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > >Could anyone tell me what the fastest reported speed is for an > >airliner till now ? (Could you express this speed in mph or km/hr > >instead of Mach numbers..?) > The Convair 990A Coronado was one of the fastest subsonic jetliners. > The 747SP, which is slightly faster than the other 747 models, is the > only jetliner I can think of which matches or at least comes close to > the Coronado -- it cruises at about 645 mph, I believe. The 747SP cruise speed is much less than stated above. The 747SP being a lighter airplane with the original large wing certainly cruises at or above 35,000 ft. The speed of sound at that altitude is 660 mph. Thus 645 mph would be a Mach number of 0.977. The never exceed Mach No. for the 747SP is 0.92 and the cruise speed is significantly less. Jane's (1989) gives the max level flight speed at 30,000 ft.(inefficiently low altiude, higher speed of sound) as 619 mph. and this is max thrust not the normal cruise speed. Assuming a cruise Mach No. of 0.87, (the probable maximum) at the normal cruise altitudes the speed would be 574 mph. Stretching to 0.88 would give 581 mph. I do not think the Coronado was that fast. It gained a higher drag divergence Mach No. through the use of Whitcomb bumps, carefully shaped bodies placed aft on the wing. While the 'bumps' raised the Mach No. for sharp drag increase, they added so much parasite drag that they did not increase range and were never used again. The Convair 990 was not a successful airplane. Transport speed data published in the press are often exaggerated by the manufacturers who list maximum level flight speeds occurring at lower, inefficient altitudes, with higher speeds of sound, and max thrust which push he airplane up the drag divergence curve, a procedure never used by an airline because of sharply higher fuel consumption. Richard Shevell Email: shevell@leland.stanford.edu From kls Sun Jul 30 13:02:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Fastest airliner ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jul 95 13:02:09 Don't know about an actual 707 airliner breaking mach, but there are several documented cases of USAF C-135 variants doing so at various times throughout their long careers... Jennings From kls Sun Jul 30 13:02:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jfc@mit.edu (John Carr) Subject: Re: Fastest airliner ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute Of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jul 95 13:02:10 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >While definitely not a hot-rod by the book, I think a DC-8 holds the >speed record for a "subsonic" jetliner -- during a test flight, one >went very slightly supersonic, which depending on altitude was around >700-750 mph or so. I'm not sure if a 707 has accomplished that feat >or not. A few years ago an airliner (a 727?) was hijacked. The hijacker shot the crew and the airplane did a power on dive into the ground. I heard that it went supersonic in the last seconds. I'm not sure whether to believe that -- 700 kts at low altitude is probably well above the structural limit. -- John Carr (jfc@mit.edu) From kls Sun Jul 30 13:02:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: B737 Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jul 95 13:02:10 In article , Don Stokes wrote: >In article , >EGGERS RUSSELL <95russelle@gsb.stanford.edu> wrote: >>Earlier this year Air New Zealand grounnded 10 of their 13 B737-200 aircraft >>that had Nordam Hush kits fitted. >>Does anyone know the outcome of the investigation > >Last I heard (and this is strictly my possibly faulty memory of news reports), >the hushkits had been cleared as the responsible factor; rather the problem >was traced to the blades themselves. I believe all 737-200s in the Air NZ >fleet eventually had their fan blades replaced, not just the huskitted ones. > Out of the four follow-ups of the original aritcle, only one correctly stated that the problem was due to faulty refurbishing of *TURBINE* blades, not fan blades! -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Sun Jul 30 13:02:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tmackay@uoguelph.ca (Anthony Mackay) Subject: Re: B737 Overwing Exits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Guelph Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jul 95 13:02:10 DadE0788 (dade0788@aol.com) wrote: : Instructions for operating the overwing exit doors on older 737's require : that the door panel be opened and placed in the passenger seat...etc.. : With planes flying so full, how could they possibly be serious about : putting it in a row of seats. I have heard it said that this is so that passengers don't damage an expensive door in the event that the sudden evacuation turns out to be a false alarm. I suppose there could be some concern about passengers landing heavily on the door which they have just chucked out. On a very slightly related matter, I have heard it said that there can sometimes be real difficulty getting passengers to leave without their belongings in the case where there is no readily observable danger. You may think I am joking in saying this, but I have heard that British package tourists definitely want to take their duty free with them down the slides. Or, perhaps that's just the Scottish passengers! From kls Sun Jul 30 13:02:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cochran_ted@htc alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk alt.comp.compression alt.comp.databases.xbase.clipper alt.comp.fsp alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt alt.comp.hppd-admins alt.comp.hppd-users alt.comp.lang.borland-delphi (.Ted Cochrant.atari-jaguar.discussi Subject: Re: B737 Overwing Exits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell HTC alt.barney.dinosaur.die.die.die alt.basement.graveyard alt.bbs alt.bbs.ads alt.bbs.allsysop alt.bbs.doors alt.bbs.drealmbbs alt.bbs.first-class alt.bbs.gigo-gateway alt.bbs.internet alt.bbs.lists alt.bbs.lists.d alt.bbs.majorbbs alt.bb Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jul 95 13:02:11 In article , dade0788@aol.com (DadE0788) wrote: > Instructions for operating the overwing exit doors on older 737's require > that the door panel be opened and placed in the passenger row in front of > you. Other planes have the operator ditch the door panel out the opening. > > With planes flying so full, how could they possibly be serious about > putting it in a row of seats. (specifically, this comes from > Continental's 737's) Pitching the door out the opening isn't too easy for someone who is excited and doing it without any practice. [Thump! Bang! "Turn it around!" Bump! Clang! "The OTHER way around!"...] If the plane is off the end of the runway, and the smell of jet fuel is heavy in the air, and the flight crew is saying "Evacuate the aircraft!"... Every single seat on the aircraft will in fact be empty--most especially in the exit rows. [The former occupants being thoroughly engrossed in getting the heck out of dodge...] --tc From kls Sun Jul 30 13:02:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: John.Stone@bris.ac.uk (JR. Stone) Subject: Re: B737 Overwing Exits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: John.Stone@bris.ac.uk Organization: University of Bristol, England Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jul 95 13:02:11 DadE0788 (dade0788@aol.com) wrote: : Instructions for operating the overwing exit doors on older 737's require : that the door panel be opened and placed in the passenger row in front of : you. Other planes have the operator ditch the door panel out the opening. : With planes flying so full, how could they possibly be serious about : putting it in a row of seats. (specifically, this comes from : Continental's 737's) As indeed 55 people found at the cost of their lives in the 1985 fire on a British Airways 737 at Manchester (UK). The report of the official investigation noted that there had been serious problems opening the overwing exit and that this was a contributory factor in the large loss of life. The narrow seat pitch made it difficult to stand & open the window, so the passenger in the 10F window seat tried to do it still seated. All were taken by surprise when the 48lb window assembly fell inward trapping her by the legs. A male passenger eventually managed to lift it into another row. The report says that although it *might* be possible to envisage a scenario in which resealing the fuselage may be necessary (but doesn't clarify what that scenario may be) it is much better to throw the whole window assembly out of the aircraft. So you might like to ask Continental (and all the rest) why, 10 years later, they don't make it clear enough that: a) the window will suddenly fall inwards when opened b) it's heavy, and c) once open, it should be pushed out through the hole it came from. NB - I've not flown in a 737 for a couple of years, so perhaps some airlines now do have clearer instructions. Also, perhaps the window design means that it won't fit back through the hole, or would be likely to jam? John -- John Stone, Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 117 9288262 FAX: +44 117 9303889 RFC-822: John.Stone@bristol.ac.uk X.400: G=John;S=Stone;O=Bristol;P=UK.AC;C=GB http://www.fen.bris.ac.uk/civil/staff/stone.html/ From kls Sun Jul 30 13:02:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: B737 Overwing Exits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jul 95 13:02:11 Guess what? I don't care if the safety card says to wrap the silly door in a bow and send it to my mother for Christmas...I'm throwing the thing as far out the door as I can get it, and nobody better be in my way when I do either! Jennings (I'll volunteer to sit in the emergency exit row, please) From kls Sun Jul 30 13:02:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: BA fuel dumping Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jul 95 13:02:12 Snippet from today's Guardian:- "Approximately every 11 days, a British Airways airliner jettisons one-and-a-half juggernaut-loads of untaxed fuel before landing at its destination." The original information is taken from the British Airways Environmental Report 1994, which records 33 occurrences totalling 1260 tonnes in one year. (The same issue of the Guardian also contains a fascinating "story so far" account of the "investigations" into the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 six and a half years ago.) -- 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 Sun Jul 30 13:02:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Boeing 7J7 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jul 95 13:02:12 Bryan Opalka asked on 28 Jul 95 02:53:22:- > With all the talk about the 717 here lately, it got me thinking of > another Boeing airliner that I have not heard much about for quite a > while...the 7J7. > > Does anyone know that status of that project? The 7J7 was Boeing's original proposal to develop a fully fly-by-wire competitor to the A320 (similar size, similar market niche, etc.) in collaboration with a Japanese firm. The 7J7 was abandoned at a fairly early stage of development (or even study - it didn't get far enough to qualify as development) in favour of what has become the 777. A lot of the design ideas were reused, however. For example, GEC's work on the primary flight controllers for the 777 was originally started as part of the 7J7 project. This was quick reply (i.e., going from memory, without taking time to look up any references, hence highly error-prone! :-) -- 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 Sun Jul 30 13:02:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Boeing 7J7 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jul 95 13:02:12 It died a quiet death along with all the other UDF projects...sad to say. Jennings From kls Sun Aug 6 13:15:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) Subject: Slight lateral shaking in back of 777? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Aug 95 13:15:51 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA My first flight on a 777 took place a week ago. I happened to be sitting very close to the aft end, second or third row from the rear. Throughout the entire flight, there was a noticeable constant side-to-side bumpiness. It continued throughout the flight, with almost the same magnitude and characteristics. It felt for all the world like the side-to-side shaking you sometimes get in a railroad train! It was exclusively lateral; there was not a hint of up-and-down motion. The flight was generally very smooth, with the usual slight changes between glassy-smooth and very-slightly-bumpy. The lateral motion did not change characteristics (it did not go away in the glassy-smooth sections or increase in the slightly-bumpy sections). The shaking had a tight, controlled, _machinery_ feeling to it (as opposed to a "pilot's-hand-on-the-control" feeling or an "air-and-wind" feeling. As luck would have it, I was in the very rear row of seats on a 727-200 yesterday (Chicago to Boston, midday) and can confirm that whatever I'm describing was absent in the 727. The back of a 727 makes both small vertical and lateral motions, which "feel" like air-and-wind, and like human-pilot-adjusting-a-control. The 777's motions were very distinctive and not like anything else I've felt in a plane while flying. The side-to-side motions on the 777 were not large--didn't interfere at all with cups of water on the tray. They were not alarming. They were not particularly uncomfortable, although, as with side-to-side swaying in a railroad train, they mar the glossy perfection one might have hoped to find in Boeing's latest. But I did wonder what the hell they were. Anybody know? -- Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@world.std.com From kls Sun Aug 6 13:15:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: BA fuel dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: pete@meads.demon.co.uk Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Aug 95 13:15:52 In article: Pete Mellor writes: > > Snippet from today's Guardian:- > > "Approximately every 11 days, a British Airways airliner jettisons > one-and-a-half juggernaut-loads of untaxed fuel before landing at > its destination." > > The original information is taken from the British Airways Environmental > Report 1994, which records 33 occurrences totalling 1260 tonnes in one year. > (stuff snipped) You're right about the Grundiage, but their article is wrong. No British Airways aircraft (or any other aircraft I know of) need to dump fuel prior to landing at their *destination*. We only dump fuel if, after Take Off, a problem arises that necessitates us making a landing at an airfield *OTHER* than our destination. Generally speaking, we take off at a weight that is heavier than our maximum landing weight. Ordinarily no problem, as you burn off the fuel, and hence the weight en-route. For example, I have just flown a Boeing 747 back from Miami to Gatwick (landed this morning). Our Take Off weight was 319 tonnes, including 113 tonnes of fuel. Our max. landing weight is 265 tonnes. So, if we had suffered say an engine failure after Take Off, we would have had to reduce our weight to 265 tonnes before landing back at Miami. That means we would have had to dump 54 tonnes of fuel. There has never, to my knowledge, been a case in B.A. where the aircraft took off knowing it was going to dump fuel prior to landing at it's oroginal destination. Doesn't make sense, does it? -- Pete Finlay ## pete@meads.demon.co.uk B.A. FLight Engineer ## paf3@student.open.ac.uk From kls Sun Aug 6 13:15:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eirikur@ix.netcom.com (Eirikur Aackerlund) Subject: WTB: Boeing 727 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Aug 95 13:15:52 Looking to purchase a used Boeing 727, any offers considered. From kls Sun Aug 6 13:15:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "N. Kenison" Subject: Question on Anti-icing Agent for Jet Fuel Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Maine Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Aug 95 13:15:52 Hello! Can anyone tell me the names of the chemicals that are added to jet fuel to prevent it from freezing? I'm curious because I just read (in Noon's "Engineering Analysis of Fires and Explosions") that one ought to have one's affairs in order before pouring an anti-icing agent from a plastic bucket into a tank of jet fuel. Thanks for your help, N. Kenison From kls Sun Aug 6 13:15:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Another 747 question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Aug 95 13:15:53 Actually, this question relates to most Boeing and some other manufacturers' airplanes: Why is window spacing not even down the length of a fuselage? For example, a 737-200 has five windows ahead of the overwing exit hatch spaced closer together than the rest of them. This is hard to notice unless you look closely. I know that on 737-300s, -400s, and -500s (and 767s and 757s) there is a missing window due to the air conditioning risers, but that is a different situation. I thought a "frame" length would be the same all the way down the constant section area of the fuselage, but apparently not... Any thoughts would be apprecatied. Cheers, Jennings Heilig From kls Sun Aug 6 13:15:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jon46@ix.netcom.com (Jon H. ) Subject: Web Sites Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Aug 95 13:15:53 Does anyone know the URL(s) for the Aviation Week magazine Web site. From kls Sun Aug 6 13:15:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stew Pelegan Subject: Aircraft Characteristics Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Aug 95 13:15:54 Do you know of any Telnet, WWW, or FTP site where I could find aircraft characteristics such as climb rate, descent rate, etc.? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Stewart Pelegan Computer Sciences Corporation (301)921-3206 FAX:(301)840-8934 or (301)921-0985 From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) Subject: Slight lateral shaking in back of 777? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:08 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA My first flight on a 777 took place a week ago. I happened to be sitting very close to the aft end, second or third row from the rear. Throughout the entire flight, there was a noticeable constant side-to-side bumpiness. It continued throughout the flight, with almost the same magnitude and characteristics. It felt for all the world like the side-to-side shaking you sometimes get in a railroad train! It was exclusively lateral; there was not a hint of up-and-down motion. The flight was generally very smooth, with the usual slight changes between glassy-smooth and very-slightly-bumpy. The lateral motion did not change characteristics (it did not go away in the glassy-smooth sections or increase in the slightly-bumpy sections). The shaking had a tight, controlled, _machinery_ feeling to it (as opposed to a "pilot's-hand-on-the-control" feeling or an "air-and-wind" feeling. As luck would have it, I was in the very rear row of seats on a 727-200 yesterday (Chicago to Boston, midday) and can confirm that whatever I'm describing was absent in the 727. The back of a 727 makes both small vertical and lateral motions, which "feel" like air-and-wind, and like human-pilot-adjusting-a-control. The 777's motions were very distinctive and not like anything else I've felt in a plane while flying. The side-to-side motions on the 777 were not large--didn't interfere at all with cups of water on the tray. They were not alarming. They were not particularly uncomfortable, although, as with side-to-side swaying in a railroad train, they mar the glossy perfection one might have hoped to find in Boeing's latest. But I did wonder what the hell they were. Anybody know? -- Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@world.std.com From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: BA fuel dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: pete@meads.demon.co.uk Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:08 In article: Pete Mellor writes: > > Snippet from today's Guardian:- > > "Approximately every 11 days, a British Airways airliner jettisons > one-and-a-half juggernaut-loads of untaxed fuel before landing at > its destination." > > The original information is taken from the British Airways Environmental > Report 1994, which records 33 occurrences totalling 1260 tonnes in one year. > (stuff snipped) You're right about the Grundiage, but their article is wrong. No British Airways aircraft (or any other aircraft I know of) need to dump fuel prior to landing at their *destination*. We only dump fuel if, after Take Off, a problem arises that necessitates us making a landing at an airfield *OTHER* than our destination. Generally speaking, we take off at a weight that is heavier than our maximum landing weight. Ordinarily no problem, as you burn off the fuel, and hence the weight en-route. For example, I have just flown a Boeing 747 back from Miami to Gatwick (landed this morning). Our Take Off weight was 319 tonnes, including 113 tonnes of fuel. Our max. landing weight is 265 tonnes. So, if we had suffered say an engine failure after Take Off, we would have had to reduce our weight to 265 tonnes before landing back at Miami. That means we would have had to dump 54 tonnes of fuel. There has never, to my knowledge, been a case in B.A. where the aircraft took off knowing it was going to dump fuel prior to landing at it's oroginal destination. Doesn't make sense, does it? -- Pete Finlay ## pete@meads.demon.co.uk B.A. FLight Engineer ## paf3@student.open.ac.uk From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eirikur@ix.netcom.com (Eirikur Aackerlund) Subject: WTB: Boeing 727 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:08 Looking to purchase a used Boeing 727, any offers considered. From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "N. Kenison" Subject: Question on Anti-icing Agent for Jet Fuel Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Maine Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:08 Hello! Can anyone tell me the names of the chemicals that are added to jet fuel to prevent it from freezing? I'm curious because I just read (in Noon's "Engineering Analysis of Fires and Explosions") that one ought to have one's affairs in order before pouring an anti-icing agent from a plastic bucket into a tank of jet fuel. Thanks for your help, N. Kenison From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Another 747 question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:09 Actually, this question relates to most Boeing and some other manufacturers' airplanes: Why is window spacing not even down the length of a fuselage? For example, a 737-200 has five windows ahead of the overwing exit hatch spaced closer together than the rest of them. This is hard to notice unless you look closely. I know that on 737-300s, -400s, and -500s (and 767s and 757s) there is a missing window due to the air conditioning risers, but that is a different situation. I thought a "frame" length would be the same all the way down the constant section area of the fuselage, but apparently not... Any thoughts would be apprecatied. Cheers, Jennings Heilig From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jon46@ix.netcom.com (Jon H. ) Subject: Web Sites Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:09 Does anyone know the URL(s) for the Aviation Week magazine Web site. From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stew Pelegan Subject: Aircraft Characteristics Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:09 Do you know of any Telnet, WWW, or FTP site where I could find aircraft characteristics such as climb rate, descent rate, etc.? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Stewart Pelegan Computer Sciences Corporation (301)921-3206 FAX:(301)840-8934 or (301)921-0985 From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sikjes@utrc.utc.com Subject: ATR Prop Brake ??? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UTRC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:09 I recently flew a short leg on an ATR aircraft. I noticed when the crew started the right engine (couldn't see the left) the prop was held in position by some kind of brake. The engine ran at gound idle for a few minutes before the brake was released. When it was, the prop spooled up real fast. When we shut down, it was obvious the prop was stopped with some kind of brake, while the engine continued to run. My question... How many turboprop aircraft are equipped with a "prop brake", and why? James From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "E.A. Singh" Subject: Crash (Re: Fastest airliner ?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Computer Science, University of Liverpool, UK Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:09 John Carr (jfc@mit.edu) said >A few years ago an airliner (a 727?) was hijacked. The hijacker shot >the crew and the airplane did a power on dive into the ground. I heard >that it went supersonic in the last seconds. I'm not sure whether to >believe that -- 700 kts at low altitude is probably well above the >structural limit. I think maybe your thinking of that BAe 146 when the crew were shot dead by the sole hijacker (a disgruntled ex-employee of the airline), resulting in loss of control of the airliner at around 30,000 ft. I think as a result also security was tightened at all US airports. From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: showie@uoguelph.ca (Steve Howie) Subject: Re: Fastest airliner ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Guelph Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:10 John Carr (jfc@mit.edu) wrote: : : A few years ago an airliner (a 727?) was hijacked. The hijacker shot : the crew and the airplane did a power on dive into the ground. I heard : that it went supersonic in the last seconds. I'm not sure whether to : believe that -- 700 kts at low altitude is probably well above the : structural limit. : That was a Bae146 owned by a regional airline in the SW of the US (PSA??). A disgruntled ex-employee of the airline smuggled a gun aboard, forced his way into the cockpit and shot the flight crew. The plane then initiated a rather unorthodox descent profile (90 degrees) and screamed into the ground. Apparently the largest piece of wreckage left was about the size of your fist. I think the chances of being close to 700 Kts. were good, but I can imagine there would all kinds of factors which would come into play with that kind of plunge. Were the engines still going or did they flame out? Air resistance etc.etc. 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 Tue Aug 8 01:45:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Fastest airliner ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:10 In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >Could anyone tell me what the fastest reported speed is for an >airliner till now ? (Could you express this speed in mph or km/hr >instead of Mach numbers..?) The Convair 990A Coronado was one of the fastest subsonic jetliners. The 747SP, which is slightly faster than the other 747 models, is the only jetliner I can think of which matches or at least comes close to the Coronado -- it cruises at about 645 mph, I believe. ==== The 990 in the name possibly refers to a speed of 990 ft/second, or 675 mph/587 knots (see the PS). However, looking at the Standard Atmosphere, at 40,000 feet, the speed of sound is about 968 feet per second and stays fairly constant until 69,000 feet or so... Obviously, the 990 didn't cruise at supersonic speeds. Since the other figure I've heard for the C990 was a 0.90 Mach cruise speed, that would make cruise at 871 fps/594 mph/516 knots at FL410 (on a standard day). Then again, the 990 fps max could come at a lower altitude... Marketing. Who can tell? ed PS. I may be mistaken - the 880 in the C880 definitely was advertised as the fps cruise speed. I was extending it to the C990, which obviously may not be valid. On the other hand, it was a darn fast airplane! -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Brad Gillies Subject: Re: Fastest airliner ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:11 Here is the story of the fastest subsonic jetliner. I posted it here a while back but here it is again. THE SUPERSONIC DIVE OF A DC-8 By William F. Smith, Jr. The article in the Fall 1990 American Aviation Historical Society Journal by Dr. Richard K. Smith in which he states the Pan Am Boeing 707 reached .94 "a speed record that has not been exceeded successfully by another subsonic airliner" is not so. On August 21, 1961, Douglas DC-8, N9604Z, was flown to a true mach of 1.012 at a pressure altitude of 41,088 feet. The speed was attained in a dive in the Edwards Air Force Base area. The airplane was a DC-8-43 with Rolls-Royce Conway Mark 512 engines modified to Mark 509 thrust rating. The dive was initiated at a pressure altitudeof 50,029 feet (geometric height of 52,090 feet). The purpose of this test was to achieve an altitude of 50,000 feet and sonic speed. The airplane was a standard series 43 except for flight test instrumentation, a test airspeed boom on the right wingtip. The wing had the four percent leading edge extension. At the maximum altitude, the gross weight was 170,600 pounds (a w/s of 1,493,000). A pushover of 0.5g was held for approximately 15 seconds (22 degrees pitch) and no airframe buffet was experienced during the acceleration to mach 1.0. Takeoff thrust was used throughout the entire maneuver including the pullout. The maximum true airspeed of 662.5 mph was attained at 39,614 feet pressure altitude. Prior to the dive, the stabilizer was trimmed such that approximately a 50-pound push force was required to maintain the stabilized dive. This was done to aid recovery because of the low elevator effectiveness. The Askania Range at Edwards AFB was used to provide geometric height. The maximum observed mach on the production system did not exceed .96 in the true mach 1.0 area. Recovery at 42,000 feet with full up-elevator gave no change in load factor (also stabilizer trim would not function with this condition). The pilot relaxed the elevator and changed the stabilizer trim from 0.5 degrees a.n.u. to 1.5 degrees a.n.u. This gave a 1.7 "G" and by 36,000 feet the airplane was recovered and decelerating below .95. This airplane became the property of Canadian Pacific where it operated for many years. A plaque attesting to this accomplishment was displayed on board the airplane. Its whereabouts today is unknown as the airplane was ferried to Miami where it resided for a time awaiting sale. The C.G. of 27 percent MAC provided an additional aid for recovery. An F-100 photo chase plane and an F-104 pacer airplane accompanied the flight. A few interesting items during recovery. Buffet was experienced at 35,000 feet as the airplane was decelerating through .94 mach. During descent through 42,000 feet at mach 1.0, rudder pedal buzz was noticed and disappeared at 36,000 feet while decelerating. The rudder tab frequency was 28 CPS, but the rudder surface was negligible. Aileron tab buzz of 36 CPS was also noted. The dive recovery was accomplished in about 5,000 feet. This flight was Bill Magruder's idea and he was the pilot. Bill also planned a weight-lifting record but this was not done. I am always surprised so few people were aware of this accomplishment. However, Douglas did little to publicize the flight. Our friend, Joe Tomich, was the flight engineer. Later... Brad AME(Canada), A&P(US) Soon to be PP-ASEL From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Fastest airliner ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:11 shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) wrote: >I do not think the Coronado was that fast. It gained a higher drag >divergence Mach No. through the use of Whitcomb bumps, carefully shaped >bodies placed aft on the wing. While the 'bumps' raised the Mach No. for >sharp drag increase, they added so much parasite drag that they did not >increase range and were never used again. The Convair 990 was not a >successful airplane. True, the Coronado wasn't a 'success' by the standards of the 727, etc., but I have read widely that it is, in fact, the fastest-cruising airliner of all time, except for the Concorde and TU-144 (which was truly a failure). Convair spent a lot of time and money (too much, according to most people) in obtaining that distinction, including adding the anti-shock bodies you mention in an effort to get the plane to perform up to their goals. In terms of utilization, I think the Coronado was as much of a success as the Concorde. Quite a few Coronado's were flying into the '80s (with Spantax, I think...), and I wouldn't be too surprized if a few were still flying today. The only one I've ever seen firsthand was in the process of being cut up at Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International (Florida) about 4 years ago. I was amazed at how small the Coronado actually is (DC-9ish in size) since it was competing with the 707, 720, and DC-8. As I recall, the Cornado was powered by GE's first attempt at a turbofan, which actually had the fan mounted *aft* of the engine.... interesting. -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Doug Moss <75500.2007@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Fastest airliner ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:11 The pilot on that particular DC-8 was Phil Blum, who still works for Douglas Aircraft Company by the way. (My desk is just down the hall from his). -- Doug Moss 75500.2007@compuserve.com From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bobh@Eng.Sun.COM (Bob Hendrich) Subject: Re: Fastest airliner ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: bobh@Eng.Sun.COM Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:11 On a recent flight from Chicago to Denver on the 777, somewhere over Kansas the ground radioed that they wanted our airspeed. The pilot replied 490 knots, to which the ground controller replied "wow", and asked him to slow it down. We were an hour late leaving Chicago and the pilot had said that we were going to try to "make up some time". What is the "normal" airspeed for airliners over the continental U.S.? Bob Hendrich SunSoft, RMTC From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Walter.Baeck@ping.be (Walter Baeck) Subject: Re: Fastest airliner ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Walter.Baeck@ping.be Organization: PING Belgium Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:11 Thanks, all of you guys, for providing all the detailed figures and names. If going supersonic in an airliner requires all the four engines to fail, or implies a hijacker shooting the crew, I'd rather NOT verify that myself, though. Walter. From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eirikur@ix.netcom.com () Subject: Re: Fastest airliner ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:12 Walter.Baeck@ping.be (Walter Baeck) wrote: >Could anyone tell me what the fastest reported speed is for an >airliner till now ? (Could you express this speed in mph or km/hr >instead of Mach numbers..?) >Actually, I am interested int the fastest air speed reached for any >plane, but I fear that reports on military prototypes might be biased. The fastest airliner ever flown to date was the Tupolev Tu-144, (flew rev. svs from 1977 to 1983 with Aeroflot), with a top speed of m2.4 or about 1550mph. and a cruis alt of 60000 - 65000ft My Uncle flew Blackbirds over the former Soviet Union from Japan in the early 80's. He says that they regularly reached m4.4 or about 2800 mph. Further still, according to Janes Defence Almanac (c.1986-7) the famed USAF X-15 rocket plane reached speeds in excess of m6.2 (3900mph!) - JCD USAF AVMAINT From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: djm9@ukc.ac.uk Subject: Re: 737 overwing exits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Kent at Canterbury, UK. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:12 Having flown on Lufthansa, British Airways, InterEuropean, and British Midland 737-400s and Lufthansa, Air France, British Midland and Monarch 737-300s this year, in all their saftey cards (and on the InterEuropean safety video) they show the exits being discarded outside the aircraft. The 737-200s operated in the UK have the window seat removed on the overwing exits rows, and on the 300/400 series, the seat pitch is roughly 38ins to allow a fully grown adult to stand up and remove the exit. A neat trick by Swissair on their f100s was to not sell one seat in the overwing row, and have it as a crew seat (this might have changed when the F100 went from 3 class to 2 class as when I flew LHR-BSL-LHR they had 3 class and 4 cabin crew for about 80 pax!! And the flight was full! However, is anyone conviced about the safety of the (primarily European operated) 757s which have the full size exit behind the wing (also fitted to BA 767-300s) which swings downwards when opened. If the aircraft carried out a gear up landing, would it impede the deployment of the slide? David From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bruce Hore Subject: Re: B737 Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EDS (Aus) Pty Lty Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:12 >From what I gathered from the press, the problem was stated to be the Turbine Blades as said by the above. However what was not mentioned above, was that the problem was caused by the refurbished blades not being able to cope with the extra stresses that arise with the Hush-Kits units. It was then decided to change Air NZ policy to use only new Turbine Blades on the 737-200's Engines. This again is picked up from the local New Zealand Press. Bruce Hore Information Security EDS (AUS) Pty Ltd. BTW. After spending some time living near Wellington Airport in New Zealand, I can testify to one thing. The 737's with Hush Kits, while better, are far from quiet!!!! From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Subject: Re: 777-100 versus 767-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BUMCH Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:12 carvalho@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Tassio A. Carvalho) wrote: > Shortened versions of aircraft have a history of not selling >very well. It happened with the B720, 747SP, A310 and others. > I wonder what the economics of the 777-100 are when compared >to a streched, longer-range 767, both from an airline perspective >and the manufacturer. Both planes could be designed having the >same mission in mind. There is a well publicized theory that the birth of the 777-100X will mean the death of the 767-ERY. The aircraft would aim for roughly the same market segment and that would be counter-productive to one if not both of the models (just ask Mazda about its 929 sales since the introduction of the Millenia). The -100X also makes more sense from a technological point-of-view because the 767's design, avionics, etc. are approaching 20 years old. It would be far more logical to derive the new ultra-long range, low capacity aircraft from the more modern predecessor. This would allow the manufacturer to take advantage of its more recent advances in aviation technology. Thornton From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark.Brown@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Mark Brown) Subject: Re: 777-100 versus 767-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:13 Andrew Chuang writes: > In article , Tassio A. Carvalho (carvalho > @phoenix.Princeton.EDU) wrote: > > Shortened versions of aircraft have a history of not selling > > very well. It happened with the B720, 747SP, A310 and others. > > I think the A310 did okay, at least much much better than the B720 and SP. The A319 and B737-500 are also fairly good sellers (but in the lower capacity narrowbody market). -- Mark A. Brown; Dept. of Computer Science; QMW College (University of London); Mile End Road; London E1 4NS; UK. Tel: +44 (171) 975 5220. Fax: +44 (181) 980 6533. Email: eeyore@dcs.qmw.ac.uk From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ted Deller Subject: Re: Slight lateral shaking in back of 777? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, Oakville, Ontario, CANADA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:13 I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the lateral motion you observed, but the couple of times I watched the new B777's take off at Boeing Field recently, I was struck by the oscillations in the tail stabilizers as the engines revved for takeoff. The tail stabilizers flopped up and down quite a bit as the engines accelerated, but seemed to stop as the plane gained speed and lifted off. Yours is an interesting note, and well described! Ted From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org Subject: Re: Boeing 747-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 01:45:13 In article , Adam Finan wrote: >Does anybody have any sales brochures etc for the Boeing 747-400. The >-400 series is a passion of mine and I am looking for anything to do >with it. May I suggest that you write to Boeing's Public Relations Department. When I was a teenager, I wrote to Boeing's PR several times and got a lot of goodies from them. However, that was long long time ago, I don't know if they are still that generous with all the cost-cutting. BTW, my friend wrote to Aibus's PR and got some goodies, too. However, I had written to Airbus twice, and they never sent me anything, not even a reply. Perhaps, that's why I like Boeing more than Airbus. ;-) -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Tue Aug 8 01:45:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: Boeing 747-400 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: 08 Aug 95 01:45:13 adam.finan@zetnet.co.uk (Adam Finan) writes >Does anybody have any sales brochures etc for the Boeing 747-400. The >-400 series is a passion of mine and I am looking for anything to do >with it. Im also interested in finding someone who can get hold of a >model similar to the ones Travel Agents have, ie large injection >moulded. If you have any info please e-mail me. I am also interested >to know if anyone has Boeings E-Mail address if they have one. There are some brochures, but usually one doesn't buy $160M airplanes from a brochure. There are also about 30,000-35000 Internet addresses at Boeing. I have about three of them right now. You should probably write to Boeing Public Relations. PO Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Boeing Flight Management Systems From kls Tue Aug 8 02:14:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: deen@caip.rutgers.edu (Emile Deen) Subject: 747 fuel consumption question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:14:38 Organization: Rutgers University Does anyone know the answers to these questions offhand: How much fuel does a 747 (say a 747-400) carry? How much does it use to take off? What is the cost of the fuel (ie. what does it cost to get the thing off the ground)? Emile Deen deen@revenge.rutgers.edu From kls Tue Aug 8 02:14:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eirikur@ix.netcom.com () Subject: Re: airplane fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:14:38 ztomcich@osf1.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) wrote: >a friend of mine and i got in a tiny trivial argument over the content of >airplane fuel. I always thought it was a very pure version of gasoline. >My friend thinks its more along the lines of crude kerosine. Aviation fuel is of a kerosine base, and there are many grades of av-fuel. It is very similar to automotive diesel fuel, and in fact, the U.S. military uses JP-8aviation fuel for the majority of its aircraft, and diesel powered auotos. I hope that I have cleared this up for you. -James. From kls Tue Aug 8 02:14:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: furtaw6@popail.mcs.com.mcs.net (Bob Furtaw) Subject: Re: Question on Anti-icing Agent for Jet Fuel References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: MCSNet Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:14:39 In article , "N. Kenison" wrote: > Can anyone tell me the names of the chemicals that are added to jet fuel > to prevent it from freezing? I'm curious because I just read (in Noon's > "Engineering Analysis of Fires and Explosions") that one ought to have > one's affairs in order before pouring an anti-icing agent from a plastic > bucket into a tank of jet fuel. According to my Citation manual: MIL-I-27686E must be added with fuel that does not contain anti-icing additives... Excessive additive may cause fuel tank damage or erroneous fuel quantity indication...(then a formular for the ratio). Then another warning...Anti-icing additives containing Ethylene Glycol Monomethyl Ethel (EGME) are harmful if inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through the skin, and will cause eye irritation. Also, it is combustible. Before using this material, refer to all safety information on the container. The short version... I ask for PRIST (brandname) to be added. -- Bob Furtaw W8IL e-mail: furtaw6@popmail.mcs.com ATP, CFI-A-I/ME/G, CGI-A/I From kls Tue Aug 8 02:14:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Roger Denholm Subject: Re: airplane fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: itsb.das.gov.au Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:14:39 ztomcich@osf1.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) wrote: >a friend of mine and i got in a tiny trivial argument over the content >of airplane fuel. I always thought it was a very pure version of gasoline. >My friend thinks its more along the lines of crude kerosine. It would help if you stated what kind of aircraft. AVGAS is like unleaded petrol. AVTUR is refined kerosene. Both are heavily filtered for contaminants. Both have different grades for different engines. Real flight in a good glider uses neither :-) Roger From kls Tue Aug 8 02:14:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kward@apple.com (Ken E. Ward) Subject: How do fuel guages work? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Apple Computer Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:14:39 Or more to the point, could an airliner experience a failure in the fuel lines, which resulted in the loss of fuel, combined with a failure in the fuel guage (or whatever fuel-available monitoring system exists), such that everything would appear normal until the engines quit due to fuel starvation? From kls Tue Aug 8 02:14:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: BA fuel dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:14:39 In reply to my quote from the Guardian:- >> "Approximately every 11 days, a British Airways airliner jettisons >> one-and-a-half juggernaut-loads of untaxed fuel before landing at >> its destination." >> >> The original information is taken from the British Airways Environmental >> Report 1994, which records 33 occurrences totalling 1260 tonnes in one year. Pete Finlay points out (06 Aug 95 13:15:52):- > You're right about the Grundiage, but their article is wrong. No British > Airways aircraft (or any other aircraft I know of) need to dump fuel prior > to landing at their *destination*. > ... > There has never, to my knowledge, been a case in B.A. where the aircraft > took off knowing it was going to dump fuel prior to landing at it's > original destination. Doesn't make sense, does it? Quite! The original information (in small print at the foot of the page) makes this obvious: only 33 occurrences in one year. The snippet came from a regular column in their Saturday magazine called "Digitations" (I think, not having my copy to hand). The method of producing the column is devastatingly simple. You get hold of some heavyweight statistical report and read through it until you find an apparently alarming statistic which you then convert into terms which you imagine the average Guardian reader will find more understandable. (They had another one last Saturday, also pinched from the British Airways Environmental Report 1994, about the amount of garbage taken off BA flights at Heathrow in the year, in which the quantity of garbage was expressed in "juggernaut loads". Unfortunately I can't remember the actual figures.) It's an easy way to fill up a column. (Gissa job! I could do that! :-) I agree that in this case (and maybe others?) they have misled their readers. Why not forward your reply to "letters@guardian.co.uk"? :-) Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Tue Aug 8 02:14:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: crosby@nordsieck.cs.colorado.edu (Matthew Crosby) Subject: Re: airplane fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:14:40 In article , ZACHARY R. TOMCICH wrote: >a friend of mine and i got in a tiny trivial argument over the content of >airplane fuel. I always thought it was a very pure version of gasoline. >My friend thinks its more along the lines of crude kerosine. What type of Airplane? You are both right: Props use high-octane gas, Jets use (more or less) Kerosene. (Ironically, Jets are much less picky then props; you can run jets on just about anything if you have to). -- Matthew Crosby crosby@cs.colorado.edu Disclaimer: It was another country, and besides, the wench is dead. From kls Tue Aug 8 02:14:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: airplane fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:14:40 In article ztomcich@osf1.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) writes: a friend of mine and i got in a tiny trivial argument over the content of airplane fuel. I always thought it was a very pure version of gasoline. My friend thinks its more along the lines of crude kerosine. Who is right? There is a free movie at stake for this one. Thanks for your help. ---- You are both correct. Aviation gasoline for piston engine aircraft is essentially high-quality, high octane gas (currently still using tetraethyl lead as an octane booster). 100 Low Lead is the most common variety, at somewhere around $1.50 per gallon US. Most commercial jet aircraft use Jet A, which is very similar to kerosene in content, cost, smell, etc. Jet A is about $0.60 per gallon or so. I guess you go to the movie Dutch. :-) ed From kls Tue Aug 8 02:14:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) Subject: Re: airplane fuel question 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: 08 Aug 95 02:14:40 In article , ztomcich@osf1.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) wrote: > a friend of mine and i got in a tiny trivial argument over the content of > airplane fuel. I always thought it was a very pure version of gasoline. > My friend thinks its more along the lines of crude kerosine. Before paying off this bet, you had better define the question. You way you phrased it. the answer is yes! Highly refined gasoline for airplane reciprocating engines and something close to kerosene for airplane gas turbine engines (jets) -- Richard Shevell Email: shevell@leland.stanford.edu From kls Tue Aug 8 02:14:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: airplane fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:14:40 ztomcich@osf1.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) writes: >a friend of mine and i got in a tiny trivial argument over the content of >airplane fuel. I always thought it was a very pure version of gasoline. >My friend thinks its more along the lines of crude kerosine. JET-A is pure kerosine. On the pipeline I used to work on, a batch arrived, went to local holding tanks and sat. After ?24? hours, a sample went to the lab where it had to pass 15-odd tests before it could be released to the airport. At the airport, it was filtered (twice!) before release to the fueler trucks and hydrant system. I don't recall it ever failing, but if it did, it would have been pumped over to the {much larger} #1 Kerosine tankage. When we needed, in a big hurry, 25-odd clean tank trucks to haul Jet-A, they were given half loads (so they'd slosh) of Jet-A, and that was delivered to Conrail as "Kerosine". Only then the trucks could be used to haul Jet-A. Note that JP4 that the military uses is JetA plus all kinds of nasty light end stuff such as naptha... From kls Tue Aug 8 02:14:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ditab@mail1.halcyon.com Subject: Re: airplane fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:14:41 >ztomcich@osf1.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) writes: >a friend of mine and i got in a tiny trivial argument over the content of >airplane fuel. I always thought it was a very pure version of gasoline. >My friend thinks its more along the lines of crude kerosine. Most airplane fuel is a kerosene base, with additives for cold temperatures and/or dyes to differentiate the types of fuel. From kls Tue Aug 8 02:14:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ory034@unity.ncsu.edu (Kurt G Reinbold) Subject: Re: airplane fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: North Carolina State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:14:41 In article , ZACHARY R. TOMCICH wrote: >a friend of mine and i got in a tiny trivial argument over the content of >airplane fuel. I always thought it was a very pure version of gasoline. >My friend thinks its more along the lines of crude kerosine. Jet fuel is a high grade of kerosene known as Jet-A. However, the military uses a higher grade in its fighters known as Jet-A1. Jet-A has a lower flash point meaning that it ignites easier than gasoline. KGR From kls Tue Aug 8 02:14:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Brad Gillies Subject: Re: airplane fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:14:41 ztomcich@osf1.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) wrote: >a friend of mine and i got in a tiny trivial argument over the content of >airplane fuel. I always thought it was a very pure version of gasoline. >My friend thinks its more along the lines of crude kerosine. Well it depends on the fuel you are talking about. Jet fuel is similar to diesel fuel (I said similar). It is actually kerosene. (No added waxes or lubricants). Avgas however is high grade gasoline (Hight grade as in quality control) The octane ratings vary from 80/87 to 100/130. This fuel would be used only in piston powered aircraft. Later Brad AME(Canada), A&P(US) Soon to be PP-ASEL From kls Tue Aug 8 02:14:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Doug Moss <75500.2007@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: airplane fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:14:41 Ziggy: You lose. Jet fuel is your basic kerosene. Some have icing inhibitors to allow its operation to around -40C. But, its VERY LOW octane kerosene that wouldn't even come close to working in a conventional automobile with an Otto engine. -- Doug Moss 75500.2007@compuserve.com From kls Tue Aug 8 02:14:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: alkrug@wave.sheridan.wy.us (Al Krug) Subject: Re: airplane fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Computer Den, Inc. Evanston WY Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:14:41 In article ZACHARY R. TOMCICH wrote: > a friend of mine and i got in a tiny trivial argument over the content of > airplane fuel. I always thought it was a very pure version of gasoline. > My friend thinks its more along the lines of crude kerosine. You didn't say whether you're talking about piston engines (light, private aircraft, Cessnas, Pipers, etc) or jet/turbo props. Piston AvGas is just gasoline that is very carefully handled to prevent contamination with water etc. It has its own additives for octane boosting and color identification. (red,blue,green purple) based on octane rating. Jet fuel (including turbo props) is basically kerosene handled and modified in the same way. AK From kls Tue Aug 8 02:14:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: turner12@llnl.gov (Robert E. Turner) Subject: Re: airplane fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: LLNL Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:14:42 In article , ztomcich@osf1.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) wrote: > a friend of mine and i got in a tiny trivial argument over the content of > airplane fuel. I always thought it was a very pure version of gasoline. > My friend thinks its more along the lines of crude kerosine. What kind of "airplane"? Jet engines, including turboprops (all properly called "gas turbines") run on a fuel(JET-A) similar to kerosine (although in fact they are capable of running on almost anything that burns). Piston engined airplanes, like small private aircraft or WWII vintage fighters or old DC-3's,etc., all run on gasoline similar to auto gas. ("80" motor octane av gas is in fact very similar to auto gas, except for having somewhat lower vapor pressure. "100LL av gas" is just like "80" except that it has lots ot tetra ethyl lead added to raise its octane rating, for use in high compression engines.) Aviation gas is no more "pure" than car gas. By the way, the LL stands for "low lead" which is something of a joke since it has more lead in it than car gas ever did -- just that it replaced "100" which had even more lead! From kls Tue Aug 8 02:14:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stevel3081@aol.com (SteveL3081) Subject: Re: airplane fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: stevel3081@aol.com (SteveL3081) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:14:42 There are three fuels in common use, AV80, AV100 and Jet-A. AV80 and AV100 are highly filtered and colored gasoline. Jet-A is almost kerosene and inexpensive in quantity. A Jet engine will burn almost anything that has the right number of BTUs per pound. From kls Tue Aug 8 02:18:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gallope@admin.curtin.edu.au (Ted Gallop) Subject: Re: 747 escape slides etc. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Curtin University of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:18:23 In article daspork@aol.com (Das Pork) writes: >From: daspork@aol.com (Das Pork) >Subject: 747 escape slides etc. >Date: 12 May 95 03:22:48 >stuff deleted >The cockpit also has five inertia reel handles and cables which can be >held to lower each crewmember to the ground via the escape hatch on the >ceiling above the flight engineer's station. There are no escape hatches or inertia reels on the flight deck of a B747. You may be confusing it with the B707 which had four inertia reels and an 'escape' hatch over the navigator's desk (left hand side of flight deck behind observers fold down seat which is behind the captain's seat) If escape is/was necessary, skinny crew members could exit via the overhead hatch or either the captain's or first officer's slide-back window (number 2 window). the troube with the tch is that there is/was a danger you could rip your balls off on the (conveniently placed) pitot tube as you slid over the side. From memory, the Pan Am pilots in Karachi were in a B707 and escaped using the inertia reels through the left hand sliding window. Ted Gallop From kls Tue Aug 8 02:18:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dw645@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Messina) Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: dw645@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Messina) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:18:24 >In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert >Dorsett) wrote: >> The inertia reels would certainly be exciting, especially if they don't >> work. The Airbus A-300 has 6 inertia reel rope/handles, 3 for the Captain, First Officer and Flight Engineer, and 3 spares for cockpit observers. One might be inclined to grab two handles if the extra one is available so as to descend slower. HOWEVER, as in the electrical circuit analogy, two identical resistors in parallel reduce the total resistance in half, so two handles let you descend twice as fast:-) From kls Tue Aug 8 02:18:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: 747-300 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:18:24 Andrew, Why are Thai and Varig's -300s with CF6s the only ones with this particular style of fan cowling? The earlier CF6 powered airplanes had a "potbellied" type fan cowling, not the more cylindrical type on the airplanes in question. The nacelle actually looks exactly like the one on the CF6 powered 767s... Still wondering... Jennings From kls Tue Aug 8 02:18:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Cochran_ted@htc.honeywell.com (Ted Cochran) Subject: Re: Another 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell Technology Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:18:24 In article , Jennings Heilig wrote: > Why is window spacing not even down the length of a fuselage? > For example, a 737-200 has five windows ahead of the overwing exit hatch > spaced closer together than the rest of them. This is hard to notice > unless you look closely. I know that on 737-300s, -400s, and -500s (and > 767s and 757s) there is a missing window due to the air conditioning > risers, but that is a different situation. I thought a "frame" length > would be the same all the way down the constant section area of the > fuselage, but apparently not... There's usually metal, not window, in the plane of the fan disk. That way an uncontained blade failure would more likely result in a surprising "ping!" instead of an even more surprising shrapnel wound... --tc From kls Tue Aug 8 02:18:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Joe Diederichs Subject: Re: Three out of four on a -747? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett-Packard Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:18:24 "M.A. van der Eijk" wrote: >Keith Edmunds wrote: >>On more than one occasion I've noticed three contrails from a B-747. >>Is it likely that one engine would be shut down? >Yes, it is possible. It of course does not happen often, but ferry flights >(from one, smaller, airport to another, bigger, to perform maintenance on >an engine) can be flown with 3 in stead of four engines. >Another possibility is that one engine's temperature differs from the >other ones. I think this is an asymmetry in the airflow around the plane, or perhaps it is due to the direction of rotation of the engines. I've noticed this for years on 747's and DC-10's. On DC-10's, the middle trail seems to join up with one side right behind the plane, leaving sort-of two trails behind. On the 747, one side seems to blend together right behind the plane, leaving what looks like three. There is an interesting photo in an ad in an electronics design magazine I get at work relating to this. "EDN" magazine, July 20, 1995, page 30, has an ad from "Vicor" which uses a telephoto shot of a 747 at altitude. This photo clearly shows the con-trails on the right side of the plane appearing as one about three plane-lengths behind the plane, whereas on the left side, the trails are distinct. Joe Diederichs joed@lsid.hp.com From kls Tue Aug 8 02:18:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Unjamming Gear on 747 - how? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:18:25 >>Airliners Question ... : >> - Is poppin-jammed-gear-by-pullin-g's an acknowledged procedure for >> airliners, or at all a viable RL(tm), as opposed to TV, option? To which Loco Hombre (is that his real name, I wonder? :-) replied on 28 Jul 95 02:53:19:- > Haven't heard of any incidents lately, and strangely, don't > recall any McDonald or Airbus aircraft doing the g pull-ups...maybe they > aren't strong enough? Well, regarding Airbus, there are some fairly heavy A320 manoevres on record while landing, like one 6g landing (no damage, no injuries), and the Bangalore crash, which involved a first impact at over 6g, and a second at around 12g. In neither case did the wings come off. (The fate of the Bangalore A320 was sealed when it went over an earth bank and ripped out the belly.) Of course, it is possible that the wings might snap off more easily in response to an upward load, but intuitively I don't find that likely. A problem with an A320 might be that the flight envelope protections in the Electrical Flight Control System (EFCS) would prevent you pulling a stunt like that. I think you could probably pull a few extra g if you switched off the two main computers in the EFCS and went into "direct mode", however. In the A320 FCOM, there is a procedure for gravity extension of the landing gear, which involves using a handcrank. (Whether a bit of extra gravity would help is not clear.) If that fails, there is a procedure for landing with abnormal landing gear. This seems to be fairly straightforward (cigarettes out, dump fuel, strap the passengers in and get them braced, etc.) but includes the following wise words:- It is considered preferable to use all available gears locked down rather than carry out a belly landing. Under these circumstances, a hard surface runway landing is to be recommended. Full advantage should be taken of any foam spread on the runway. -- 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 Tue Aug 8 02:18:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ditab@mail1.halcyon.com Subject: Re: Unjamming Gear on 747 - how? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:18:25 >barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) writes: > In article , > Dr. Erdelen wrote: > > - Is poppin-jammed-gear-by-pullin-g's an acknowledged procedure for > > airliners, or at all a viable RL(tm), as opposed to TV, option? > This is definitely a procedure recommended for small aircraft, but > transport category aircraft are only certified to +2.5 G's, so a pilot > could try it, but could not put too much pull on the wings, lest they might > decide to part company with the rest of the aircraft. The nose gear on the 747 airplanes come down into place with wind resistance. Pulling g's would do no good with any of the other gear, but I doubt that it is an approved practice. However, in any emergency, anything to get the gear down is possible. From kls Tue Aug 8 02:18:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gbb@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Graham Bird") Subject: Re: Unjamming Gear on 747 - how? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Graham Bird, Director of Branding, X/Open Company Ltd. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:18:25 Well for real (happened to me on a BA 747 earlier this year into LHR), there is an emergency blowdown system. We knew something was wrong as the noise increases dramatically (as though the spoilers were deployed, but I could see that they weren't). We landed, uneventfully, on a runway on our own lined by fire trucks and ambulances and cleared the runway and shut down. I wish I could remember the typical British understated report from the pilot! From kls Tue Aug 8 02:18:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: katie@physics12.Berkeley.EDU (Katie Schwarz) Subject: Re: Unjamming Gear on 747 - how? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Berkeley Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:18:25 Dr. Erdelen wrote: > - Is poppin-jammed-gear-by-pullin-g's an acknowledged procedure for > airliners, or at all a viable RL(tm), as opposed to TV, option? I remember a Trump Shuttle flight trying to do exactly this when landing at Boston in the summer of 1989. I don't remember the type of aircraft, probably a 727 or 737. They went out over the ocean and did some "roller coaster" motions, trying to dislodge the jammed nose gear, but it didn't work. Finally they dumped fuel and landed with the nose gear up. There was a picture of the plane sliding down the runway tipped forwards with sparks flying from the nose on the front page of the Boston Globe the next day. The passengers used the exit slides, and the only injury was a cut finger. Katie Schwarz katie@physics.berkeley.edu From kls Tue Aug 8 02:18:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Boeing 7J7 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:18:26 In article Pete Mellor writes: > >The 7J7 was Boeing's original proposal to develop a fully fly-by-wire >competitor to the A320 (similar size, similar market niche, etc.) It was a technology project that may or may not have turned into a product. I never saw anything that indicated it was a competitor to the A320; size and range indications were more along the lines of a shortish MD-80 or thereabouts. It also incorporated a number of technology features that were quite a bit more radical than the A320, such the unducted propfans, not to mention a proposal to use fly-by-light, as well as passenger and crew accomodations which are just now being rolled into the 777 (flat-panel LCD displays, etc). Quite a bit of 7J7 technology has found its way into later airplanes. The motivating factor in the project was high fuel prices, i.e., to see whether an advanced-technology very-cheap-to-run aircraft was feasible. Once fuel prices plummeted in the mid-80s, airlines lost all interest in the project, so, "poof." Airbus likely proceeded with the A320 since it was a much more conventional aircraft, and would have been far cheaper to develop. Boeing decided to address those markets with the 737 line, which provide comparable operating and acquisition costs to the A320 derivatives. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Tue Aug 8 02:18:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark.Brown@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Mark Brown) Subject: Re: Boeing 7J7 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:18:26 Pete Mellor writes: > Bryan Opalka asked on 28 Jul 95 02:53:22:- > > > With all the talk about the 717 here lately, it got me thinking of > > another Boeing airliner that I have not heard much about for quite a > > while...the 7J7. > > > > Does anyone know that status of that project? > > The 7J7 was Boeing's original proposal to develop a fully fly-by-wire > competitor to the A320 (similar size, similar market niche, etc.) in > collaboration with a Japanese firm ... I believe the project is still being kept alive by two engineers somewhere in Japan as they try to negotiate with Boeing for the construction of a New Small Airliner -- however, with Boeing just having launched the 737-700 et alia, this seems unlikely. There are also other potential collaborators in the area in the form of Korea and China; however, everyone wants to build it and no-one wants to finance it. Mark. -- Mark A. Brown; Dept. of Computer Science; QMW College (University of London); Mile End Road; London E1 4NS; UK. Tel: +44 (171) 975 5220. Fax: +44 (181) 980 6533. Email: eeyore@dcs.qmw.ac.uk From kls Tue Aug 8 02:18:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wakefiel@access5.digex.net (doug wakefield) Subject: identifying engines by sound Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:18:26 Recently on a trip to Florida, I travel down and back to DC on 757s. The sound at takeoff was very different. I know this subject has been covered before but would like just a quick refresher. The engines going done had a very distingctive medium to low frequency, rather loud hum during takoff and climb out. I've heard these on Airbuses. The return was lacking that hum. By the way, I'd be interested in any pilot comments on landing at Orlando. I've gone in there many times, and without exception have had smoother landings there than at any other airport. Is it my imagination or is Orlando kind to pilots. doug wakefield wakefiel@tmn.com From kls Tue Aug 8 02:18:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Nik Waalewijn Subject: Re: Web Sites References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DataWeb Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:18:26 jon46@ix.netcom.com (Jon H. ) wrote: >Does anyone know the URL(s) for the Aviation Week magazine Web site. Try gopher://datapro.mgh.com:71/ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Nik Waalewijn From kls Tue Aug 8 02:18:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mr Peter James Moores Subject: Airline Safety and Hofstede Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:18:27 I'm looking for source material on a study that was made using Hofstede's cultural dimensions applied to airline safety. A reference article in Flight magazine of August '94 gave an overview and through the kind assistance of Leigh Johnson on CIS I have a reference to a paper by Earl Weener presented at the IATA conference in Montreal in October '93. Does any body know who did the original research and whether it is published in complete form? I'd like to study it for work we do in Asia on Crew Resource Management in a cross cultural environment. Many thanks in advance Peter Moores From kls Tue Aug 8 02:18:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: 747SP dive incident, 1985 (was: Fastest airliner ?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:18:27 Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) writes: > (The China Air 747SP which went into a dive over the Pacific > on February 19, 1985, after flaming out all four engines, is often > speculated to have gone supersonic, but the accident report concludes > that the aircraft probably stayed subsonic.) In "The Final Call: Why Airline Disasters Continue to Happen", (Pantheon, 1990, ISBN 0-679-40174-1), author Stephen Barlay spends several pages on that incident. He says that while the crew *thought* they had suffered a quadruple flameout, the NTSB investigation came to quite a different conclusion. The incident occurred near the end of a nonstop flight from Taipei to San Francisco. It began with a bit of clear air turbulence, causing the airspeed to fluctuate. At some point the autopilot "decided" to increase engine power to maintain speed, but #4 engine did not respond. The flight engineer soon decided that it had flamed out, but according to Barlay paraphrasing the NTSB, it actually "was in a hung condition due to the way it had been operated". Now the real mistake: the pilot did not turn off the autopilot. According to an account I remember from somewhere else, its priority was to maintain altitude, but the plane's altitude of 41,000 feet was higher than its ceiling for flight on 3 engines. In any case, the airspeed dropped to the point where the pilot feared a stall, and he responded by putting the nose down *via the autopilot controls*. The autopilot was now way outside its operating parameters, and the plane went out of control, rolling inverted and then diving, with heavy G-forces, into clouds. The crew became disoriented and did not realize just what was happening. The flight engineer reported flameouts on the other three engines, but (according to the NTSB according to Barlay) he was again wrong about that. The ground came into view at 11,000 feet, and the pilot was than able to correct its attitude and pull out of the dive. An engine restart was performed, apparently successfully (well, the engines were working after it) and the flight proceeded to San Francisco. -- Mark Brader \"The age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, econ- msb@sq.com \ omists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory SoftQuad Inc., Toronto \ of Europe is extinguished for ever." -- Burke, 1792 This article is in the public domain. From kls Tue Aug 8 02:18:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: avfoto@ix.netcom.com (Jay Selman ) Subject: Aviation Maintenance in Asia Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Aug 95 02:18:27 For those in the know about aircraft maintenance, I can use some advice... I write for an aviation maintenance magazine, and I plan to be over in Asia for a couple of weeks in October and November. I am looking for information about commercial organizations performing heavy aircraft maintenance in Asia, as possible leads for articles. I know there are several companies in Taiwan, China, Singapore, Korea, and Japan, and I am sure that there are plenty of others as well. I would appreciate any contacts which anyone can provide regarding who in Asia is doing this sort of heavy aircraft maintenance. Please e-mail responses to: Unclejay@aol.com Thanks in advance Jay Selman From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: susanle@ix.netcom.com (Susan Leibowitz ) Subject: landing flaps Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:26 Organization: Netcom Is it unusual to not extend the wing flaps until after the landing gear has been deployed? When I was coming into LAX the other day on a 737, we were cleared to land (I was listening on the headphones to ATC), when the gear was deployed....and then the flap were extended. I wanted to ask the pilots but they never came out of the cockpit. thanks...from a slightly scared flier From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: commutrdog@aol.com (Commutrdog) Subject: Re: ATR Prop Brake ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: commutrdog@aol.com (Commutrdog) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:26 James... I fly the ATR and it is the only turboprop in production (as far as I know) which has a prop brake. This device is used in lieu of an auxiliary power unit, which is a small turbine engine used on many aircraft for air conditioning and electrical power while on the ground. The Pratt & Whitney engines on the ATR are of the "free turbine" type. This means that the power turbine is not directly connected to the propeller, therefore the propeller can be stopped and the engine can still run. The design of the ATR is such that for passenger boarding, either an external power source must be available or an engine must be running. If neither condition is met, there is no cabin ventilation and minimum cabin lighting. There is much debate on the logic of this arrangement. Aircraft such as the Jetstream cannot have a prop brake because the design of their engines is different. There is a direct link between the engine and propeller. This was a very good question. You are quite observant. Nick R. From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Wish.u.knew@Doncha.megaweb.com (NADIR) Subject: Re: ATR Prop Brake ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Megaweb Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:26 sikjes@utrc.utc.com wrote: > I recently flew a short leg on an ATR aircraft. I noticed when the crew > started the right engine (couldn't see the left) the prop was held in > position by some kind of brake. The engine ran at gound idle for a > few minutes before the brake was released. When it was, the prop > spooled up real fast. > When we shut down, it was obvious the prop was stopped with some kind > of brake, while the engine continued to run. > My question... How many turboprop aircraft are equipped with a "prop > brake", and why? I personally know that the Saab 340, Atr42, Atr72 and some of the Brasilias are equipped with prop brakes. The reason is it allows the crew to run the engine to power the aircraft. Many of the smaller airports do not have provisions for ground power for the turboprops. More importantly, most airports lack cooling/heating units that can fit a turboprop. One other thing, on quick turnarounds, waitng for the electronic navigation equipment to spool up (which is usually done after the engines are started) can add significantly to the turn around time. Thus, to keep the passengers comfortable and the batteries from dying, the crew engages the prop brake. This allows the Air Cycle Machine to cool/heat the cabin and the use of electrical power will not drain the batteries. Hope this clarifies things for ya Loco Hombre From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: marghi@iol.it (Marco Ghisalberti) Subject: Re: ATR Prop Brake ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Italia Online Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:27 sikjes@utrc.utc.com wrote: > I recently flew a short leg on an ATR aircraft. I noticed when the crew > My question... How many turboprop aircraft are equipped with a "prop > brake", and why? I don't know how many aircrafts are equipped with propeller brake but the device is installed to use the right engine turbine as a source of electricity and air conditioning for ground only use. When the right prop is locked, the engine is running the "hotel mode" and the throttles are not allowed to move out of ground idle. As a former ATR pilot I really didn't like "hotel mode" due to the very low air conditioning flow and the impossibility to use it during aft cargo loading. ( right engine exausts directly to the aft cargo door ). Another disadvantage is that during refuelling the right engine must be stopped because the fuel intake is on the right wing, too close to the engine running. -- Marco Ghisalberti Bergamo, Italy From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: desrtratt@aol.com (Desrt Ratt) Subject: Re: ATR Prop Brake ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: desrtratt@aol.com (Desrt Ratt) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:27 The use of the prop brake enables the engine to be run in "Hotel Mode" for compressor bleed (used for air conditioning) and electrical loads without having the expense and weight of an APU (auxiliary power unit). Obviously the other benefit is eliminating risk of the rotating prop to ground crew while the aircraft waits to depart the gate. Downside is extra weight & additional failure modes for the engine, additional time & cycles on the main engine, plus it's not as efficient as a dedicated APU. I'm not sure what other turboprop A/C besides ATR's (with P&W 120-series engines) have them. From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: emlogist@iaccess.za (EMERGENCY LOGISTICS) Subject: Pratt & Whitney to open in Jo'burg? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Africa Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:28 Can anyone confirm P&W are about to open a PT6 service centre in Johannesburg? Anyone reading this with any P&W company links can you get your corporate comms people to let me know if this is the case. I hear 1st October...but my detials are vague. Any help would be most appreciated. My Fax is 27 11 482 8182 or office is 27 482 3339. ROB HADLEY AEROTECHNICS MAGAZINE. From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: matalqa.1@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Tareq R. Matalqa) Subject: Re: identifying engines by sound References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:28 In article wakefiel@access5.digex.net (doug wakefield) writes: > >Recently on a trip to Florida, I travel down and back to DC on 757s. The >sound at takeoff was very different. I know this subject has been covered >before but would like just a quick refresher. >The engines going done had a very distingctive medium to low frequency, >rather loud hum during takoff and climb out. >I've heard these on Airbuses. The return was lacking that hum. >wakefiel@tmn.com Well the reason that you heared a different sound is the takeoff was done with the envirnimental control system packs off (ECS) in other words the sound of the engines was not obstructed by any air conditioner sounds and any other air flow sounds. Preforming a no pack takeoff provides the engines with more power. and after airborn and an obstruction has been cleared or any other reason the packs had been off the pilot will turn them back on. Tareq From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stevel3081@aol.com (SteveL3081) Subject: Re: identifying engines by sound References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: stevel3081@aol.com (SteveL3081) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:29 This is true, different engines make different sounds. It is easy to distinguish the sound of a jet fighter from a DC-9 from a C-141. The most distinctive jet has to be the C5 Galaxy, it makes a very distinct chain-saw like sound. I think that the sound of an engine has a lot to do with the by-pass ratio and wether the hot air is mixed with the cold air ahead or behind the nozzle. From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andre Berger Subject: Lemon Smell Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INnet NV (post doesn't reflect views of INnet NV) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:29 Hello ladies and gentlemen Look what surprised me yesterday: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Excerpt from a Magazine FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL, 9-15 August 1995. (Gunter Endres). WHY LEMONS CAN MAKE PILOTS SICK. ================================ What would you do if you are a pilot and smell lemons in the cockpit? You would most likely assume that the cabin staff is serving a gin and tonic, or cleaning the toilets and you would probably ignore it. What you probably will not do, although you should, is grab the oxygen mask and land at the nearest airport. The pleasantly refreshing citrus fragrance could be coming from a pressurized container of Rainboe windscreen rain repellent, leaking a highly toxic compound (Freon 113). .... . ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Comments: - the toxic can cause irritations, nausea, ... even unconsciousness. - older rain repellent bottles may even contain the unscented version of Freon 113. - some US pilots had problems (one was even medical unfit for 1 year) in flight. - pilots complain that their airlines have not made them aware that a strong lemon smell has been introduced to aid in detection in the event of a leak. - production of Rainboe is to cease (ecological reasons). - IFALPA argues that the rain repellent should be phased out altogether. Did you know that? Comments to A. Berger, Capt B737. aberger@innet.be From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: 747 fuel consumption question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: pete@meads.demon.co.uk Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:30 In article: , deen@caip.rutgers.edu (Emile Deen) writes: > How much fuel does a 747 (say a 747-400) carry? > How much does it use to take off? > What is the cost of the fuel (ie. what does it cost to get > the thing off the ground)? A 747-136 carries 39,310 Imperial gallons (47,172 US galls) A 747-236 carries 44,850 Imperial gallons (53,820 US galls) A 747-436 carries 47,718 Imperial gallons (57,262 US galls) Average fuel consumption on the P&W engines (-136) on the Take Off roll is about 9 Metric Tonnes per hour per engine. This power is applied for between 3 and 5 minutes. Therefore, you are looking at about 1.8 to 3.0 Tonnes used in the first 3 to 5 minutes. A -236 or -436 could be 20% more. Cost of aviation fuel varies from place to place, but a good rule of thumb figure for a LARGE customer like British Airways is about 60 cents per US gallon. 3 Tonnes equate to about 300 US dollars for the Take Off. OK? -- ############################################################# ## Pete Finlay ## pete@meads.demon.co.uk ## ## in southern England ## paf3@student.open.ac.uk ## ############################################################# From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.mindspring.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Re: 747 fuel consumption question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:30 On a recent flight from Narita airport (Tokyo, Japan) nonstop to Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport, the 747-400 we rode took off at 825,000 pounds, and landed at about 515,000 pounds with something like 5,000 pounds fuel margin once we parked at the gate. (I'm quite sure of my take off weight number - I could be off a bit on my landing weight and fuel reserve numbers). We were a full flight (that Japan Air Lines 747-400 is configured for about 360 seats - there is a HUGE Business Class), but of course I have no idea how much luggage/cargo we were carrying. The aircraft is rated for MGTOW of 850,000 pounds under the best of circumstances. So, the answer to your first question is "you can put over 300,000 pounds of fuel in to a 747-400". How much it uses to take off depends on how heavy it is at take off. Large civilian jets use jet fuel which is sort of like kerosene, so it should be well under US$1.00/gallon. Of course, there are taxes and such, so that actual cost I dunno. -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@MindSpring.com 11575 Laurel Lake Drive +1 404 552 0543 Roswell, GA 30075 Ask me about MindSpring U.S.A. Internet access in Atlanta! From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Nik Waalewijn Subject: Re: 747 fuel consumption question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DataWeb Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:31 deen@caip.rutgers.edu (Emile Deen) wrote: >Does anyone know the answers to these questions offhand: >How much fuel does a 747 (say a 747-400) carry? 747-400 Total usable fuel (based on SG of .793 kg/ltr) 170.800 kg (horizontal stab. tank installed) 160.900 kg (without hor. stab. tank) >How much does it use to take off? Oops, dunno (and I fly them) I think the fuelflow will be around 4000 kg/hr per engine during take off. -- Nik Waalewijn From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pleavin@HK.Super.NET (Ted Pleavin) Subject: Re: 747 fuel consumption question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hong Kong SuperNET Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:32 In article , deen@caip.rutgers.edu (Emile Deen) wrote: >How much fuel does a 747 (say a 747-400) carry? B-747-200/300 with reserve tanks 1,2,3,4 and center wing tanks full about 170,026 kg of usable fuel at an sg of 0.78 >How much does it use to take off? At T/O fuel burn is about 20,000 kg/hr total at sea level on an average engine set of Rolls Royce RB 211 at max B2 thrust. >What is the cost of the fuel That depends on where you are in the world! Cheers Ted. From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: B737 Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:32 In article you write: > >BTW. After spending some time living near Wellington Airport in New >Zealand, I can testify to one thing. The 737's with Hush Kits, while >better, are far from quiet!!!! A bit of background: Air NZ's B737 fleet consists entirely of -200s, and the company claims there's no justification for upgrading the fleet to more modern aircraft. (Ansett NZ also started up with (leased) -200s but quickly upgraded to BAe146s, citing noise as a major issue and winning lots of friends in the process.) Wellington Airport is the busiest domestic airport in NZ, due to its central location and the fact Wellington is the national capital. Wellington is also very hilly, and places to put airports are few and far between. The current runway was built basically by pushing a hill out into the sea. The airport is located in a residential area; there are houses within 200m of the runway for a good deal of its length. Understandably, the noise of the -200s is a contentious issue. A question that I've not heard answered is whether the 737-200 can either be refurbished to a -300 or otherwise fitted with fanjets to replace the noisy rock^H^H^H^Hpure jets found on the -200. Are the hushkits the only option short of complete replacement of the aircraft? -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B737 Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:33 >A question that I've not heard answered is whether the 737-200 can either >be refurbished to a -300 or otherwise fitted with fanjets ... You probably want to ask about the -500, which is the same length as the -200 whereas the -300 is stretched roughly ten feet. In any case, the heavier engines of the newer models, and especially their forward position, necessitated the repositioning of the wing further back on the fuselage to maintain a reasonable CG. There are lots of other changes, too, but clearly, upgrading a 737-200 to a -500 (or -300) would be infeasible. The -200 does in fact have fanjets, though not with a very high bypass ratio, and certainly not as efficient as those on newer aircraft. I haven't heard of any re-engining programs, though there are several for the 727, which uses similar models of the JT8D engine. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~kls/kls.html Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: B737 Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:33 > However what was not mentioned above, was that the problem was caused by the > refurbished blades not being able to cope with the extra stresses that arise > with the Hush-Kits units. > > It was then decided to change Air NZ policy to use only new Turbine Blades > on the 737-200's Engines. I was of the impression that the hush-kits were co-incidently absolutely nothing to do with the "refurbished" turbine blades letting go. It just so happened that most of the hush kitted engines had the turbine blade problem. Simon Craig From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mbriski@oldcolo.com (Mark Briski) Subject: Questionable Procedure Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Old Colorado City Communications (oldcolo.com - login "newuser") Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:34 I recently flew an American Airlines F100 from Colorado Springs to Dallas. The aircraft had pulled away from the gate and had been delayed for a few minutes when the pilot came over the intercom and stated that the wind had changed direction so the aircraft was now overweight. I find the practice of calculating max T.O. weight on CURRENT wind velocity rather unnerving. What if the wind changes direction halfway down the runway? (We actually back up to the gate and they made about 8 - 10 people get off!) I have since instructed my secretary not to book me on any more AA flights. Mark Briski mbriski@oldcolo.com From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eirikur@ix.netcom.com (Eirikur Aackerlund) Subject: Re: airplane fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:34 ztomcich@osf1.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) wrote: >a friend of mine and i got in a tiny trivial argument over the content of >airplane fuel. I always thought it was a very pure version of gasoline. >My friend thinks its more along the lines of crude kerosine. Who is >right? There is a free movie at stake for this one. Thanks for your >help. I must clarify that my reply reguarding your fuel question was pertaining to gas-turbine engines only. Reciprocating engines r.e.: most propeller driven aircraft - do use a refined grade of gasoline... so in this respect, both of you are correct... Sorry about any misunderstanding.. JCD USAF AVMAINT From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pedro Miguel Silva de Barros Subject: Re: BA fuel dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Instituto Superior Tecnico Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:34 Of course I'm not contesting your affirmations, and truly believe this situation doesn't occur with BA flight's, should it ever happen, but imagine the following scenario: flight destination is on a very remote area, therefore destination divertion requires a lot of fuel, maybe the divertion fuel makes the arrival weight higher than MLW requiring the crew to dump fuel prior to landing, if destination weather and other conditions uppon approach mean a safe landing will be made. Would this ever happen? Pedro Barros From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: arch6@inlink.com (Archibald McKinlay) Subject: Re: airplane fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: McKinlay & Associates Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:35 In article , stevel3081@aol.com (SteveL3081) wrote: > There are three fuels in common use, AV80, AV100 and Jet-A. > AV80 and AV100 are highly filtered and colored gasoline. Jet-A is almost > kerosene and inexpensive in quantity. A Jet engine will burn almost > anything that has the right number of BTUs per pound. First, the basics are AVGAS for props and Kerosene for jets. Colors: Pistons require certain burning cycles and addititves based upon environemntal factors so they are colored for easy identification. They are also colored so that you can tell when a local pump jockey has stolen some for his corvette, besides the fact that it smells in the cockpit when using AVGAS. Commercial aircraft use Jet A as you've heard is assured pure through multiple filtrations and inspections. Military jets use several different grades. Grade 80/NATO F12 is red. Grade 100 is green and has no NATO equivalent. Grade 100/NATO F18 Low Lead is blue. 155 (non NATO) is purple. Jet Fuels: Jet A, kerosene, without icing, freeze point at minus 40C, has no NATO equivalent. Jet A+, kerosene, with de-icer, freeze point minus 40C, non NATO. Jet A1, kerosene, without de-icer, good to minus 47C. Jet B, wide cut, turbine fuel without de-icer, freezes at minus 50C. Jet B+, wide cut turbine fuel , with de-icer, freezes at minus 50C. JP4 freezes at minus 58C. JP5 freezes at minus 46C. JP8 is jet A1 with de-icer, freezes at minus 50C. The JP series is military fuel. These fuels were special purpose, to have higher flash points to stop shipboard fires in the case of JP5. Used only for Blackbirds in the case of JP8. US Air Force and all land abses use JP4, all shipboard aircraft use JP5. You cannot switch back and forth without consequences as the fuel nozzles are maximized for use with one or the other. JP5 is thicker and will not burn well in Air Force engines or commercial engines. JP8 is hopeless in a JP4 engine without a nozzle change. Some JP5 engines require a lever to be switched when fuel types are switched. CHECK YOUR MANUAL! -- Truth arises from disagreement amongst friends, D. Hume (Scotland) eine Flucht nach Vorn machen, make a retreat forward Loved and Missed, so Work Together and Rejoice, Phillipians 4:1-13 Archibald McKinlay, VI Booz€Allen & Hamilton/McKinlay & Associates Software Safety Engineering and Management arch6@inlink.com From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Wish.u.knew@Doncha.megaweb.com (NADIR) Subject: Re: How do fuel guages work? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Megaweb Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:35 kward@apple.com (Ken E. Ward) wrote: >Or more to the point, could an airliner experience a failure in the fuel >lines, which resulted in the loss of fuel, combined with a failure in the >fuel guage (or whatever fuel-available monitoring system exists), such that >everything would appear normal until the engines quit due to fuel >starvation? Not sure how all fuel gage systems work, but generally they use a combination of optical probes and capacitance probes. The optical probes are usually placed at either full or half full positions and are used to signal when to stop fuelling when using single point refueling (at least if only a half or full tank is required) Depending on the type of aircraft, these probes may also be hooked to idiot lights in the cockpit. The capacitance probes measure the diffence in conductivity of the air and fuel. Using these readings, the gage (and associated amplifiers, etc) determine an average from the probes in the system, and give a total fuel reading. It is possible for the probes to misread, or the system to be miscalibrated. The only time I heard of a major airliner with a like problem was that Air Canada 767 which was misfueled and subsequently made an emergency landing at a dragstrip!!..Wonder if they tried clocking his 100-0mph reaction times Loco Hombre From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pluymers@pi.net (Rene Pluijmers) Subject: Re: How do fuel guages work? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Planet Internet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:36 kward@apple.com (Ken E. Ward) wrote: >Or more to the point, could an airliner experience a failure in the fuel >lines, which resulted in the loss of fuel, combined with a failure in the >fuel guage (or whatever fuel-available monitoring system exists), such that >everything would appear normal until the engines quit due to fuel >starvation? On most modern planes, all fuel tanks contain several fuel probes. Basically, a fuel probe is a capacitor with two plates. The amount of fuel between the plates determines the capacity. This capacity is translated into a fuel quantity reading in the cockpit. The system is fail-safe: a circuit in parallel with the fuel probes carries a small current. When all systems are operating normally, the currents from the fuel probes predominate. If there IS something wrong, the current from the parallel circuit lead to an 'Empty' reading in the cockpit. In computer controlled systems, self-test routines are carried out by the software on a regular basis. Faults are displayed by an appropriate message, e.g. 'FUEL QTY'. So, it is very unlikely, if not impossible that a situation you described will occur. I can recommend the book 'Aircraft Instruments & Integrated Systems' by E.H.J. Pallet (Longman Scientific & Technical, 1992, ISBN 0-582-08627-2) to you. Chapter 14 (20 pages) deals completely with fuel quantity indicating systems. Best regards, Rene Pluijmers (Private Pilot, highly interested in Avionics) From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Wiklund Subject: Jet Engine Rev Ups for Take Off Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Houghton Mifflin Company - I.T. Education Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:37 Having watched jet departures from the open air decks at Logan airport since a boy, and more recently having done much travel, I have always noticced that when a jet revs up for take off, it seems to go to half-power for a second or two before proceeding to take-off power - as if it was a two step process. Is this half-step process with all engines, or spooling up engines individually, or simply a misperception on my part? Thanks for the info. I've been lurking in this group a great while and, as a "mere" lover of airplanes, enjoyed your discussions greatly. From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.mindspring.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: torque from jet engines? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:37 In a multi-engine propellor driven aircraft, the props on opposite sides of the fuselage might counter-rotate so as to cancel out the torque that would otherwise be imparted to the aircraft when the engines are running (right?) ... So, do jet engines develop torque on the airframe like this? -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@MindSpring.com 11575 Laurel Lake Drive +1 404 552 0543 Roswell, GA 30075 Ask me about MindSpring U.S.A. Internet access in Atlanta! From kls Mon Aug 14 03:43:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: 747-300 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:37 In article , Jennings Heilig wrote: >Andrew, > >Why are Thai and Varig's -300s with CF6s the only ones with this >particular style of fan cowling? The earlier CF6 powered airplanes had a >"potbellied" type fan cowling, not the more cylindrical type on the >airplanes in question. The nacelle actually looks exactly like the one >on the CF6 powered 767s... Now, I know what the confusion is. You're absolutely correct. Thai has two and Varig has three -300s powered by the CF6-80C2B1. (I think these are the only five.) All the other GE-powered -300s use CF6-50E2 engines. The -400 use -80C2B1F which is a higher thrust version of the same engine used in the Thai -300s and the newer Varig -300s. However, I don't know if the wing root fairing is of the -400 type or not. I have not seen a picture of those aforementioned planes. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Mon Aug 14 03:57:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,comp.software-eng,sci.space.tech,sci.med.informatics,sci.engr.safety Path: bounce-back From: arch6@inlink.com (Archibald McKinlay) Subject: Re-hash of N-version software versus Single version Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Aug 95 03:57:25 Organization: McKinlay & Associates Safe Software: N-Version vs. Single Version Arguments for, and against, N-version (N-Ver) over single version (SV) are many faceted but use few, and overstressed, arguments. The most stated reason FOR is that N-Ver overcomes a certain error set, including specification writing and interpretation or hardware or compiler error(s). With no fully documented studies, N-Ver proponents claim that since this method eliminates these errors they also feel justified to not do certain error extraction methods common to single version software development and test. Likewise, N-Ver opponents offer experiment results (Knight, Leveson), vice full industry studies but at least some public documentation, showing much less than claimed reliability and fault avoidance results. The residual risk left untouched by N-Ver. Despite the large, additional, costs there is documented to be less than a 30 percent increase in reliability (Eckerdt), still unproved by more than a couple experiments, for a cost equal to (the number of versions) * 1.2, which is greater than one due to the additional management and coordination. Argument: Certain Error Sets or Errors can be Eliminated from N-Ver and Single-Ver differently, one better than another. Lesson Learned: N-Ver does deal with a subset of errors not commonly dealt with in Single-Ver. This error subset is produced at the software requirement specification writing and transition, the software design phase, the software implementation and the software test phase. An error subset in system test is also dealt with using N-Ver. N-ver helps find discrepancies in the documentation and the assumptions to the above phases as a function of testing the same functions, the same way, on the separate versions. NOTE: if the test engineer(s) test the same functions but in a different part of the environment, that is not using the same data set, there is as much chance of finding the discrepancy in N-ver as there is in Single-Ver. Likewise, if testing is the only way to discover the discrepancy errors then it follows that the system must be thoroughly tested to find these errors. This exhaustive testing becomes impossible in short order. Exhaustive testing in Single-Ver, if possible, would not find the same discrepancies because the interpretation or assumption is singular. These specification or interpretive errors would then only be found via reviews and testing with or by the user. So, with exhaustive testing impossible for N-Ver and Single-Ver alike in most complex systems, and alternatives of reviews and testing available and germane to sw development, there evolves less economic reason to invest in one over another. Remember the caveat that each N-ver version must be tested using the same test data sets to uncover exercise the one strength of N-Ver over Single-Ver. This requires a good deal of discrete oversight and coordination. Argument: N-Ver explicitly finds differences betwixt implementations of similar software requirement specifications Caveat: When each version within the N-Versions are tested using the same data set these discrepancies can be found. If each N-Version is not tested , as it is sometimes called, then the utility of this advantage is completely wasted. Argument: N-Ver increases reliability of software subsystem There are multiple mathematical exercises demonstrating that it logically can be assumed that N-Verison programming will result in more reliable solutions. However, these are theoretical approaches. The comparison to realworld finds that a reasonable expectation for N-ver within a well defined and process structurally similar development and test model will result in approximately 1.3-1.5x increase in software reliability. Caveat: To achieve these numbers the well defined and structural model which the N-ver must be developed under is one similar to single version. Modifying this model will modify the increase in reliability. Hence, eliminating certain error extraction processes because N-ver in testing finds the discrepancies mentioned above is self-defeating in two senses. First, the postponement of fault or error extraction until test delays the error extraction, thus increasing the cost of the fix. Second, eliminating an error extraction process which is not directly and only related to the unique error subset N-ver finds over Single-ver is wrong because no other error extraction is substituted andexhaustive testing is impossible. Argument: All outside faults, errors, failures all can effect software Lesson Learned: Faults injected prior to the writing of the software requirement specification are no more probably found in N-ver or Single-ver software using similar life cycles. That is, faults in the contract regarding processes or evidence, faults in system requirements capture and writing, or faults in system design are usually unaffected by N-ver, or Single-ver for that matter. Multiple experiments and real industry studies have shown that these prior phases account for the bulk of errors propagated into and from within the software. A very small percentage of these errors are also within the special N-ver subset which may be removed via back to back testing. Argument: N-Version costs at least N.3*$SV The costs in N-ver are not just those in supporting N times as many developers or suppliers and their development environments. Costs also incurred include coordination and travel amongst developers, the multiple overhead charges duplicated for each developer, and the additional coordination of differing sets of test plans yet using the same test data without disclosing the design aspects to the other developers. That is, each developer will have and require a separate overhead charge. Each developer will require face-to-face meetings and therefore travel costs are N times as much. Management of tests and test results is very sensitive in that discrepancies must be investigated without reference to another version. One ends up with each developer pointing fingers at the other for the root cause. In resolving these problems one cannot, as acquirer, disclose the one design to another developer and vice versa. Also, as N-ver relies on testing then the amount of time in testing should be longer than Single-ver, further exacerbated by the sensitivity in resolving discrepancies amongst versions. Argument: N-Version experiments show N-Ver still is susceptible to common human error (never mind tools, which are also susceptible to human error) and also do not fail independently. Human error in in all software, regardless of whether one is looking at the deliverable software, the in-house tools, and the off the shelf tools. This includes compilers. Caution must also be taken in compilers to use languages which do not involve the same company as they do not follow N-ver independence and their compiler for Ada will involve faults common to their C compiler. Argument: experiments were small enough and used lower experience N-versionites have attacked the experiments from Knight and Leveson saying that the experiments used only small programs and relatively inexperienced programmers, typically students. While statistical signifigance is a factor, the commonality of errors and the difference in error sets was the important point also. There are however other studies using industry level and experienced programmers which show a corrollary effect to that human error witnessed in the Knight/Leveson experiments. That is, each group of programmers varied only a little in their error while all were observed to make a core set of errors repeatedly. This means that N-ver proponents, hoping to achieve independence in the error dialect, must select and nuture the differences between suppliers, to the point of avoiding same-university educated programmers in any two suppliers. Argument: Complex Byzantine Algorithm and Voter Logic required The byzantine argument is actually not totally addressed in N-version for two reasons. Whilel it can be made independent through developers, the system, usually an aircraft, cannot due to weight and space considerations make all sensors independent. This and power sources complicates the assertion of independence beyond human capability to mathematically describe, and therefore prove. Voter logic is also a point of contention. If teh voter also uses the same set of inputs or a similar specifcation, the argument of independence is further, and more strongly than before, undermined. A voter using the same inputs is just another version and if it decides amongst the other versions it nullifies the independence. A voter unable to use independent inputs is not prescient enough to ascertain which of the versions is then correct. A further byzantine. Lastly in this argument is the added complexity of all these independent inputs and these versions and the voter. It has been affirmed to the point we need not quote anyone that increasing complexity increases risk and decreases reliability. This is the anathema of N-version, too much complexity and the reliability gain in software is negative at the system level due to the resultant system level complexity driving down system level reliablility. The highest failure rates at the system level are in fact the sensors. This means big costs for software to gain reliability is directly at odds with simplifying the system for increased reliability. Software engineers will have to prove strongly that this increased system complexity, system level maintenance and spares requirements, are justified. Argument: SW Reliability The following is based uon my understanding of software reliability from M. Lyu, JPL, and B. Littlewood, U upon Tyne, Center for Sw Reliability. IMHO, Software reliability has not advanced anywhere near to the point of repeatability and surety that hardware reliabilty now enjoys. Measurements of software development and test often involve immeasurable parameters or are so invasive as to disrupt some development phases. This is strongly put but from an engineering standpoint, we haven't the tools to measure the software nor the gumption to measure the human, even if we knew what human to measure how. Using many variables and following incremental versions, as a small percentage of the whole both functionally and in line of code numbers, it is now possible to estimate reliability growth. This is all that I have seen fully developed and used at industry levels. Again, on software which undergoes little change in controlled processes, using little or no tool change, including compiler version update, with the same people on the project. If any of these gross variables change then the reliability growth model may well change. For example, Dr. Lyu's paper regarding JPL software and choosing a reliability model demonstrated that a serious software house with defined and repeatable processes, a corporate tool set, relatively fixed personnel of good quality, consistent application domain and type, even using very similar languages, could not count on using the same reliability model from project to project. Other studies demonstrate the same while most seem to make a particular model fit all cases by increasing variable or parameter type or count. This said, and I expect several retorts to that, can we also glibly say that reliability measure of an N-version software versus a Single-version software is a valid comparison? What if the N-version is on a communication network while the single-version is in a fighter aircraft? Or the N-ver was in a commercial airliner while the single version was windows 95? - -- Truth arises from disagreement amongst friends, D. Hume (Scotland) eine Flucht nach Vorn machen, make a retreat forward Loved and Missed, so Work Together and Rejoice, Phillipians 4:1-13 Archibald McKinlay, VI Booz Software Safety Engineering and Management arch6@inlink.com From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: greg@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) Subject: Re: torque from jet engines? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:45 In libove@libove.mindspring.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) writes: >In a multi-engine propellor driven aircraft, the props on >opposite sides of the fuselage might counter-rotate so as >to cancel out the torque that would otherwise be imparted >to the aircraft when the engines are running (right?) ... >So, do jet engines develop torque on the airframe like this? Counter-rotating props are not used to cancel torque. Consider the rotating prop blades as tracing a disk that is perpendicular to the aircraft's fuselage. Normally the "relative wind" (the airflow over the aircraft in flight) strikes this disk head-on. However when the aircraft is at a high angle of attack (such as when taking off), the relative wind strikes the disk at a slight angle. This angle effectively INCREASES the angle of attack of the downward roating prop blades (causing them to produce more thrust) while it DECREASES the attack on the upward rotating blade. Looking from above at the prop disk where the angle of attack is high and the prop is rotating counter-clockwise (when viewed from the front) | <-- More thrust being produced here | |== | | <-- Than here This causes the prop to want to twist counter-clockwise (when viewed from the top). On a multi-engined aircraft this twisting moment is very undesirable because it causes the fuselage to want to rotate. Under certain conditions (such as engine failure) this twisting can make the aircraft uncontrollable. Therefore designers try to minimize the LEVER (not the torque) of the twisting moment by ensuring that the "more thrust side" is as close to the fuselage as possible. This is done by having engines and propellors that rotate opposite of each other on opposite sides of the fuselage. Note that counter-rotating props completely eliminate the twisting force if both engines are operating and minimize it if one engine fails. greg From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Do airliner engens run at approximately constant speed, varying only torque? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:45 > As far as I know, high bypass turbofans measure their thrust output > through the N1 (rpm of the fan) gauge, as opposed to EPR (engine pressure > ratio, which compares the static pressure of the tailpipe to static > pressure of the inlet, which I suppose could be considered ambient), which > is the best measure of thrust for medium bypass engines like the JT8, or > pure turbojets. RPM will of course increase when the throttle is put to > firewall, and the fan turning faster is the primary source of thrust in > fan engines. I don't think there is any tourquemeter to be found on a > modern high bypass engine, since all (or most) of the torque goes toward > spinning that fan. This is not entirely true of our engines at Qantas. Whilst the CF6 engine measures power by N1 rotor speed, both the JT9 and RB211 types use EPR as an indication of thrust. Simon. From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stevel3081@aol.com (SteveL3081) Subject: Re: Do airliner engens run at approximately constant speed, varying only torque? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: stevel3081@aol.com (SteveL3081) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:45 Engine speed varies directly with the throttle setting. Fan blades do not change pitch. Compression ratio also varies with throttle setting. Efficiencies with any heat engine are best at the highest compression ratio/combustion temperature. From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Do airliner engens run at approximately constant speed, varying only torque? 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 Aug 95 04:58:46 >I have an old technical paper on the design of 707 inlets with blow in >doors. I hadn't realized that these devices made it into production!! We got WAL 737-200s at the merger that had the blow-in doors installed and operating. From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Do airliner engens run at approximately constant speed, varying only torque? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:46 > > The 707-321 I used to work on did have spring-loaded blow-in doors on > >the inlets, or as I've heard some people call them, "auxillary air doors." > >They would really start flapping if there was a mild oscillating > >compressor stall... You could see them bouncing as you heard a "whoomp > >whoomp whoomp whoomp..." :-) > I have an old technical paper on the design of 707 inlets with blow in > doors. I hadn't realized that these devices made it into production!! Made it into production! 747s came out with those on the early JT9s! Simon. From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Nik Waalewijn Subject: Re: BA fuel dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: =:-0 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:46 Pedro Miguel Silva de Barros wrote: >[.....] but imagine the following scenario: >flight destination is on a very remote area, therefore >destination divertion requires a lot of fuel, maybe >the divertion fuel makes the arrival weight higher than >MLW requiring the crew to dump fuel prior to landing, >if destination weather and other conditions uppon approach >mean a safe landing will be made. >Would this ever happen? You don't plan a flight in such a way that, after a normal flight, you would arrive at your destination with an amount of fuel that would lead to an overweight landing. If you have a very high diversion fuel than you have to take less payload (pax, cargo etc.). In other words your Take Off Weight is now limited because of your Max. Landing Weight. -- Nik Waalewijn From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@news2.ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) Subject: Re: Boeing 7J7 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:46 In article , Mark.Brown@dcs.qmw.ac.uk says... >I believe the project is still being kept alive by two engineers >somewhere in Japan as they try to negotiate with Boeing for the >construction of a New Small Airliner -- however, with Boeing just >having launched the 737-700 et alia, this seems unlikely. Industry gossip has it that the Boeing - NSA deal has fallen through and that either Aerospatiale or Fokker are the front-runners for an Asian collaboration Krish From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@news2.ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) Subject: Re: Boeing 7J7 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:47 In article , rdd@netcom.com says... > >more radical than the A320, such the unducted propfans, not to mention a >proposal to use fly-by-light, as well as passenger and crew I believe that two major design issues were: ..safety during a "blade-out" event ..noise generation, with no room for acoustic treatment Comments welcome.... Krish From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,comp.software-eng,sci.space.tech,sci.med.informatics,sci.engr.safety Path: bounce-back From: dick@silicon.csci.csusb.edu (Dr. Richard Botting) Subject: Re: Re-hash of N-version software versus Single version References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,comp.software-eng,sci.space.tech,sci.med.informatics,sci.engr.safety Organization: CS Dept., Calif. State Univ., San Bernardino Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:47 [Snip of a very long argument] Yes.... but have you any data! > Truth arises from disagreement amongst friends, D. Hume (Scotland) I expect hot air to rise from such disagreements... Give us experiments, or at least a rigorous theory that we can test! For me the Leveson experiments (and my own anedotal experiences) killed the idea that independent teams make independent mistakes. -- dick@csci.csusb.edu=rbotting@wiley.csusb.edu. Find out what's new at http://www.csci.csusb.edu/doc/www.sites.html Disclaimer:`CSUSB may or may not agree with this message`. Copyright(1995):Copy this freely but include the following link to the author's signature From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,comp.software-eng,sci.space.tech,sci.med.informatics,sci.engr.safety Path: bounce-back From: expaero@aol.com (ExpAero) Subject: Re: Re-hash of N-version software versus Single version 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: 17 Aug 95 04:58:47 >>Safe Software: N-Version vs. Single Version >>Arguments for, and against, N-version (N-Ver) over single version (SV) are >>many faceted but use few, and overstressed, arguments. Never seen the subject covered better. And without the usual hyperbole! May I keep and distribute properly attributed copies? From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Jet Engine Rev Ups for Take Off References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:47 In article Mark Wiklund writes: >Having watched jet departures from the open air decks at >Logan airport since a boy, and more recently having done >much travel, I have always noticced that when a jet >revs up for take off, it seems to go to half-power >for a second or two before proceeding to take-off >power - as if it was a two step process. Is this half-step >process with all engines, or spooling up engines >individually, or simply a misperception on my part? Standard procedure on most Boeing jets is to advance the thrust levers to the vertical position, allow the engines to stabilize, then to set take-off thrust. The intermediate position is to allow the engines to stabilize; it also helps account for minor differences among the engines and to prevent over-setting takeoff thrust on the first go. It closes the bleed surge valves, and ensures that the same thrust is available on each engine. Since the bleed surge valves take time to close, this can also affect takeoff performance. The bleed surge valves open at low idle RPMs; the idea is to provide venting so the engine is not damaged during engine start. When they are open, even if takeoff thrust is applied, you will not get takeoff thrust until they are closed: this can account for a 6-7 second lag between commanded thrust and getting what you want. As the crew of the A320 at Habsheim discovered, this can be a bad thing, so in the air, at least, crews keep the engines running above this threshold on approach. This means there is only a couple of seconds between commanded thrust and actually getting it. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: edgraf@pipeline.com (Edward Graf) Subject: Re: Jet Engine Rev Ups for Take Off References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Pipeline Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:48 In article , Mark Wiklund writes: >Having watched jet departures from the open air decks at >Logan airport since a boy, and more recently having done >much travel, I have always noticced that when a jet >revs up for take off, it seems to go to half-power >for a second or two before proceeding to take-off >power - as if it was a two step process. Is this half-step >process with all engines, or spooling up engines >individually, or simply a misperception on my part? > >Thanks for the info. I've been lurking in this group a great >while and, as a "mere" lover of airplanes, enjoyed your >discussions greatly. > Mark, I fly the 737-300. Although not required, we use auto-throttles for take-off. They are kind of mindless in that the throttle can be all the way forward, yet the engine is still close to idle. Many times the two engines spool up at different rates because of differences in fuel controllers, age of engines, bleed valves closing at different times, etc. It is possible to have one engine nearly at idle (but accelerating) and the other producing significant thrust, resulting in lurching back and forth as one accelerates down the runway. To minimize the potential thrust descrepancy, my company suggests manually spooling both engines to 40% N1 (Fan speed) and allowing them to stabilize before engaging the auto-throttles. That seems to minimize the lurching and seems to result in smoother acceleration, both engine and aircraft. It does result in a two-stage process. Ed Graf From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Nik Waalewijn Subject: Re: Jet Engine Rev Ups for Take Off References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: =:-0 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:48 Mark Wiklund wrote: >Having watched jet departures from the open air decks at >Logan airport since a boy, and more recently having done >much travel, I have always noticced that when a jet >revs up for take off, it seems to go to half-power >for a second or two before proceeding to take-off >power - as if it was a two step process. Is this half-step >process with all engines, or spooling up engines >individually, or simply a misperception on my part? If you would set T.O. thrust immediately there is allways a chance that the engines do not spool up equally. This can happen especially in the lower thrust settings and that could lead to a situation where you would have 100 percent T.O. thrust on one engine while the other one(s) only have about 60 percent. Offcourse that situation gives a lot of problems keeping the aircraft on the centerline. A common procedure is to (manually) set about 70 percent T.O. thrust, let all engines spool up to that level and then hit a button on the thrust levers that activates the autothrottle system that will then take care of setting the correct (full) T.O. thrust. (automatically). O.K.? -- Nik Waalewijn From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: arch6@inlink.com (Archibald McKinlay) Subject: Re: Jet Engine Rev Ups for Take Off References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: McKinlay & Associates Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:48 In article , Mark Wiklund wrote: >I have always noticced that when a jet > revs up for take off, it seems to go to half-power > for a second or two before proceeding to take-off > power - as if it was a two step process... All aircraft, if flying with checklists, will use a similar medium-to-high power pre-takeoff check. Some can be done at the "Hold Short" immediately before taking the runway, others must run-up on the runway itself. This is ususally because of several factors, primarily only the runway may be cleared enough for the higher power run-ups and taxi-ways may be too congested or littered. Props run-up before taking the runway to check magnetos, manifold pressure, etc. at a reasonable throttle. This usually poses no threat to bushes and other aircraft so they can do it along taxi ways etc. Even so, once on the runway some props cannot hold brakes at full power so they'll run-up to a less than takeoff power and, after gauges settle down, go full throttle, release brakes, and roll, with clearance of course. Jets usually runup on the runway due to the higher thrust and sometimes FAA requirements. Runup on taxi or marshal areas tend to tear up property and cause FOD to other engines. Jet runup doesn't check magnetos but thrust, fuel flow, hydraulic pressures, computers, etc. This is usually at around 70% to 85%, again due to brake holding. Once cleared, the release of brakes and full throttle require more checks of the engine speed, pressures and fuel flow, then speed at each marker and rotation or flight. Jet refusal speeds and weights are higher so that refusal can be pretty serious. Some jet aircraft, if fully loaded, can go to full power and hold brakes without skidding the tires. Most cannot. You can blow tires here but it is rare. BTW, the military jets of the late sixties had some engines that required the jet to be tied down and run at full power on the ground for three minutes. This was due to the fact that most engines came apart in the first three minutes of flight, so if you made that wicket you were good to go! Actually the probabilities did fall off rapidly and this procedure was justified. Any Corsair pilot can verify this. Lost one, the only engine in the jet, myself, but htat is another story.... -- Truth arises from disagreement amongst friends, D. Hume (Scotland) eine Flucht nach Vorn machen, make a retreat forward Loved and Missed, so Work Together and Rejoice, Phillipians 4:1-13 Archibald McKinlay, VI Booz€Allen & Hamilton/McKinlay & Associates Software Safety Engineering and Management arch6@inlink.com From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nak@gwe486.cb.att.com () Subject: Re: Jet Engine Rev Ups for Take Off References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T GBCS/Bell Labs Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:49 In article , Mark Wiklund wrote: >Having watched jet departures from the open air decks at >Logan airport since a boy, and more recently having done >much travel, I have always noticced that when a jet >revs up for take off, it seems to go to half-power >for a second or two before proceeding to take-off >power - as if it was a two step process. Is this half-step >process with all engines, or spooling up engines >individually, or simply a misperception on my part? Note that in a carburetted piston engine, fuel lags behind air. You open the throttle, letting in more air, which picks up more fuel. In a turbine engine, air lags behind throttle. You add more fuel and RPM come up giving more air. Carb'd engines starve a bit when you punch it at low RPM. Turbines go rich and risk dousing the flame with liquid fuel. What you observed varies by jet engine, and I don't have all of the specifics handy. But in general, it's difficult to make a turbine engine that will accept sudden throttle transitions. In particular, they don't like going from low to high throttle settings too fast. Flameout is the big worry. The Me262 was known for this. Piston trained pilots wanted to slam the throttle all the way forward when it came time for air combat, and this would flame out an engine. The F14 Tomcat was given new engines which were free from restrictions in throttle movement, a welcome change. For example, you could go directly into afterburner without waiting for RPM to climb. I would expect that some engine management systems might decouple the throttle inputs from being directly tied to fuel output. This would allow the engine controller to add more fuel as RPM rose. This allows the pilot to set the throttles as a "request" and then they can concentrate on something other than slowly advancing the throttle according to RPM. --- Neil Kirby DoD# 0783 nak@archie.cb.att.com AT&T Bell Labs Columbus OH USA (614) 860-5304 President Internet BMW Riders The BMW R1100RSL - Because the Britten V 1000 is not street legal. From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sikjes@utrc.utc.com Subject: ATR Falls on Tail (almost) (Was Prop Brake) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UTRC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:49 Commutrdog writes (barked? ;-): >James... > >I fly the ATR and it is the only turboprop in production (as far as I >know) which has a prop brake. snip >The design of the ATR is such that for passenger boarding, either an >external power source must be available or an engine must be running. If I made another interesting observation during my (one-and-only) ATR flight. While we were standing in line to board at the rear stairs, we observed the nose gear lift off the ground about two feet! I was convinced the tail-cone was going to hit the ramp. A quick thinking baggage handler jumped up into the cargo area (fwd, near cockpit), and the nose lowered. I've heard stories about large jets falling on their tails, but it was cool to see it happen. (Did you ever see the picture of the 727 popping a "wheelie" after a snow storm deposited heavy snow on the tail??) Are you ATR pilots familiar with this happening?? James From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: edgraf@pipeline.com (Edward Graf) Subject: Re: landing flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Pipeline Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:49 In article , Susan Leibowitz writes: >Is it unusual to not extend the wing flaps until after the landing gear >has been deployed? >When I was coming into LAX the other day on a 737, we were cleared to >land (I was listening on the headphones to ATC), when the gear was >deployed....and then the flap were extended. I wanted to ask the >pilots but they never came out of the cockpit. >thanks...from a slightly scared flier Susan, I fly the 737-300 out of LAX. The aircraft must be slowed up from it's normal 250 knots (below 10,000') in order to get any reasonable descent rate. Although hardly possessing the sleek characteristics of a glider, it sure acts like one. The speedbrakes are relatively ineffective, generating more noise and shaking than actual additional descent rate. The most effective source of drag in the 300 is the landing gear. The gear can be deployed at 270 knots, whereas flaps (in the 300) can be started out no faster than 230 knots, and are not nearly as effective as the gear. The above, coupled with ATC's need to mix you in with other aircraft capable of brick-like performance and 250 knot speeds can often result in speed brake and gear deployment sans flaps. No need to be afraid, there was nothing unsafe with the approach. The pilots staying in the cockpit? Probably haggling over who got the best landings on the trip.(grin) Ed Graf From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: landing flaps 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 Aug 95 04:58:50 In article , Susan Leibowitz wrote: >Is it unusual to not extend the wing flaps until after the landing gear >has been deployed? > >When I was coming into LAX the other day on a 737, we were cleared to >land (I was listening on the headphones to ATC), when the gear was >deployed....and then the flap were extended. I wanted to ask the >pilots but they never came out of the cockpit. Yes. I assume you were flying United since you were listening to ATC. United's 737-200 approach plan goes something like this (I assume the other 737s are similar) Power to flight idle Slowing through 220 KIAS - flaps to 1 Flap 1 lights on - flaps to 5 Slowing through 170 KIAS power to 2800 pounds (fuel flow) to maintain 160 KIAS Join the localizer (a radio beacon emitted along the extended centerline) 1.5 dots below glideslope - gear down 1.0 dots below glideslope - flaps 15 0.5 dots below glideslope - flaps 30, final descent checklist The gear is lowered to help increase drag and get the airplane started on the proper descent path. I think it is also done first to give the gear time to get locked into place so when the final descent checklist is read they will be down and there will be "three in the green"...three lights showing that all three legs are down and locked. ___________________________________ _____ | Keith Barr barr@netcom.com \ \ \__ _____ | COM-ASMEL-IA-A&IGI \ \ \/_______\___\_____________ | Westminster, Colorado, USA }-----< /_/ ....................... `-. | http://chinook.atd.ucar.edu/~barr / `-----------,----,--------------' |___________________________________/ _/____/0 From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Nik Waalewijn Subject: Re: landing flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: =:-0 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:50 susanle@ix.netcom.com (Susan Leibowitz ) wrote: >Is it unusual to not extend the wing flaps until after the landing gear >has been deployed? > >When I was coming into LAX the other day on a 737, we were cleared to >land (I was listening on the headphones to ATC), when the gear was >deployed....and then the flap were extended. I wanted to ask the >pilots but they never came out of the cockpit. It is not a standard procedure to lower the gear before extending flaps. But maybe they were coming in high and fast and then lowering the gear is a good way to lose speed and/or altitude because it gives a lot of drag. On most aircraft the max. speed for putting the gear down is much higher than the flap extension speed. -- Nik Waalewijn From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: froggy@southwind.net (Mark Stappenbeck) Subject: Re: landing flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SouthWind Internet Access, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:50 There is no reason from either an operational or safety standpoint the gear cannot be extended before the flaps on any model of the 737. In fact, there are distinct advantages to deploying the landing gear before the flaps. In locations like LAX the ATC system tends to frequently change the speeds of the aircraft to the point that the crew might find themselves faster than they would normally be on their arrival. The extension of the gear acts as a speed brake to slow the aircraft to a normal flap extension speed. One does not normally think of landing gear as an aerodynamic control on the aircraft, but at speeds higher than allowable flap extension speeds it makes an EXCELLENT speed brake. In fact we refer to them as "Goodyear Speedbrakes" in our lighter moments. There is nothing abnormal or unsafe about what you experienced. Undoubtedly, it was simply the flight deck crew using all of the methodologies available to them to operate the aircraft safely and efficiently. Don't be concerned. I'm glad you asked though. Most of what fear is all about is lack of knowledge. If you have any other questions I'd be happy to answer them. >Is it unusual to not extend the wing flaps until after the landing gear >has been deployed? >When I was coming into LAX the other day on a 737, we were cleared to >land (I was listening on the headphones to ATC), when the gear was >deployed....and then the flap were extended. I wanted to ask the >pilots but they never came out of the cockpit. >thanks...from a slightly scared flier Mark Stappenbeck, froggy@southwind.net Fidonet 291/5, N0PWZ@amsat.org "Don't ask me, I'm just the pilot." From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mmcevill@mitre.org (Michael A. McEvilley) Subject: Re: landing flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: The MITRE Corporation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:51 In article , susanle@ix.netcom.com (Susan Leibowitz ) wrote: > Is it unusual to not extend the wing flaps until after the landing gear > has been deployed? > > When I was coming into LAX the other day on a 737, we were cleared to > land (I was listening on the headphones to ATC), when the gear was > deployed....and then the flap were extended. I wanted to ask the > pilots but they never came out of the cockpit. > > thanks...from a slightly scared flier In general, the maximum gear extension speed is higher than the maximum flap extension speed. If the approach is "expedited", the landing gear makes for a great speed brake, and it makes sense to lower the gear and then to get the flaps as the airspeed drops into flap extension range. There was nothing dangerous about what happended. Interestingly, last week on a 757 into O'hare (and I also was listening to ATC), we were approaching at 170 knots with flaps about 5 or 10 degrees, gear up. I was watching the trailing edge of the wing when Tower cleared us to land. About 5 seconds later, the flaps began to extend further, and then they suddenly reversed. The next thing I heard was the gear coming down. Somebody up front grapped the wrong lever!!! After we landed, I was gonna rib 'em about that, but by the time I got to the cockpit those guys were probably on the bus to the hotel! michael From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Haraldur Baldursson Subject: Re: landing flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Islenska menntanetid Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:51 Dear scared Susan ! On most airliners the first selection of flaps (that usually increase the size of the wing rather than going down) is well ahead of the gear-down selection. Typically first flaps are selected 20 miles from the airport and the landing gear about 10 miles out. Happy landings ! From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gallope@admin.curtin.edu.au (Ted Gallop) Subject: Re: landing flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Curtin University of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:51 In article Susan Leibowitz writes: >Subject: landing flaps >Date: 14 Aug 95 03:43:26 >Is it unusual to not extend the wing flaps until after the landing gear >has been deployed? >When I was coming into LAX the other day on a 737, we were cleared to >land (I was listening on the headphones to ATC), when the gear was >deployed....and then the flap were extended. I wanted to ask the >pilots but they never came out of the cockpit. Susan, It doesn't make a lot of difference. There is no hard and fast rule. Normally the gear is extended about half way through the flap sequence (about 4 stages) as the aircraft slows. Once the gear is extended, drag increases immensely and usually thrust has to be increased to control the deceleration. The major influence as to when to drop the gear out of the traditional sequence is the drag consideration. Possibly the pilots in your case when given the landing clearance decided they had to slow down more rapidly than they had expected. The easiest way to do this is to lower the gear. Modern jets are awfully slippery, and if you are high on approach, and a little fast, getting it slowed down takes a positive action such as the gear method. TG From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: Re: B737 Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:52 Karl Swartz wrote: >>A question that I've not heard answered is whether the 737-200 can either >>be refurbished to a -300 or otherwise fitted with fanjets ... >You probably want to ask about the -500, which is the same length as >the -200 whereas the -300 is stretched roughly ten feet. In any case, >the heavier engines of the newer models, and especially their forward >position, necessitated the repositioning of the wing further back on >the fuselage to maintain a reasonable CG. I have noticed this, though it doesnt appear to be very noticable in United's trim. The 737-300/500s have a forward lavatory and bulkhead between the entrance and the beginning of first class, the 737-200s lack both. Otherwise the passenger layouts are quite similar 8 1st class, approximately 90 (88 vs 94) in coach. One thing I do notice is that 737-200 are used for short-haul flights, where 737-300 and 500s are used for transcontinental flights (nonstop SFO-PHL,SJC-ORD,SFO-BWI). Any reasons? I presume the passenger layout relative to the main wing spar is held constant for CG reasons. -tim From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B737 Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:52 >I have noticed this, though it doesnt appear to be very noticable >in United's trim. The 737-300/500s have a forward lavatory and >bulkhead between the entrance and the beginning of first class, >the 737-200s lack both. The -300s, at least, didn't have the galley (not lav) and bulkhead between the 1L door and seats 1AB when delivered. I think the -500s all came in that config, and the -300s have been (or are being) re- configured. I suspect it has more to do witht the longer sectors these planes fly than balance. >Otherwise the passenger layouts are quite similar 8 1st class, >approximately 90 (88 vs 94) in coach. In UA trim, coach seating is ... 100 on the -500 101 on the -200 118 on the -300 The -300s were 120 in back, but the FAA made 'em take out the window seats at the exit row (10) a year or so ago. >One thing I do notice is that 737-200 are used for short-haul >flights, where 737-300 and 500s are used for transcontinental >flights (nonstop SFO-PHL,SJC-ORD,SFO-BWI). Any reasons? United actually has two different types of 737-200 -- 45 -222 models which they bought in the late 1960s and into the 1970s, plus another 24 -291 Advanced models (actually the first two are -2A1 Advanced) which they picked up from Frontier in 1988. Some of the -222s have extra fuel tanks which give them close to 2,000 nm range, but all of the -222s seem to be scheduled for under 1,000 nm segments these days. I'm not sure about the -291/-2A1 Advanceds. In any case, it's likely because the newer models can fly further on a lot less fuel, so the old 737s are kept on the shorter routes where cruise fuel burn isn't as significant. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~kls/kls.html Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rsolene@ix.netcom.com (Rom Solene) Subject: Re: B737 Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:53 In kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > >The -200 does in fact have fanjets, though not with a very high bypass >ratio, and certainly not as efficient as those on newer aircraft. I >haven't heard of any re-engining programs, though there are several >for the 727, which uses similar models of the JT8D engine. Speaking of re-engining programs, I just read in AW&ST that UPS is re-engining six of its 727s with RR engines. Apparently, they had previously re-engined the rest of their fleet of 727s. First, considering that the 727 is a 20 year old (in some cases, 30 years old) aircraft, how much more service life can be expected from these aircraft before maintenance costs alone ground them (assuming that the new engines quench the fuel thirst of the old engines). Secondly, after reading the article, I remembered how several months ago I noticed a Delta 727 at San Diego that had winglets mounted on its wingtips. At the time, I was working in a highrise with a spectacular view of the airport and I saw the aircraft make scheduled runs over a several week period (since I'm in a different location now I don't know if it still flies in). Does anyone have the details on this aircraft? One thing I am curious about is if Delta had this aircraft re-engined. I watched it take-off once while I was standing in a parking lot at the end of the runway - I didn't notice any difference in noise level between it and the other 727s that service the airport. R.S. Solene From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B737 Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:53 >Speaking of re-engining programs, I just read in AW&ST that UPS is >re-engining six of its 727s with RR engines. Apparently, they had >previously re-engined the rest of their fleet of 727s. They've re-engined a little over half of their 727s, with Rolls-Royce Tay 651-54 engines. >First, considering that the 727 is a 20 year old (in some cases, 30 >years old) aircraft, how much more service life can be expected from >these aircraft before maintenance costs alone ground them Considering that there are *still* a few DC-3s in service, I don't think UPS should have much problem squeezing more life out of these aircraft. Northwest is upgrading many of the DC-9s, some of which are even older than UPS' oldest 727, and expects them to be flying with them for at least another 15 years. >after reading the article, I remembered how several months ago I >noticed a Delta 727 at San Diego that had winglets mounted on its >wingtips ... Does anyone have the details on this aircraft? That's the Valsan conversion, two of which were done (both for Delta) before the company went under. There was some discussion about the project in this newsgroup a while back -- check out the archives, available for anonymous ftp on ftp.chicago.com (in /chicago/airliners) and on ftp.kei.com. >One thing I am curious about is if Delta had this aircraft re-engined. No. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~kls/kls.html Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Greg Smith <102040.3106@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: B737 Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Aircraft, Wichita Division Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:53 kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > >A question that I've not heard answered is whether the 737-200 can either > >be refurbished to a -300 or otherwise fitted with fanjets ... > > You probably want to ask about the -500, which is the same length as > the -200 whereas the -300 is stretched roughly ten feet. In any case, > the heavier engines of the newer models, and especially their forward > position, necessitated the repositioning of the wing further back on > the fuselage to maintain a reasonable CG. There are lots of other > changes, too, but clearly, upgrading a 737-200 to a -500 (or -300) > would be infeasible. > > The -200 does in fact have fanjets, though not with a very high bypass > ratio, and certainly not as efficient as those on newer aircraft. I > haven't heard of any re-engining programs, though there are several > for the 727, which uses similar models of the JT8D engine. 737 Fuselage & Plug Lengths Fuselage Forward Plug Aft Plug Model Length (in) Rel. to -100 (in) Rel. to -100 (in) -100 1087 N/A N/A -200 1163 36 40 -300 1267 80 100 -400 1387 152 148 -500 1173 26 60 -600 1173 26 60 -700 1267 80 100 -800 1497 198 212 As you can see from the above table, the only 737 models with the same lengths are the -300/-700 and -500/-600. The wing structure was not moved in the center fuselage and wing structure, plugs were added forward and aft of the wing, but relative to the nose, the wing is moved on the models. The wing front spar is approximatly 38% down the length of the fuselage on the -100 and -200, vs 37% on the -500/-600, 39% on the -300/-700, and 41% on the -400/-800. I haven't checked the weight and balance loadability charts for the various models, but I think the main reason for not re-engining the -200s is cost and scale of the modification, not weight and balance considerations. The wing attachments and wing internal structure which support the strut/nacelle/engines is completly different between the -200 and newer models. I wouldn't be suprised if you would have to change the entire bottom wing skin and all of the internal wing structure in the strut area. You would also probably have to change the leading edge flaps, because they are tailored to nestle around the specific strut/nacelle installations. -- Greg Smith Weight Engineer 737-700 Program Boeing Commercial Aircraft, Wichita Division 102040.3106@compuserve.com From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) Subject: JT-8D Hush Kits Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:54 I am interested in information regarding JT8D hush kits. I've summarized what little I know, together with questions that are intended to stimulate discussion -:) 1. The JT-8D is a 1.7:1 bypass ratio engine and extremely noisy when compared to today's high-bypass engines (5:1). Is the noise generation predominantly due to the turbomachinery? or jet exhaust? or in the inlet? What is the character (spectrum) of the JT-8D noise when compared to other engines? 2. JT-8D's are installed on B737s, DC8-?, MD80s. ... and ?? 3. The MD80s are extremely noisy during takeoff, but are acceptable during approach and landing? 4. MD80s have been banned from John Wayne (Orange County) and in Switzerland because of noise issues.. true? 5. P&W has kits available to reduce noise -- fixes within the turbomachinery and a forced mixer. But P&W kits do not reduce noise sufficiently .. (true? false? partly true?) 6. Nordam has a kit that includes a forced mixer to entrain freestream air, in addition to an ejector?? I know very little about this design.. 7. Nordam successfully meets Stage 3 noise regulations ???? 8. Nordam's hush kit was not to blame in the recent grounding of B737s in New Zealand. 9. What are the other competing hush kits and howe do they work? 10. What is the market for hush kits. Is it true that American is furious with McDonnell Douglas because of all the noise MD80s that they are saddled with (how many?). 11. What are the takeoff gross weights at which the various competing hush kits are effective? and on and on and on... As you can see, I would appreciate discussion and any intelligence that you guys can offer Thanks in advance Krish Chilukuri From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: JT-8D Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:54 >2. JT-8D's are installed on B737s, DC8-?, MD80s. ... and ?? 727, 737, DC-9, Dassault-Breguet Mercure, and a few Caravelles (though most had RR Avons). The MD-80 series uses the much-upgraded JT8D-200 series. The DC-8 did not use the JT8D; it used the JT3D, JT4D, Rolls- Royce Conway. (The DC-8 Super 70 series is a re-engined version with CFM56 engines). >4. MD80s have been banned from John Wayne (Orange County) and in Switzerland >because of noise issues.. true? Apparently not true for SNA (Orange County), at least -- I just checked a recent OAG and see both TWA and Alaska flying there with MD-80s. All of American's flights appear to be 757s, though I'm pretty sure I've seen them use MD-80s there in the past. >7. Nordam successfully meets Stage 3 noise regulations ???? I assume so -- there wouldn't be much market for them if they didn't meet Stage 3 requirements. >8. Nordam's hush kit was not to blame in the recent grounding of B737s >in New Zealand. True. >10. What is the market for hush kits. Is it true that American is furious >with McDonnell Douglas because of all the noise MD80s that they are saddled >with (how many?). American has 260 MD-80s, mostly MD-82s with a few MD-83s. They are already Stage 3 compliant so I can't imagine there being a market for hush kits for them. For older DC-9s, there's probably a pretty good market for hush kits. Northwest alone will be buying on the order of 100 shipsets. USAir has a large DC-9 fleet, too, and all those ValuJet DC-9s will need to be muzzled. That's just in the US. There are large fleets of 727s and 737-200s that will also need to be quieted down or replaced. There's not much time left to replace them, so many will probably end up with hush kits too. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~kls/kls.html Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.mindspring.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Re: How do fuel guages work? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:55 Wish.u.knew@Doncha.megaweb.com (NADIR) (anonymously??) wrote: >The only time I >heard of a major airliner with a like problem was that Air Canada 767 >which was misfueled and subsequently made an emergency landing at a >dragstrip!!..Wonder if they tried clocking his 100-0mph reaction >times This incident became known as the Gimli Glider. The 767 was misfueled because all of its fuel gauges were either malfunctioning or were incorrectly checked. As a result, the aircraft (according to airline rules) should not have been dispatched at all. Instead, as it was a new aircraft, and there was pressure to get the aircraft out on time, the aircraft was fueled with checks done by converting a dipstick measurement in the tanks from a linear (probably metric) measurement to a volumetric (english, since it was a 767) measurement... and somebody got a conversion factor exactly backwards, resulting in *4 instead of /4, so they put 1/4 the necessary fuel on board. Gimli is a disused military airstrip, on which civilians were drag racing and having fun that day - but it was an airstrip, not really a dragstrip. There is a not-too-bad made-for-TV moving called, I believe, Silent Flight, about this incident. It actually does go in to some detail about how the errors occurred, and how the pilots figured out their options for saving the aircraft, plus the luck and sweat that went in to Gimli being in just about exactly the right spot. -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@MindSpring.com 11575 Laurel Lake Drive +1 404 552 0543 Roswell, GA 30075 Ask me about MindSpring U.S.A. Internet access in Atlanta! From kls Thu Aug 17 04:58:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: K.G.A.Lewis@sussex.ac.uk (Ken Lewis) Subject: Re: 747 fuel consumption question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Sussex Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Aug 95 04:58:55 Ted Pleavin (pleavin@HK.Super.NET) wrote: : In article , : deen@caip.rutgers.edu (Emile Deen) wrote: : >How much fuel does a 747 (say a 747-400) carry? : B-747-200/300 with reserve tanks 1,2,3,4 and center wing tanks full : about 170,026 kg of usable fuel at an sg of 0.78 : >How much does it use to take off? : At T/O fuel burn is about 20,000 kg/hr total at sea level on an : average engine set of Rolls Royce RB 211 at max B2 thrust. It is (perhaps) interesting to note that the three answers for fuel burn were 9 tonnes, 16 tonnes and 20 tonnes per hour at T/O. Is the variation really this large? Does the rate of fuel burn differ significantly depending on take-of weight, field altitude and temperature? Obviously the total fuel burn depends on weight etc. Ken Lewis k.g.a.lewis@sussex.ac.uk From kls Wed Aug 23 23:38:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Comments on aircraft order update Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Aug 95 23:38:27 Organization: International Internet Association. In the last update, I said that I would only post the new orders for the second half. Well, I lied. ;-) In the past few weeks, I was able to get some totals for the first half, and I have corrected some of the mistakes in the previous postings. Therefore, the August update still contains the complete listing for the year. I'm most grateful to Stephen Nicoud at Boeing whose info were extremely helpful. I also got an e-mail from an MD marketing person, but she did not offer any help. I have not heard from any Airbus personell, yet. Some comments: 1. I took out China's order of 20 MD90s from the list. I believe the MD90 was a part of the Trunkliner deal signed a few years back. The announcement during the Paris Air Show was only meant to inform the public which Chinese airlines got those 20 MD90s (China Northern will get 11, and China Eastern 9). 2. Comparing with Flight International's total, I found out that I missed an A340 and a B747 order from my list. Thus, I added those two orders to the list with unknown operators. My A320+A321 total is correct, but the individual total is different from Flight International's, so is my B737 total. 4. I saw two reports on EgyptAir's order of three B777s (in addition to three A340s). However, I can't confirm it, so I listed it as a letter of intent. 5. I listed Air China's potential order of 15 B777s as reported by Wall Street Journal. However, with Sino-American relationship at one of its lowest points, it'll take a while to sign the actual contract. 6. The cancellation list is hopeless for me to keep track of. Next time, I will leave it out. The new known cancellation total is mostly based on Flight International's numbers. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Wed Aug 23 23:38:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Aircraft order update (Aug 21, 95) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Aug 95 23:38:29 Organization: International Internet Association. *** 1995 Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (August 21, 95) *** | |300/ | /* 737 \ / 777 \| 80/ | | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 200 300| 90 11| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N| Itochu (for LG) | 2 | | N| SK | | | 2I | N| S'pore Aircraft (for AZ) | 3G | | N| ILFC | | 40 11 3 | | N| Unknown 1 | | | N| Unknown | 1U | | | LO | | 1 | | | MS | 3 | | | | CP | | 1G | | | VP | | | 2G| | KL | | 2G 3G | | | GE | 2I 2I | | | | IW | | | 2P | |U Land | | | 2P | | KE | | | 3P | | CV | | 1G | | | 5X | | 5R | | | AC | 10C | | | | BQ | | 2 | | | NG | | 2 | | | SV | | 5U 23U | 29I 4P| | AF | | 8 7 | | |Shandong | 3 | | | DM | | 6 | | | QF | | 3 2G | | | YP | 2I 4I | | | | UA | | 2P 4P | | | LTU | | 1R 1P | | | GMI | | 12 | | | JL | | 4 | | | SK | | 35 | | | ML | 4I | | | | LH | 20C | | | | LA | | 3P | | | IY | 2U | | | | BG | 2P | | | | NH | 10U | 3G 3P | | |Bavaria| | 2 | | | AI | | 2P | | | 3Q | | 3R | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 4 30 8 16 0 4 |27 82 25 7 14 10 18 26 0 | 38 6 | | 9 5 | A I R B U S ( 6 2 ) | B O E I N G ( 2 0 9 ) |M D(44)| Letters of Intent |___________________________________________________________________________| N| CA | | 15U | | N| HV | | 8 | | N| BR | | | 6I | N| MS | | 3U | | | NH | | 10P| | | TG | | 6R| | | KE | | 4P| | | CI | | 4U | | | BR | | 4U | | | UX | | 8 | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 4 30 8 16 0 4 |27 82 25 23 14 10 18 52 20 | 44 6 | | 9 5 | A I R B U S ( 6 2 ) | B O E I N G ( 2 7 1 ) |M D(57)| 1 N in the first column indicates new (or missed) order since the last update. 2 The engine selection (other than the A340, B737) is indicated by the letter behind each order number. B,C,G,I,P, or R stands for BMW-RR, CFMI, GEAE, IAE, P&W, or R-R, respectively; U for undecided/unknown. 3 The A300/310 is kept under one column, so is the 737-300/400/500 (*345), as well as the MD80/90/95. (The MD80/90/95 order can be easily distiguished by engine selection: P for MD80, I for MD90, and B for MD95 [if launched]). 4 airline code: AC - Air Canada AF - Air France AI - Air-India AZ - Alitalia BG - Biman Bangladesh BQ - EuroBelgian BR - EVA Airways CI - China AL CJ - China Northern CP - Canadian CV - Cargolux DM - Maersk GA - Garuda GE - Trans Asia GF - Gulf Air GMI- Germania HV - Transavia IW - AOM French IY - Yemenia JL - Japan AL KE - Korean Air LA - Lan-Chile LG - Luxair LH - Lufthansa LO - LOT Polish ML - Midway MS - EgyptAir MU - China Eastern NG - Lauda Air NH - All Nippon QF - Qantas SK - SAS SV - Saudia TG - Thai Int'l TR - Transbrasil UA - United UX - Air Europa VP - VASP YP - Aero Llyod 3Q - Yunnan(China) 5X - UPS 5 Send an e-mail to me (chuanga@iia2.org) for any order that I have left out. Make sure the orders are announced firm orders with a verifiable source. Known Cancellations |___________________________________________________________________________| N| GPA | | | -13G| N| TR | | -3R | | N| GA??? | -3R | | | N| Unknown -7U -2 | | | N| Unknown | | 1U| N| Unknown |-1 -2U | | | GF | | -6G | | | NH | | -4G | | | AF | | -1G -3G | | | 3Q | | -3R | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 0 0 -7 0 -3 -2 |-1 0 0 0 5 5 3 9 0 | 0 -14 | -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Wed Aug 23 23:38:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: thoughts on the A330 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Aug 95 23:38:30 Organization: International Internet Association. Since the launch of the B777, the A330 has not been doing very well. The A330 program has not secured any new orders for quite a while. In the past few years, only Aer Lingus and Hong Kong's DragonAir have been added to the A330 customer list. However, Aer Lingus' A330s are leased from Air Inter (the launch customer) which has also deferred many of its orders. Similarly, DragonAir's A330 was originally ordered by Cathay Pacific. I believe in TWA's first bankruptcy filing, TWA's A330 order was halved. More recently, the financially-troubled Garuda Indonesian Airways have cancelled (or will cancel) three of the nine planes ordered. During the Paris Air Show, orders from four Asian airlines (Cathay Pacific, Thai International, Korean Air, and All Nippon) helped the launching of the stretched B777. I would like to point out that three of the aforementioned airlines (other than ANA) are (or will be) A330 operators. If memory serves, Airbus proposed the A330-400X, a stretched A330, around 1992. One must ask the question why these airlines are not interested in the A330-400X! Furthermore, the engine companies (P&W, GE, and Rolls) seem to be more readily to commit to developing engines for the B777 than the A330. None of them has ever clearly defined an engine for the -400X. GE even cancelled the 72K-lb-thrust CF6-80E1 program. Therefore, IMHO, the A330 program needs a boost soon. The nearest term possibility is Singapore Airlines' 5-billion-dollar, A310-replacement order which is expected to be announced in the October time-frame. Airbus claims that it is ahead of Boeing in this competition. However, Singapore Airlines had said that some of the new aircraft from this order would also replace the B747 on regional routes. Last week, Flight International also reported that after this order, SIA would be looking for an A310-sized aircraft to serve low-density regional routes (i.e., SIA is looking for larger aircraft now). Furthermore, SIA was also reported to be interested in the B777-100X for non-stop service to the US West Coast from Singapore. Thus, I think Boeing may have a good chance winning the order. I don't think the A330/340 commonality will play a very important role in this order (SIA already has 17 A340s on firm order, and options on another 20). Nevertheless, if Airbus does win the order, the commonality factor will no doubt be emphasized. (I believe, Cathay Pacific is the only airline that has ordered both the A330 and 340, but it also has ordered the B777. Hence, I don't think the commonality is much an issue here.) The next "hope" for the A330 is the proposed shortened version which is pitched as an A300 replacement. (Actually, that's what I heard long, long time ago that Airbus was concentrating in marketing the A330 as an A300 replacement.) I think the new aircraft will have better range capability so that it can compete more effectively with the B767-300ER than the A300 can. I believe one of the major targets for the shortened version (along with the A340-8000) is American Airlines. Few months ago, there were a few scattered reports that British Airways might acquire the A330. BA has never ordered any Airbus (though it operates some A320s ordered by British Caledonian). However, the A330 is the first Airbus with a Rolls-Royce engine, one can't really rule out the possibility. Surprisingly, Airbus' biggest customer, Lufthansa, has not shown any interest in the A330. Indeed, the A330 is the only missing Airbus line in Lufthansa's fleet. In summary, I think the A330 was designed too small for the Asian markets, too large for the American and European markets. If the A330 program cannot secure any major order in the next two years, it may well become Airbus' biggest flop. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Wed Aug 23 23:38:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: JT-8D Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Aug 95 23:38:31 There are many different alternatives available to the owners of JT8D powered aircraft when it comes to quietening their aircraft. Here is a list of the alternatives I know of: All JT8Ss: 1) P&W offers a bypass/core mixer, which I believe is called the "Mod 9" mixer. 2) There is also an inlet guide vane mod available, which moves the IGVs forward to reduce inlet borne noise. DC-9s 1) ABS (Airborne Express, now ABX/Burbank Aeronautical/Shannon(?)) hushkit, consisting of a exhaust mixer. From pictures I have seen, I believe that this is a exhaust/external air mixer, which would imply that there is also a core/bypass mixer installed internally. Airborne Express and Northwest Airlines are adding this mod to their fleets. 2) At one point, there was a company built along the same lines as CAMMACORP (who did the DC-8 reenginings), with many of th same people, developing something, but this has gone quiet. MD-80s No hushkit is needed to meet Stage 3. Aerospatiale Caravelle Most of these aircraft have left active airline service. Dassault Mercure The 11 aircraft built have all been retired. 727-100s and -200s 1) Federal Express offers a core/bypass mixer which allows low GW aircraft to meet Stage 3. Besides Fedex, the Trump Shuttle (US Air) and others have this mod. 2) Valsan (now Rohr) offers a reengining mod. In this case, the outboard engines are replaced with JT8D-200s from MD-80s and the center engine has the thrust reverser removed and a core/bypass mixer installed. Approximately 20 aircraft were modified by the time Valsan closed up shop. Most of the modified aircraft are 727-200s, but there were some 727-100s modified. Rohr is restarting this program. 3) UPS is having Dee Howard reengine their entire fleet of 727s with RR Tays. I have seen some these aircraft in service. 4) Burbank Aeronautical claims to offer something for the 727, but I haven't seen any details. This might be the ABS DC-9 kit. 737-200 1) Nordam (actually Nordam/Boeing/P&W) offers a mod, that I think includes the P&W IGV respacing and the Mod 9 internal mixer. Nordam adds to this an exhaust/external mixer located within a shroud. This meets Stage 3, but I understand that there is a GW trade-off and the mod incurs a 5-7% fuel burn penalty in cruise. Customers include Air NZ, Lufthansa and US Air. 2) Sound Solutions was developing a similar mod, but the shroud would have been retractable to get rid of the fuel burn penalty. This project died in 1992. (I worked on this project) 3) AVRO is also offering a hushkit similar to Nordam's. I understand it is STC'ed, but I haven't seen one. 4) GE at one point was claiming that they were going to turn 737-200s into 737-500 look-alikes. Given the amount of modification this would take, it is no suprise that this has gone very quiet. Lastly on 727 winglets - Valsan certified a winglet mod for 727s (I was involved in the design effort). Besides the test article, installed on an ex-United 727-100, four sets were constructed. Two were placed with Delta for evaluation, one set was sold to Amway for their corporate 727 and one set was sold to the Canadian charter operator Royal Airlines. Despite a measured 5.5% fuel burn improvement, Delta decided to not proceed with the modification program and returned the winglets. When Valsan closed down, the winglet program was bought by Winglet Systems, which is now pursuing the program. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Aug 23 23:38:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: JT-8D Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Aug 95 23:38:31 lchiluku@ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) wrote: > >2. JT-8D's are installed on B737s, DC8-?, MD80s. ... and ?? You're missing the plane the engine was essentially designed for: the B727 Also, I'm not familiar with any DC-8 application, so I assume you meant DC-9. > >3. The MD80s are extremely noisy during takeoff, but are acceptable during >approach and landing? > >4. MD80s have been banned from John Wayne (Orange County) and in Switzerland >because of noise issues.. true? MD-80's use JT8D-2xx series engines which are a higher bypass ratio, much quieter than earlier JT8D's (JT8D-1x), and (I think, others will correct if I'm wrong) meet stage III noise requirements. MD-80s are very quiet planes, IMHO, but in truth they are probably just marginally stage III. They definitely seem a little louder than CFM-56 powered 737s (series 300-700). DC-9's, B737's (series 100-200) and B727's use the older generation noisier JT8D-1x engines. >10. What is the market for hush kits. Is it true that American is furious >with McDonnell Douglas because of all the noise MD80s that they are saddled >with (how many?). Don't know here, but I doubt it. From what I've heard, most operators love MD-80's because they are very efficient, quiet, have the high reliability of JT8Ds, and are nearly as quiet as later 737's. (but as a passenger my opinion of the 5-abreast, no-headroom MD-80, DC-9, and F-100 is QUITE the opposite). -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Wed Aug 23 23:38:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ckd@loiosh.kei.com (Christopher Davis) Subject: Re: B737 Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Muppet Labs Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Aug 95 23:38:31 KS> == Karl Swartz >> several months ago I noticed a Delta 727 at San Diego that had >> winglets mounted on its wingtips KS> That's the Valsan conversion, two of which were done (both for Delta) KS> before the company went under. There's a photo of one of the aircraft available on the World Wide Web; it's at . Both N510DA and N511DA (pictured) had the Valsan winglets; both have been reported to have had the modification removed. As Karl noted, Valsan has since gone bankrupt and it's therefore unlikely that we'll see this modification installed on any 727s in the near future. -- 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 Wed Aug 23 23:38:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk (Henry Law) Subject: ATC on passengers' headsets Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Organization: Home Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Aug 95 23:38:31 In a recent post on another subject, a contributor mentioned listening to the ATC communications on the in-flight headset. At one time I flew AA from MAN to ORD several times in one year and listening to the voice traffic was of great interest to me (as a fully paid-up, case-hardened aeroplane nut). Then one day I settled into my seat westbound and found the channel had been reallocated, "for security reasons" I was told. Alas! I'd appreciate watching a discussion among the more informed and professional members of this group along the lines of: 1. What is the prevailing attitude among the airlines to allowing passengers to listen to ATC? I can't believe that it is a security exposure, given the prevalence of air band radios on the ground. 2. What do pilots themselves think? -- Henry Law <>< hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Manchester, England From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:11 Andrew, To tack on to your A330 comments... > 1992. One must ask the question why these airlines are not interested in ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > the A330-400X! Furthermore, the engine companies (P&W, GE, and Rolls) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ IMHO, the biggest reason is that it's not made in Everett, Washington. Say what you will about Airbus vs Boeing, airlines will make the smart choice when given two competing airframes. Not to say that some boneheaded moves have not been made, but generally, political considerations aside, airlines will choose the best equipment. Jennings Heilig From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 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: 27 Aug 95 14:37:12 chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) wrote Subject: thoughts on the A330 >Since the launch of the B777, the A330 has not been doing very well. The >A330 program has not secured any new orders for quite a while. In the >past few years, only Aer Lingus and Hong Kong's DragonAir have been added >to the A330 customer list. However, Aer Lingus' A330s are leased from >Air Inter (the launch customer) which has also deferred many of its orders. >Similarly, DragonAir's A330 was originally ordered by Cathay Pacific. I >believe in TWA's first bankruptcy filing, TWA's A330 order was halved. >More recently, the financially-troubled Garuda Indonesian Airways have >cancelled (or will cancel) three of the nine planes ordered. <> This is not a direct comment on his posting, but might be an interesting sidebar for some. I was at a Pacific Rim airline talking to their fleet captains about an upgrade to the 747-400. During a break I asked some of them how their newly ordered (but not delivered) A330s were going to fit into their fleet picture. They were somewhat concerned because of the speed they were going to have to fly the airplanes. According to them, the A330 and A340 are speed limited due to a buffet problem. Basically, they told me that the wing had been a common design between the A330/340 and not tuned for the placement of either two or four engines. The speed limit they were quoting was .78M! In Pacific Rim operations, speed turns into altitude. The ATC folks tend to put the faster airplanes high and relegate the slower airplanes to a lower (and less efficient altitudes). This potential operational restriction must be taken into account when flight planning and translates directly into payload on takeoff limited flights. Dave David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Boeing Flight Management Systems Opinions are mine and not Boeing's From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eddy Subject: LAUDA 767 Crash '91. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Computer Science, University of Liverpool, UK Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:12 Hi there Re; Lauda Air 767 Accident. Can anybody tell me if the Thai authorities have released their findings on this accident?? It seems to me that politics may have a part to play in the wording/rewording of the conclusions, and thus the long wait .... I have been told confidentially by those in the know that this is due to the large lawsuits that are pending... The PW4000 is completely fly-by-wire? Was this most definitely a mechanical failure? It seems unbelievable that deployment could occur whilst climbing through 28000 feet on max climb thrust. I'm not familiar with this particular engine. Can anybody tell me if the cockpit has both 'reverse' and 'reverse isolation valve' lights? I know that there was indication just prior to the deployment, and that the crew didn't particularly worry - WHY???? I would have thought that this is obv. a potentially serious situation (as it turned out to be...). Please cc: any replies to this newsgroup to edward@liv.ac.uk as I don't read it as often as I should/could. --eddy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What I want to find out is -- do parrots know much about Astro-Turf? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tombros@ifi.unizh.ch (Dimitrios Tombros) Subject: Re: JT-8D Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Zurich Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:12 In article , Steve Lacker writes: |> lchiluku@ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) wrote: |> >4. MD80s have been banned from John Wayne (Orange County) and in Switzerland |> >because of noise issues.. true? |> Swissair still flies MD-87 on many European routes. They are slowly replaced by A320's though. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Dimitrios Tombros Database Technology Research Group| | e-mail: tombros@ifi.unizh.ch Computer Science Department | | Tel. +411 257 45 76 University of Zurich | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Harold E Gilreath RCP x5125 Subject: Cross Winds Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab, Laurel, MD, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:12 Several days ago, my USAir flight from Bermuda was cancelled due to "dangerous cross winds" at the airport caused by Hurricane Felix. Delta and American also cancelled all of their flights. Interestingly, neither Kiwi nor Continental flights were cancelled. Granting that the pilots are not foolhearty, why the difference in operating rules? The airlines that cancelled flights use 757's and 767's, I believe. Don't know the equipment used by the other two. Does anyone have an answer? If so, I'd appreciate hearing it. Thanx, Gil From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: laewell@iastate.edu (Lars A Ewell) Subject: NTSB Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:13 To Whom it May Concern, I read an interesting article in last Sunday's (8/20/95) New York Times. The article was concerned with 737s and crash investigations. In particular, the article referred to the still unsolved crash of USAir flight 427 last year outside of Pittsburgh, a 737. The article also mentioned the crash of another 737 (United) outside of Denver also unsolved. It went on to say that in the 28 year history of the National Transportation Safety Board there have been only four unsolved crashes, two being the 737's referred to above. Does anyone know what other two crashes have yet to have the cause determined? Thank-you. Lars Ewell From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: NTSB References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:13 >[In NTSB's history] there have been only four unsolved crashes, two >being the 737's referred to above. Does anyone know what other two >crashes have yet to have the cause determined? I believe the May 26, 1991 Lauda Air 767 crash in Thailand is counted as one of them -- it's my understanding that there's still some controversy over the mechanism behind the thrust reverser deployment in-flight. I have no idea what the fourth crash might be. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: 747 fuel consumption question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:13 Sigh.... I've seen: Imperial gallons US gallons Metric Tonnes pounds kilograms & liters mentioned so far in this thread. Is it ANY wonder Gimli happened ;-? From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: 747 fuel consumption question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: pete@meads.demon.co.uk Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:14 In article: K.G.A.Lewis@sussex.ac.uk (Ken Lewis) writes: > Ted Pleavin (pleavin@HK.Super.NET) wrote: > : At T/O fuel burn is about 20,000 kg/hr total at sea level on an > : average engine set of Rolls Royce RB 211 at max B2 thrust. > It is (perhaps) interesting to note that the three answers for fuel > burn were 9 tonnes, 16 tonnes and 20 tonnes per hour at T/O. Is the > variation really this large? Sorry, I should have made it clear. The 747-136 with P&W engines use 9 tonnes per hour EACH on T.O., for a total of about 36 tonnes per hour. Of course, that power is only on for between 3 and 5 minutes, hence a fuel burn on T.O. of about 2 to 3 tonnes. OK? -- Pete Finlay ## pete@meads.demon.co.uk Boeing 747 Flight Engineer for British Airways From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: olesen@metronet.com (Eric Olesen) Subject: Re: How do fuel guages work? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Texas Metronet, Inc (login info (214/705-2901 - 817/571-0400)) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:14 Jay Vassos-Libove (libove@libove.mindspring.com) wrote: : This incident became known as the Gimli Glider. The 767 was misfueled : because all of its fuel gauges were either malfunctioning or were : incorrectly checked. As a result, the aircraft (according to airline : rules) should not have been dispatched at all. >From my recollection, the gauges were placarded as inoperative by maintenance against the MEL list (min equip list). Dispatch was permitted and legal using the specs that were in place at the time. : Instead, as it was a new aircraft, and there was pressure to get the : aircraft out on time, the aircraft was fueled with checks done by : converting a dipstick measurement in the tanks from a linear (probably : metric) : measurement to a volumetric (english, since it was a 767) : measurement... and somebody got a conversion factor exactly : backwards, resulting in *4 instead of /4, so they put 1/4 the : necessary fuel on board. Both the fueler and the first officer made the same conversion error... Once the tanks were dipsticked for quantity, dispatch was legal because the fuel quantity was entered into the Flt Management Computer.. This was supposed to track consumption based on the fuel flow into the engines. The problem was that the incorrect fuel quantity was entered into the FMC, so it was correct about how much fuel was consumed, but also 'thought' that there was about 60% more fuel onboard than there really was. At the time they lost engines, the FMC was still showing that there was fuel onboard... So... had the right amount been entered into the FMC, there should not have been a problem with dispatching the aircraft with the fuel quantity gauges placarded as inoperative. I believe that this is still on the MEL and procedurally OK with some carriers, although I also seem to remember that AC changed the way that fuel was measured in metrics vs. English units. E From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:15 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Nik Waalewijn Subject: 747 fuel flow during T0 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Desorganised Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:15 Last week somebody asked about the 747 fuel flow during take off. Because the answers were not all the same I've been looking for some data in the CMC. I have found a full rated T.O. at max. weight and a derated T.O. at very light weight so you can see the difference. The aircraft is a 747-400 series, CF6 engines: TOW: 396.900 kg (= MaxTOW) SAT: 24 C N1: 106 percent (full rated) Fuel Flow: 9700 kg/hr/eng TOW: 233.000 kg (= very light) SAT: 11 C N1: 95 percent (max. derated) Fuel Flow: 7000 kg/hr/eng All data was measured just after lift off at a sea level airport. -- Nik Waalewijn From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: uakoops@aol.com (UAKoops) Subject: Re: ATC on passengers' headsets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: uakoops@aol.com (UAKoops) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:16 >I'd appreciate watching a discussion among the more informed and >professional members of this group along the lines of: > >1. What is the prevailing attitude among the airlines to allowing > passengers to listen to ATC? I can't believe that it is a security > exposure, given the prevalence of air band radios on the ground. >2. What do pilots themselves think? I have also enjoyed listening to ATC on the headsets, mostly on United (channel 9 on most planes). Lately on a number of flights this was turned off. I recently had a First Officer flying home off duty sitting next to me on a flight and I asked him about this. He said that it was because lawyers were taping the conversations and then suing the pilots if the plane hit turbulence or such, claiming the crew should have been warned and using the tapes as evidence. Maybe that's what they meant by security? :) UAKoops From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: ATC on passengers' headsets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:16 Security? How could having access to ATC communications on board the airplane possibly pose a security risk? If I were to want to blow up an airplane (assuming I were a suicide bomber), simply having access to ATC would do me no good at all. To even the most trained ear (pilot), listening to ATC without having detailed maps and a knowledge of where you were via instruments or visual cues wouldn't tell you much. If I were to want to blow up an airplane over a densely populated area, for instance, ATC wouldn't tell me that. I thoroughly enjoy listening to ATC on the headset, and I wish Delta would start doing it like United does... Jennings Heilig From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kinsler@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu (Mark Kinsler ) Subject: Re: ATC on passengers' headsets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ohio University, College of Engineerng & Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:17 Henry Law wrote: > >I'd appreciate watching a discussion among the more informed and >professional members of this group along the lines of: > >1. What is the prevailing attitude among the airlines to allowing > passengers to listen to ATC? I can't believe that it is a security > exposure, given the prevalence of air band radios on the ground. >2. What do pilots themselves think? I'd be interested in this, too. Is it generally possible to listen to ATC radio from inside the aircraft on your own battery-powered receiver? Mark Kinsler From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gitlitz@hdssd.hitachi.com (Mark Gitlitz) Subject: Re: ATC on passengers' headsets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hitachi Data Systems Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:17 >I'd appreciate watching a discussion among the more informed and >professional members of this group along the lines of: >1. What is the prevailing attitude among the airlines to allowing > passengers to listen to ATC? I can't believe that it is a security > exposure, given the prevalence of air band radios on the ground. >2. What do pilots themselves think? The only US airline (that I know of) which still does this is UA. Even then, it is at the discretion of the Left Seat. AA used many years ago. This was stopped (so I was told) after a Lawyer heard what he though was a near miss situation (it wasn't). He made AA's life miserable as he tried to find out why this wasn't written up. -- Hitachi Data Systems WorldWide Support Center San Diego, CA From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: snowd@coral.indstate.edu Subject: Re: ATC on passengers' headsets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indiana State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:17 In article hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk (Henry Law) writes: >I'd appreciate watching a discussion among the more informed and >professional members of this group along the lines of: >1. What is the prevailing attitude among the airlines to allowing > passengers to listen to ATC? I can't believe that it is a security > exposure, given the prevalence of air band radios on the ground. >2. What do pilots themselves think? Henry - I know that on United, at least domestically, channel 9 on ur audio selector panel used to bring up VHF COMM #1, the primary nav radio. It may not now. Its operation was subject to captains discretion, but everytime i asked, which was every time I flew UAL, i was never turned down. Ill never forget when i discovered this nifty little trick. We were holding at the penalty box at ORD awaiting for departure on runway 9R. I was ticked at the classical channel not being that great when i decided to channel surf, and heard someone say "ohare tower" in my ears. I about flipped. Needless to say, my audio panel never left that channel for the remainder of the flight. UAL also passed out passenger survey forms on that flight, and i definitely let them know that i, as an airliner nut, i really appreciated the ability to listen in. doug From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ATC on passengers' headsets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:18 >I know that on United, at least domestically, channel 9 on ur audio >selector panel used to bring up VHF COMM #1, the primary nav radio. It's on channel 9 except as follows: 737-200 most or all don't have audio so obviously no ATC 747-238B (ex-Qantas) don't have this capability 747-400 ATC is on channel 14 DC-8-71 ATC was on channel 4 >Its operation was subject to captains discretion, but everytime i asked, >which was every time I flew UAL, i was never turned down. Shuttle flights almost invariably have it on before I even ask. I almost always ask, and I'd say about half the time it's either on or they'll turn it on. If not, sometimes it's a curt "no" or "we don't do that." I once asked a captain why and he said he'd been flying a DC-10 that had an engine fail about an hour out from the destination, LAX. Some clown was listening in on channel 9 and used the AirFone to call all the TV stations in Los Angeles who were on hand to make a media frenzy out of an entirely unremarkable event. Speaking of DC-10s and ATC on channel 9, I noted with some interest in the transcripts from UA 232 -- the DC-10 which crashed at Sioux City, Iowa several years ago -- that Capt. Haynes turned off channel 9 when it became clear that they were in serious trouble. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: matalqa.1@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Tareq R. Matalqa) Subject: Re: landing flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:18 In article susanle@ix.netcom.com (Susan Leibowitz ) writes: >Is it unusual to not extend the wing flaps until after the landing gear >has been deployed? they could have delayed the flap extension in order to reduce drag which will reduce fuel consumption. Just a thought. Some pilots decide to delay the extention of the landing gear in order for that same purpose. Relax Tareq. From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Re: landing flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:19 I experienced the inverse situation: a takeoff without flaps. I was really concerned until we were safely climbing out of ground effect. After landing, I asked the pilots what happened. Their answer: you don't usually use flaps for takeoff in an F-100. You learn something new every day! From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: landing flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:19 edgraf@pipeline.com (Edward Graf) wrote: >I fly the 737-300 out of LAX. The gear can be deployed at 270 knots, >whereas flaps (in the 300) can be started out no faster than 230 knots, and >are not nearly as effective as the gear. Does the high speed at which the 737's gear can be deployed have anything to do with the fact that 737's don't have main gear doors? From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: landing flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:19 >Does the high speed at which the 737's gear can be deployed have >anything to do with the fact that 737's don't have main gear doors? The 737 does not have doors covering the main gear because leaving them off adds little drag, and the extra weight and complexity would have added more to costs than the slight drag penalty. Very possibly the lack of doors allows the gear to be deployed at higher speeds than might otherwise be the case. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jamest8469@aol.com (JamesT8469) Subject: Re: landing flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jamest8469@aol.com (JamesT8469) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:20 That is not the normal sequence for flaps and gear extension. However there is nothing wrong with doing this if you are in the airspeed limits for the flaps and gear extension. Perhaps the pilot was using the gear to more quickly slow the aircraft to the flap extend speed restriction. Sometimes the approach to LAX requires alternate techniques to meeting the situation at hand... retired-airline capt. From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jimjr7@aol.com (JIMJR7) Subject: aircraft cabin design Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jimjr7@aol.com (JIMJR7) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:20 Requesting any information on new or improved aircraft cabin designs. Any information would be appreciated from any or all manufacturers of aircraft. Information dealing with cost, and ergonomics of cabin designs would be most beneficial. From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tomasz Natkanski Subject: questions on condensation trail Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Arizona Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:21 Hi,I am just wondering at what temperature (altitude) does the trail start to develop. I also wonder about something else: the "steam" that comes out of the wing during the approach stage.... What is it? Sorry for these untechnical questions, Tomasz Natkanski -- *===========================+=======================+======================* | Tomasz Natkanski | University of Arizona | "Wish you were here" | | polo@seds.lpl.arizona.edu | Aerospace Eng. | - pINK fLOYD | *===========================+=======================+======================* From kls Sun Aug 27 14:37:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: avfoto@ix.netcom.com (Jay Selman ) Subject: Aviation Maintenance in China Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Aug 95 14:37:21 Thanks to all of you who responded to my recent request for information regarding aviation maintenance organizations in Asia. After further talks with my editor, we have decided to concentrate on China. So... for those of you in the know, I would greatly appreciate hearing from you about any companies performing aircraft maintenance in China, including contact people, if at all possible. In addition, there are several commerical aircraft manufactured in China. If anyone can steer me toward contact people for these companies, I would be most appreciative. As before, please e-mail your responses to: unclejay@aol.com Thank you very much. Jay Selman From kls Wed Aug 30 14:12:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: skopylenko@aol.com (SKopylenko) Subject: A320-flaps Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Aug 95 14:12:45 Reply-To: skopylenko@aol.com (SKopylenko) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Could someone tell me what is the takeoff flaps settings for A320.Thanks. From kls Wed Aug 30 14:12:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tthuang@patmos.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Timothy T. Huang) Subject: small screens on newer airplanes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Aug 95 14:12:46 Organization: University of California, Berkeley Does anyone know what kind of technology is used in the small fold-down screens in some of the newer airplanes? The image quality is good enough that it seems like active-matrix screens, but I'm surprised that the airplane companies can put so many screens in the plane without significantly increasing the cost of the plane. --Tim From kls Wed Aug 30 14:12:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Markus Riner Subject: Boeing 777 software engineering questions Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Aug 95 14:12:47 Organization: SBC Hi I'm looking for some informations about the software engineering for the B777 on board computers and systems controllers. I'm interested in the following: - used development tools - used languages - performed tests - hardware descriptions I need this stuff for a discourse at our software engineering school. All informations are welcome. Thanks for your support. With kind regards. Markus Riner (former widebody maintenance engineer) t016426@ch.swissbank.com From kls Wed Aug 30 14:12:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Aug 95 14:12:47 In article Jennings Heilig writes: > > IMHO, the biggest reason is that it's not made in Everett, Washington. >Say what you will about Airbus vs Boeing, airlines will make the smart >choice when given two competing airframes. Not to say that some >boneheaded moves have not been made, but generally, political >considerations aside, airlines will choose the best equipment. I would tend to disagree. A number of good books are available which go into airline purchasing habits. There are a huge number of factors to consider. Even among airlines which are purportedly part of free-market systems, airlines can base their decisions upon questionable criteria--consider Trippe and the 747, for example, a relationship which arguably started the fiscal demise of Pan Am. Or the mere existence of the DC-10 (a cruddy airplane, but relatively cheap to fly, so popular among operators). When you consider the nationalized airlines, or airlines in less-developed countries, political considerations clearly *do* enter into it. Just look at the hell BA caught when it selected GE engines, rather than Rolls-Royce, never mind choosing a 777 over the A330. Do you really think Boeing would have the same opportunities in, say, Iran, Iraq, and Libya--clearly major future export markets--as Airbus would? And again focusing on the Middle East, there are many public statements by airline leaders in the region to standardize aircraft selection on the basis of parts commonality and other interests: again, *politics* enter into it. And let's not forget how *our* politics can hinder export sales--Airbus has national backing, and can promise to make up airline losses if the airplane does not deliver. For a long period of time, the US government could have cared less, and even had political factions in power during much of the 80's who would have viewed such failures as acceptable within the global market. -- 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 Aug 30 14:12:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Addison Schonland Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CIC Research.com Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Aug 95 14:12:48 If you don't like the 330 that's OK...provided you have had to fly those belonging to Air Inter...412 seats! Terrible! Enough to give the airplane a bad name. -- Best regards, Addison Schonland Phone: (619) 637-4000 Fax: (619) 637-4040 From kls Wed Aug 30 14:12:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Aug 95 14:12:48 In article , FMCDave wrote: > >I was at a Pacific Rim airline talking to their fleet >captains about an upgrade to the 747-400. During a break I asked some of >them how their newly ordered (but not delivered) A330s were going to fit >into their fleet picture. They were somewhat concerned because of the >speed they were going to have to fly the airplanes. According to them, >the A330 and A340 are speed limited due to a buffet problem. Basically, >they told me that the wing had been a common design between the A330/340 >and not tuned for the placement of either two or four engines. The speed >limit they were quoting was .78M! > Interesting. A couple of weeks ago, I was at a bookstore and I came across an article on Airbus/Boeing competition in the Far Eastern Economic Review. In the article, it mentioned Boeing marketing people was promoting that the long-range B777 could take an hour less than the A340 on very long trips. However, the reporter said based on the data provided by the manufacturers, the difference should only be 15 to 20 minutes. Wonder who is not telling the truth? I'm really intrigued by the "disappearance" of the A330 (that's why I can't stop blabbering, and please excuse me for blabbering ;-). Three of the four airlines that helped the launch of the B777-300 are also A330 operators (Cathay Pacific, Thai, and Korean). The A330-400X was on the table long before the B777-300. Only Cathay was mentioned in the press that it was interested in the -400X in the early stage. Why Airbus couldn't get any of them to commit to the -400X? (I think the answer is the -400X is too small, and does not have long enough range.) Also, I briefly checked some references, I believe the A330 has lost nearly 30 orders since its peak, that's about one-third of its current backlog. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Wed Aug 30 14:12:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jeff Tomasin Subject: ATC on Airline Headsets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Aug 95 14:12:48 In article hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk (Henr y Law) writes: >I'd appreciate watching a discussion among the more informed and >professional members of this group along the lines of: >1. What is the prevailing attitude among the airlines to allowing > passengers to listen to ATC? I can't believe that it is a security > exposure, given the prevalence of air band radios on the ground. >2. What do pilots themselves think? I asked an American Airlines DC-10 crew about the disappearance of ATC broadcasts on the aircraft entertainment system. They mentioned cases where passengers questioned flight attendants about events that were occuring on broadcasts or becoming alarmed at something they perceived to be dangerous. One poster asked about the possibility of receiving ATC broadcasts with a handheld receiver while seated in the passenger compartment. The only location where reception is possible is next to the window and the antenna must be pressed against the window. Otherwise the signal will be too weak. Legally, this is not permitted due to possible RF radiating from the receiver and interferring with the aircraft's radio/navigation system. JT From kls Wed Aug 30 14:12:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pbeker@crl.com (Pavel Beker) Subject: Re: ATC on passengers' headsets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Aug 95 14:12:49 kinsler@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu (Mark Kinsler ) writes: >I'd be interested in this, too. Is it generally possible to listen to >ATC radio from inside the aircraft on your own battery-powered receiver? Yes, but... unless you have either a very good radio or a very good antenna, you will likely lose the ground-side of communications well before you reach the flight levels... thus, you only get the crew's responses to ATC -- not much fun... Also, make sure the airline allows this -- virtually none will allow use of any electronics below 10,000 feet; the time between 10,000 and when the radio gives out doesn't leave much, unfortunately. Please post if you find otherwise! -- Paul From kls Wed Aug 30 14:12:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk (Henry Law) Subject: Re: ATC on passengers' headsets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Organization: Home Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Aug 95 14:12:49 In article kinsler@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu "Mark Kinsler " writes: > I'd be interested in this, too. Is it generally possible to listen to > ATC radio from inside the aircraft on your own battery-powered receiver? It's perfectly possible, but cabin staff have a tendency to treat the receiver as being in the same class as a cellphone and ask you in no uncertain terms to turn it off. They're probably wrong, but some receiver designs do transmit a little local RF so it's probably safer overall for the airline to prohibit it. Interestingly, reception of transmissions from the aircraft you're in is quite poor, in my experience. -- Henry Law <>< hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Manchester, England From kls Wed Aug 30 14:12:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Radios in the cabin (was Re: ATC on passengers' headsets) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Aug 95 14:12:49 In s.a.a, kinsler@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu (Mark Kinsler ) wrote: >Henry Law wrote: >> >>I'd appreciate watching a discussion among the more informed and >>professional members of this group along the lines of: >> > >I'd be interested in this, too. Is it generally possible to listen to >ATC radio from inside the aircraft on your own battery-powered receiver? As I'm sure others will mention, radio receivers in the passenger cabin are not permitted. And with radio receivers, there is very good technical reasons for this: Most modern (digitally tuned) receivers use "heterodyne" technology to synthesize the correct frequency for tuning. What this means is, there is a local oscillator inside the receiver, which when mixed with the antenna signal, essentially filters out everything but the audio signal of interest (aviation VHF is amplitude modulated). In theory, this local oscillator is shielded, but in practice there is always some leakage into the surrounding environment. The VHF navigation signals which are commonly used are very low power (10s to 100s of watts, unlike broadcast FM VHF (like 20,000 watts)). This tiny oscillation from the local oscillator is, of course, much smaller, but it is much closer to the aircraft antenna. There have been documented cases where radio receivers (not transceivers) have caused significant interference with navigation equipment, so all radio receivers should not be operated in the cabin. This includes cellular phones. Other portable electronic devices (CD players, laptops) have anecdotally been blamed for navigation equipment interference, but unlike radio receivers, no systematic problems with these devices have been found. So you might ask, why can the aircraft radios be used without this problem, especially onboard cabin telephones? Well, in practice, the equipment on board is much better shielded (ever see a MCU/ATR box opened?), and that interference tests are commonly performed before putting the equipment on board. Sorry to ramble, 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 Aug 30 14:12:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ray Moody Subject: Re: ATC on passengers' headsets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cray Research Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Aug 95 14:12:50 >I'd be interested in this, too. Is it generally possible to listen to >ATC radio from inside the aircraft on your own battery-powered receiver? Yes, it is possible. It is also illegal and even a little bit dangerous. Most radios operate by generating a signal 10.8Mhz lower than the frequency that is to be received. This signal is mixed with the incoming signal and the resulting superheterodyne is exactly 10.8Mhz. This signal is presented to a fixed-frequency receiver. The result is consistently good reception at all frequencies the receiver is designed for. The problem is that radio receivers leak radio waves. You can easily observe this by placing two FM receivers close to each other and tuning one to a frequency 10.8Mhz lower than the other. Now what if a pilot is looking for a signal 10.8Mhz higher than a nearby passenger is tuned in to... Since the FM band is just below the air traffic band, FM radios are also illegal and even a little bit dangerous. -- Ray From kls Wed Aug 30 14:12:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: ATC on passengers' headsets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Aug 95 14:12:50 On 27 Aug 95 14:37:18 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) said: Karl> Shuttle flights almost invariably have it on before I even ask. Karl> I almost always ask, and I'd say about half the time it's either Karl> on or they'll turn it on. If not, sometimes it's a curt "no" or Karl> "we don't do that." I've had tremendous success with sending my business card to the cockpit with a polite request for ATC on channel 9. When it doesn't work, I usually get an extremely nice explanation. Maybe the NASA logo impresses them or maybe I've just run into nice captains. I've had the most trouble on the Airbus A320s, as it seems to work very poorly when it works at all--the volume is way too low, as a rule, but turning it up invites a ruptured eardrum when Captain Speaking points out a landmark. I chatted with a deadheading first officer about this once and he said that he thought that Airbus just didn't understand and sort of added a jury-rigged system that has given United a lot of trouble. -- Mary Shafer DoD #362 KotFR SR-71 Chief Engineer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html From kls Wed Aug 30 14:12:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: zpeter@netcom.com (Peter Zadrozny) Subject: Re: ATC on passengers' headsets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Aug 95 14:12:50 As an avid aeronautic fan, channel 9 is one of the main reasons I will only fly United. As I have learned over the years this is entirely pilots discretion, and you will get as many variations on the theme as arguments captains might have. If we have to generalize, I would say that domestic 737 and 727 will have it on and the bigger birds will have it off. On international flights it can get even more interesting: more than once I had it happen on flights to/from Mexico City/San Francisco that ATC will be on only when it is an american ATC. I have this happen also to/from JFK/Caracas, where ATC was on while the ATC was english speaking. Going to Europe, only once (SFO/CDG) I had ATC on and that was for the first 30 minutes after take off and 30 minutes before landing. Speaking with the different crews there has been a consistent answer between the ones that don't do it. It's either fear for a lawyer or it's not any business of the passenger. The lawyer one is the most popular, and once a captain got really worked up when I asked why, I guess he had been bitten by that animal... Peter From kls Wed Aug 30 14:12:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: arch6@inlink.com (Archibald McKinlay) Subject: Re: landing flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: McKinlay & Associates Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Aug 95 14:12:51 In article , jamest8469@aol.com (JamesT8469) wrote: > That is not the normal sequence for flaps and gear extension This is due to the usual arrangement of the design in that the flaps do usually have a higher design deployment speed. In the case of certain applications, maneuvering flaps for example, flaps have been made to extend at relatively high, >300kts, speeds. Landing gear has not been so designed as there is little to be gained in designing a higher deployment speed. >However there is nothing wrong with doing this if you are in the airspeed >limits for the flaps and gear extension. Gear extension speeds are predominantly a function of the doors or other fairing assemblies or lights. Most tubing, such as hydraulic lines for brakes and electrics for anti-skid, are tied down well enough they are not a problem. In the military we had several inadvertent deployments on various jets and all that happened was usually door loss. Some flail injury to the tubing did occur but nothing to impair functionality. If other factors are involved, such as corrosion or an overserviced strut, there can be more severe consequences. These gear extension speeds are ususally well above placard limits because they are worst case conditions, not usually found in landing sequence. BTW, one inadvertent extension was at over 450kts in a dive bomb run.... Inadvertent flap deployment at high speeds can result in jammed flap tracks and in some cases result in severed hydraulic lines or even loss of a flap edge or wing overstress. These are design and routing dependent hazards. The choices are often driven by design approach speed and glideslope, space in the wing, fuel cell placement, drive mechanism size and orientation, etc. Speeds at which these occur usually are only a little above placard limits because this worst case can occur in the landing sequence. > Perhaps the pilot was using the gear to more quickly slow the aircraft > to the flap extend speed restriction. Sometimes the approach to LAX > requires alternate techniques to meeting the situation at hand... I also have had commercial reports of flaps and gear out of sequence simply to adjust speed, funny that speed brakes are not there when you need them.... This type of ad hoc checklist change has also resulted in gear up approaches and some gear up passes..... -- Truth arises from disagreement amongst friends, D. Hume (Scotland) eine Flucht nach Vorn machen, make a retreat forward Loved and Missed, so Work Together and Rejoice, Phillipians 4:1-13 Archibald McKinlay, VI Booz Allen & Hamilton/McKinlay & Associates Software Safety Engineering and Management arch6@inlink.com From kls Wed Aug 30 14:12:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: quanta@mail.usa.net (QuantaLex, Inc.) Subject: Do YOU Remember Lockheed's Burbank Facilities? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: news@shiva.usa.net Organization: Internet Express (800-592-1240 customer service) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Aug 95 14:12:51 DO YOU REMEMBER......... Air Force Plant#14, the Lockheed Plants, or the Lockheed Air Terminal located in Burbank, CA? The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is interested in these facilities and is conducting research into their history from the 1920s to the present. QuantaLex has been contracted to conduct this research and is currently speaking to individuals with knowledge of these facilities or the companies or industries which operated them. If you have any information, we would like to to talk to you!!!! Please call QuantaLex, Inc. at: 1-800-873-7411 (Toll Free) (8 am - 5 pm MDT, Monday - Friday) Or please e-mail QuantaLex, Inc. at: quanta@usa.net QuantaLex, Inc. 300 Union Boulevard, Suite 600 From news Thu Aug 31 20:25:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Sabena goes for Avro RJs, rather than Fokkers Followup-To: misc.transport.air-industry Date: 31 Aug 1995 17:25:40 -0700 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <425ju4$mkf@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Sabena has annouced that it is ordering Avro RJ85 aircraft rather than Fokker F70s. The order size is 24, making it the largest single order for RJs yet achieved by Avro (nee BAe) (though I think there were larger orders for the BAe 146, in its heyday---the RJ is just a updated version of the 146). I think this is an interesting decision. On the face of it, I would have thought the F70 a more likely candidate. Two fewer engines, and I think that there were already F28s in the Sabena fleet. Plus I'm sure that Daimler-Benz (controlling owner of Fokker) would have offered beaucoup discounts on the thing, Fokker is in pretty desperate shape. Also, the F70 is a more "normal" looking beast. This must be quite a feather in the BAe cap, and rather a bad blow to Fokker. I wonder what BAe offered. Followups to misc.transport.air-industry RNA From kls Sun Sep 3 20:45:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: matalqa.1@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (T R M) Subject: DC-8 still carry passengers in the US Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 20:45:37 Organization: The Ohio State University A couple of weeks ago someone posted that all DC-8 in the US have retired from the business of transporting passengers. Well yesterday I was on a DC-8-62 operated by Rich International (Tail No. N772CA ) that still carries passengers, and not only on domestic routes but also across the big ponds. So for those who thought that all DC-8 under US registration are cargo, We just learned something new. Life is a lesson. TRM From kls Sun Sep 3 20:45:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rgray@ucsub.colorado.edu (Gray Raymond) Subject: Sim Web Page Found! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 20:45:37 Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder I just found a pretty good web page on the United Airlines simulator facility in Denver. It's located at http://www.ualfltctr.com and has good graphics and descriptions of the various sims at that facility. From kls Sun Sep 3 20:45:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tom <102377.1604@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Airbus A1 Upgrade and CPIP3 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 20:45:38 Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) I understand that there is an upgrade to the A320 avionics called A1 and CPIP3. I would appreciate if anyone can provide information. Thanks in advance. From kls Sun Sep 3 20:45:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Subject: 777 vs A340/A330 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 20:45:38 Organization: BUMCH Does anyone know what the actual/proposed max pax capacities and ranges are for the following aircraft? A340 A330 A340-8000 777-200 777-300 777-100 From kls Sun Sep 3 20:45:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 20:45:39 > When you consider the nationalized airlines, or airlines in less-developed > countries, political considerations clearly *do* enter into it. Just look > at the hell BA caught when it selected GE engines, rather than Rolls-Royce, > never mind choosing a 777 over the A330. Do you really think Boeing would > have the same opportunities in, say, Iran, Iraq, and Libya--clearly major > future export markets--as Airbus would? Do not forget that Boeing has now also learned about international "I'll rub your back if you rub my back". While the 777 may have the USA flag stamped with pride all over it, you should open its hood and look at all the counties that have participated in its development. I am sure that readers here are much more knowledgeable than I am and therefore know that list of countries by heart and know why, for instance, Brazil or Italy participated in the construction of some components for the 777. Like it or not, politics are part of "good business" today. the USA industries refused to admit this until they woke up and saw that Airbus had suddently captured a fair size of the market. You'll notice that with the 777, Boeing finally stopped protecting itself by crying foul over what they see as direct subsidies to Airbus and finally started to compete against Airbus on features (our FBW is better than yours etc) From kls Sun Sep 3 20:45:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 20:45:39 >Do not forget that Boeing has now also learned about international "I'll >rub your back if you rub my back". While the 777 may have the USA flag >stamped with pride all over it, you should open its hood and look at all >the counties that have participated in its development. Yep, just as you'll also see many parts made outside the US in the 767, 757, and at least current versions of the 747 and 737. >Like it or not, politics are part of "good business" today. the USA >industries refused to admit this until they woke up and saw that Airbus >had suddently captured a fair size of the market. Rubbish, as usual. From Legend and Legacy, p. 391,, Robert Serling's excellent history of Boeing: The 767 was the first Boeing transport to have a truly "interna- tional" flavor. About 50 Japanese engineers were involved in the design process, for Beoing ahd agreed to let Japan play a major subcontracting role; such an arrangement had worked out well with the 747SP. Mitsibishi had built the SP's inboard flaps, Kawasaki the outboard flaps, and Fuji the vertical rudder. Those three companies were given the job of manufacturing the entire 767 fuselage with the exception of Section 41 - the cockpit. You might somehow quibble that the foreign 747SP parts weren't very significant contributions, or that the small number of SP sales was not enough for this foreign contribution to amount to much, but you would be very hard pressed to convince me that the entire fuselage of the 767 is not a major contribution. The 767's launch order was placed in July of 1978, nearly two decades ago and long before Airbus "had suddently captured a fair size (sic) of the market." At that time, Airbus' only offering was the A300, though the A310 was on the horizon. Airbus certainly encouraged Boeing's inclusion of sigzable foreign manufacturing (and engineering) on the 767 project by highlighting the political forces, but it was a very young Airbus, one which had not yet reached 70 deliveries, never mind a sizable market share. >You'll notice that with the 777, Boeing finally stopped protecting itself >by crying foul over what they see as direct subsidies to Airbus and finally >started to compete against Airbus on features (our FBW is better than >yours etc) More nonsense. In the late 1970s, Boeing was putting the 767 up against the A310. Fuel consumption was a major issue, and Boeing claimed the 767 would beat the A310, and in TWA's case backed up that claim with a penalty clause if the 767 wasn't better -- and a bonus if it was. TWA bought the guaranteed more fuel efficient aircraft, and ended up paying Boeing bonus money. Whether or not Boeing made any claims of foul at the time, they sold TWA the 767 on technical features, not politics. Operating costs (of which fuel costs were an exceptionally large part during the 1970s) were a major concern for United, too. Politics were not -- United management had prepared their board of directors for buying a foreign airplane if that were the technical and financial decision. United bought the Boeing based on features, plus financing, not politics, and by and large that's how Boeing competed. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Sep 3 20:45:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Rick Hughes Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: iiNET Technologies Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 20:45:40 In Article, wrote: > This is not a direct comment on his posting, but might be an interesting > sidebar for some. I was at a Pacific Rim airline talking to their fleet > captains about an upgrade to the 747-400. During a break I asked some of > them how their newly ordered (but not delivered) A330s were going to fit > into their fleet picture. They were somewhat concerned because of the > speed they were going to have to fly the airplanes. According to them, > the A330 and A340 are speed limited due to a buffet problem. Basically, > they told me that the wing had been a common design between the A330/340 > and not tuned for the placement of either two or four engines. The speed > limit they were quoting was .78M! > > In Pacific Rim operations, speed turns into altitude. The ATC folks tend > to put the faster airplanes high and relegate the slower airplanes to a > lower (and less efficient altitudes). This potential operational > restriction must be taken into account when flight planning and translates > directly into payload on takeoff limited flights. Gooday Dave, Good to catch up with you at last ... Data-linking conference in Paris April '94 with Tony Maddern was the last I saw you! Hope all is going well. Back to the above ... since last seeing you, I've spent the better part of this past 12 months flying the A340 for Cathay and am about to Cross Crew Qual to the A330 this next month or so and will be flying both types concurrently from then on. I can state categorically that the above opinions expressed by your contacts are way off the mark. I flew back from Rome to Hong Kong only two days ago doing M0.84 all the way in one of our A340s with a cost index of 250. We had Typhoon Kent approaching Hong Kong (about 200 kms out when we arrived) and also had to make it back early morning for onward connections. Eurocontrol gave us the usual headache with flow control through Greece (a 3 hour delay), so we ended up taking a one hour longer flight time (on the plan) and taking the extended route via Cyprus, Syria, Jordan, Saudi, UAE etc. Flight time ended up at 12hrs 16 mins with an average TAS of 490 knots and we made it back only 15 minutes later than schedule ... not bad considering what we were up against! We normally cruise at CI 150 which gives a cruising Mach of roughly M0.82 to M0.83, depending on headwind component/Weight etc. We rarely fly the A340 below M0.82! The aircraft does not suffer from the buffet problem you had described to you, though I believe it did suffer from a small buffet problem during its initial flight testing; subsequently solved prior to production commencing. It is however, a supercritical wing designed to be flown in a very specific speed range. If you try and push it up beyond M0.84, you will see a very large increase in fuel flow, commensurate with the corresponding increase in drag from flying at Mach numbers considerably above the wing design cruise mach target. Much debate raged within Cathay regarding our A340s holding up our 747-400s going to Europe on the same air route before we started flying them, but in practice there have been few problems. Reference Speed/Altitude ... this has not been a problem at all. In fact, in our experience, the A340 is nearly always a step (+4000 ft) above the -400 for the same point on any ULH flight plan. On the short-haul routes, we routinely get our levels flying between Japan and Hong Kong and the aircraft normally climbs straight to FL390 out of Nagoya for the 4 hour hop to Hong Kong. There is a lot of misinformation out there reference Airbus aircraft ... a lot of it from Boeing Devotees. That's fine ... we all love our aircraft and let's face it; you guys make great airplanes. But so too do Airbus! I personally had a few misgivings before my conversion to the type, but would now say I have very few problems with the concepts utilised in the design, now that I have a few clues as to how the system works. The A330/340 combination works ... it will provide Cathay with enormous savings over the next decade and is generally well liked by passengers who take the time to visit the flight deck and comment on it. Until these guys actually get to fly the aircraft and can comment factually, I think their opinions should be taken as mere Crew Room talk ... nothing more. And we ALL know how accurate most of that turns out to be!! Regards, Rick Hughes From kls Sun Sep 3 22:53:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spanman@primenet.com Subject: Re: landing flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Primenet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 22:53:02 arch6@inlink.com (Archibald McKinlay) wrote: >....the flaps do usually have a higher design deployment speed...... > This has not been my experience piloting Boeing 757 (currently) and 737 (previously) aircraft. In the 757, for example, the maximum indicated airspeed for extending flaps (or maneuvering with flaps extended) is 240 knots. Landing gear can be extended at up to 270 knots. In the 737, the corresponding flaps limit speed is 230 knots. Gear can be extended at 270 knots, and the aircraft can be manuevered at up to 320 knots once gear extension is complete. It is routine practice to decelerate gradually and maneuver with flaps extended prior to extending landing gear. However, I would hesitate to call this "normal" as it is equally "normal" to extend gear first under certain circumstances. The landing gear make very effective spoilers/speed brakes, and when kept high or fast on approach by ATC, early gear extension is often the best way to simultaneously descend on (or down to the) glide slope and decelerate through the flap extension speeds. >This type of ad hoc checklist change has also resulted in gear up >approaches and some gear up passes..... It's important to realize that Boeing's landing checklists do not specify a sequence for flaps and gear extension; the checklists are simply used to verify, prior to touchdown, that gear and flaps are indeed positioned for landing. In as much as Boeing's training literature discusses sequence, it acknowleges that "operational factors and/or terminal area procedures may....require adjustments to meet the new requirements." --- Don Steinman Capt., B757 America West Airlines spanman@primenet.com From kls Sun Sep 3 22:53:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Martin McGrath Subject: Re: A320-flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 22:53:02 A320 Flaps? Depends on what you weigh? Either Flaps 1 or Flaps 3 We don't use degrees anymore. Just flap position setting. Flaps 1 is 18 degrees slats & 10 degrees flaps Flaps 3 is 22 degrees of slats & 20 degrees of flaps. We don't require our pliots to know the numbers. Who cares? Either they work or they don't!! Hope that answers your question From kls Sun Sep 3 22:53:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Marie Dany Subject: Re: A320-flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: world-net.sct.fr Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 22:53:03 The Flaps settings used are the following in my company for Take-off If no runway limitation Flap1 it means slats 18 flaps 10 If runway limitation Flap3 it means slats 22 flaps 20=B0 Some airlines also use flaps 2 which corresponds to slats 22 flaps 15 we use these three settings for the A321 From kls Sun Sep 3 22:53:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sln@seattleu.edu (Stephen L. Nicoud) Subject: GE90 homepage Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 22:53:03 GE now has homepages for the GE90 and Aircraft Engines. GE90: http://www.ge.com/geae/ge90 GE Aircraft Engines: http://www.ge.com/geae Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud Albers School of Business and Economics Seattle University Seattle, Washington USA From kls Sun Sep 3 22:53:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Airam J Preto Subject: auto-throttle usage Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 22:53:04 Sorry if this a FAQ. Last week, a T.V. documentary showed a take-off exercise using what seemed to be a B-767 simulator. As the airplane was rolling gaining speed one member of the crew said "auto-throttle engaged!". I'm curious about that. Which is the standard procedure during: - Take-off (auto-throttle engaged?) - Altitude and speed transitions (auto-throttle + autopilot?); - Approach and landing (autopilot and then auto-landing?). Thanks for your attention, -- Airam J. Preto Computer Science airam@cs.man.ac.uk University of Manchester From kls Sun Sep 3 22:53:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: t016426 Subject: Prog. Language used for 777 software ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SBC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 22:53:04 Hi Can anyone tell me something about the software engineering of the most important computers and systemcontrollers of the 777 ? Which tools and languages are used, wich tests performed ?? I'm very intersested in any informations. Thanks!! Markus R. From kls Sun Sep 3 22:53:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lmcsdes@lmc.ericsson.com (Stephane Desjardins) Subject: B737 on gravel Runway Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: lmcsdes@lmc.ericsson.com Organization: Ericsson Communications Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 22:53:05 Canadian Airlines offers B737 service to small villages in Northern Canada and it seems they use dedicated aircrafts for these routes. There is some sort of fender over the nose wheel and the engine intakes look different. I was told that it might be to prevent damage to the engine from the gravel runway bouncing at take off and landing. Can anyone give me more information on those modified aircrafts? Is that a special kit made by Boeing? How much does it cost to equip a B737 like this? How many B737 are equiped? Any other types of aircraft? Thanks for any info you can provide Stef From kls Sun Sep 3 22:53:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ken Shainker Subject: exit door latch Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EDS - Operating Services - Software Configuration Management Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 22:53:05 This past week I was flying on an unnamed airline in a 727-200. I was sitting in an exit row and noticed before takeoff that the emergency exit door latch was partially open. I told the flight attendent and she pushed it closed and didn't seem to worried about it. Should she have been worried about it? (I know it concerned me!) Also, what keeps some unstable person on an exit row from pulling it open because they want some fresh air? Do these doors lock when the pilot announces something like 'check doors and cross check'? -- Ken Shainker Plano Texas (214) 604-6963 From kls Sun Sep 3 22:53:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mike Schwartz <73171.753@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: ATR Prop Brake ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 22:53:06 The SAAB 340 is capable of prop brake operation, however American Eagle ( the largest US user) has opted to forego this option citing costs. One interesting note, the engines with prop brakes tend to be larger fuel consumers due to heavy coking of the compressor blades and turbine wheels. From kls Sun Sep 3 23:01:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: wangermn@tucson.Princeton.EDU (John P. Wangermann) Subject: Climb rates for airliners Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 23:01:48 Organization: Princeton University Can someone tell me what the standard climb rates are that airlines use for jet aircraft, say B767 or B747. For example, what are the climb rates for initial climb climb to cruise altitude en-route altitude changes (e.g., FL270 to FL290) descent Thanks in advance for any help John Wangermann -- John P. Wangermann wangermn@phoenix.princeton.edu Dept of Mech and Aero Eng. (609) 258 5340 E Quad, Olden St, Princeton NJ 08544, USA From kls Sun Sep 3 23:01:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Wish.u.knew@Doncha.megaweb.com (NADIR) Subject: Re: ATR Falls on Tail (almost) (Was Prop Brake) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Megaweb Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 23:01:49 sikjes@utrc.utc.com wrote: >snip< > While we were standing in line to board at the rear stairs, we observed > the nose gear lift off the ground about two feet! I was convinced the > tail-cone was going to hit the ramp. A quick thinking baggage handler > jumped up into the cargo area (fwd, near cockpit), and the nose > lowered. ... > Are you ATR pilots familiar with this happening?? Haven't seen that problem with the ATR's I worked on, but I did see a picture of a cargo DC-10 sitting on its tail. The nose gear was at least 15 feet in the air-would have loved to hear the loaders explaining that!! Going back to the ATRs-the ones we operated were loaded using the forward baggage area first, so it would be unlikely that any of our aircraft did a tail stand. I do know some airlines load the rear baggage area first, and this, combined with some other factor may cause the nose to rise. From kls Sun Sep 3 23:01:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: commutrdog@aol.com (Commutrdog) Subject: Re: ATR Falls on Tail (almost) (Was Prop Brake) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: commutrdog@aol.com (Commutrdog) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 23:01:49 James- I am not aware of any incidents where ATRs have done any tailstands. Our airline flies the Shorts 360 and the Saab 340b as well as the ATR. The ATR fleet is the only type which does not carry a "pogo stick" to put under the tail to prevent such an occurance. One scenario which could lead to the situation you describe would be (in my opinion) if the airplane were empty, and the ground crew began loading bags in the aft cargo area. If they were to fill the aft cargo to its max capacity, and the forward area (cockpit and fwd cargo) was empty, a tail heavy situation MIGHT be the result. Again, I have never seen this even come close to happening, but I have wondered if it could be done. From kls Sun Sep 3 23:01:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pays@titan.enst-bretagne.fr (Florian PAYS) Subject: Re: torque from jet engines? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ENSTBR, Brest, France Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 23:01:49 Sure they do. The axis of the engine is not the same as the fuselage, to compensate the torque. -- Florian pays@enstb.enst-bretagne.fr From kls Sun Sep 3 23:01:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: torque from jet 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: 03 Sep 95 23:01:50 In article , Jay Vassos-Libove wrote: >In a multi-engine propellor driven aircraft, the props on >opposite sides of the fuselage might counter-rotate so as >to cancel out the torque that would otherwise be imparted >to the aircraft when the engines are running (right?) ... No. Counter-rotating propellers are installed on some multi-engine prop aircraft to eliminate the effects of P-factor and the critical engine. P-factor is an aerodynaic problem that all propeller driven aircraft experience when flying in a high angle of attack attitude. The propeller is basically just a rotating wing that creates thrust by creating lift in the forward direction, and like any wing the higher the speed and angle of attack, the more lift it creates. When an aircraft is flying at a high angle of attack, the propeller blade that is moving downward is seeing a greater angle of attack and a slightly higher airspeed than the propeller blade that is moving upward. This moves the center of thrust slightly off center, in the direction of the downward moving prop blade, which is normally on the right side of the aircraft when viewed from the pilot's position in American aircraft (Soviet stuff and some British stuff is the other way). When viewed from above: Thrust Line as created by P-factor | | | _____/\_____ Down Up In a single engine aircraft this tries to turn the aircraft to the left, so a pilot must hold right rudder to counteract this and 3 other left turning tendencies seen during takeoff and climbout (the other left turning tendencies are torque, spiralling slipstream, and gyroscopic precession, but those are another article, write to me if you want explanations of those). Before we can understand the critical engine idea, we need to understand some multi-engine aerodynamics. When one engine is dead, the asymetric thrust created by the good engine creates a moment (force times distance) that tries to rotate the aircraft away from the good engine. This rotation must be counteracted with rudder pressure to keep the aircraft going in a straight line. The moment created by the good engine is the thrust that the engine is creating times the distance between the thrust line and the centerline (CG) of the aircraft. The more thrust that is created, or the greater distance between the thrust line and CG, the greater the moment that has to be counteracted by the rudder. As you can see, when P-factor is brought into play, the distance from the CG to the thurst line is greater for the engine on the right side of the aircraft than the distance from the CG to the thrust line on the left side of the aircraft. What this means is that the right engine can create a bigger moment than the left engine. The bigger the moment, the more rudder that is needed to maintain control. So, when both props rotate in the same direction, it is a worse situation to lose the left engine than the right engine, since we want to minimize the need for rudder to maintain control. This fact makes the left engine the "critical engine." A critical engine is defined by the FAA as the engine whose failure would most adversely affect the performance or handling qualities of an aircraft. If the right engine is remanufactured to rotate in the opposite direction, however, the thrust line is then on the left side of the prop hub, and is then an equivalent distance from the CG as the left engine's thrust line, and therefore there is no critical engine. Jet engines do not suffer from P-factor, because they have engine nacelles that straighten the flow of air hitting the fan disk, thereby guaranteeing that all blade positions see the same angle of attack. __ Keith Barr barr@netcom.com COM-ASMEL-IA-A&IGI Westminster, Colorado, USA http://chinook.atd.ucar.edu/~barr From kls Sun Sep 3 23:01:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Addison Schonland Subject: Re: aircraft cabin design References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CIC Research, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 23:01:50 I'm not sure, but I know MD has made a fuss of their new interiors for the MD90 series. Try their home page. -- Best Regards, Addison Schonland Phone (619) 637-4000 Fax (619) 637-4040 From kls Sun Sep 3 23:01:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dewayne Matthews Subject: Re: Radios in the cabin (was Re: ATC on passengers' headsets) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Sep 95 23:01:50 ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) wrote: >As I'm sure others will mention, radio receivers in the passenger >cabin are not permitted. And with radio receivers, there is very good >technical reasons for this: Delta Air Lines specifically permits the use of scanners during flight (above 10,000 feet). As others have mentioned, however, you can't hear much of anything. >Other portable electronic devices (CD players, laptops) have >anecdotally been blamed for navigation equipment interference, but >unlike radio receivers, no systematic problems with these devices have >been found. About a year ago, I was on a Delta MD88 at cruise altitude between Denver and DFW when a flight attendant came out of the flightdeck and told all the other flight attendants to immediately check that all laptops, etc. on the plane were turned off. I was in the first row, and a guy behind me was using his laptop. When the FA came up from the back and said nobody was using anything, the guy in 2B was still having trouble turning off his computer (he said he couldn't save his file). The FA said "I'm sorry, but you have to turn it off NOW!" Later she came by and apologized, and said "The captain wants to know if your computer is a Compaq." The guy said said "Why, yes, as a matter of fact it IS a Compaq." (Just like the Bugle Boys jeans commercial.) He asked what all the fuss was about, and she said that the first time she was on the flightdeck "all the instruments were black." (Of course, the MD88 has a glass cockpit.) She said after she went back up "they were just now coming back on." BTW, the computer had an external mouse. So, to make a long story short, I no longer believe that the airlines are over-reacting to laptops. Dewayne Matthews email: dm@wiche.edu From kls Tue Sep 5 01:59:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: sci.aeronautics.airliners WWW pages! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 01:59:55 Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California A newsgroup having a WWW home page sounds a bit incongruous, but my dog has one so why not? :-) Incongruous or not, sci.aeronautics.airliners now has its very own home page on the WWW: http://www.chicago.com/airliners/ Here's a brief table of contents: Newsgroup Charter Other Information About the Group Reference Data and Links Related WWW Pages Some of the reference info is newly compiled, some of it is simply links to pages elsewhere which you may have already seen. Hopefully it's a useful compendium already, though more data is on the way. One item which may not jump out right away is that archives of the newsgroup, in addition to being available in quarterly chunks via anonymous ftp as they have been for some time, can now be searched, using a WWW interface to a WAIS index. (Direct WAIS access is not available yet.) This is still undergoing some development, but it works and in testing has already proven itself very useful. Alas, I've always found it takes a bit of care and forethought to pry a useful response out of WAIS, so be patient if you try it and find it gives you awful results. I've looked for a good tutorial on how to best formulate WAIS queries without success -- if anyone can give me a reference to such a document I'd greatly appreciate it. In liu of that, I included a few examples that should get you started. If you just want to download the archives via ftp, they are now available from: ftp.chicago.com (in /chicago/airliners) ftp.kei.com (in /pub/airliners) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Tue Sep 5 01:59:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (Ralph Ricks ) Subject: Re: NTSB References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 01:59:56 In kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>[In NTSB's history] there have been only four unsolved crashes, two >>being the 737's referred to above. Does anyone know what other two >>crashes have yet to have the cause determined? >I believe the May 26, 1991 Lauda Air 767 crash in Thailand is counted >as one of them ... >I have no idea what the fourth crash might be. How about COPA Flight 201 in Panama about two years ago? It was a 737-200 that departed controlled flight and broke up at 10,000 feet. PBS did a very good documentary on the investigation last year. It's puzzling to me that this crash is not included with the other two 737 investigations. They were expecting to find a bad ADI or VG, but both worked AFTER the crash. Ralph From kls Tue Sep 5 01:59:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Cabin pressure controls Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 01:59:56 In my limited experience with DC-9s, I have found that pressurisation of these planes is not up to par with newer planes. Others have also told me that they shared that opinion. Is that a fact or an opinion ? (eg: DC 9 having inferior cabin pressure controls) As well, when an airline such as Northwest (just an example) refurbs its DC-9s to give them a few more years, does this major maintenance work include modifying systems such as air pressure controls, or do they simply replace the parts and end up with the same controls as before (with newer parts) ? *IF* there are aircrafts that do have inferior air pressure controls, can anyone list them ? (jet aircrafts) From kls Tue Sep 5 01:59:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tony Blades Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tonyB@seavixen.demon.co.uk Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 01:59:57 In article: wangermn@tucson.Princeton.EDU (John P. Wangermann) writes: > Can someone tell me what the standard climb rates are that airlines use > for jet aircraft, say B767 or B747. For example, what are the climb > rates for > > initial climb > climb to cruise altitude > en-route altitude changes (e.g., FL270 to FL290) > descent There are no standard climb rates for any aircraft. However when given a level change by ATC, that change of level must be carried out at a minimum of 500 ft/min. During all other phases of flight, the rates of climb are dependant on aircraft weight, power setting used and ambient conditions. An enroute step climb of say 4000' is likely to be carried out at 1000 ft/min. During descent, we don't have any rates of climb, only rates of descent. :) Normal descent is made power off, and again the rate of descent is dependant upon aircraft weight, ambient conditions and engine power if anything other that idle power is used. __ Tony Blades | Tel: 01628 604362 (Burnham) 116 Walpole Road | Burnham | Pager: 0881 830357 Slough, SL1 6PG | e-mail: tonyB@seavixen.demon.co.uk United Kingdom | From kls Tue Sep 5 01:59:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Martin Fiddler Subject: Auto rejected take-off on 767? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 01:59:57 Hi A couple of years ago, I was on the flight deck of a 767 and the captain told me that to assist a rejected take-off, if the throttles were retarded during the take-off roll, after being at 'full' (toga) power, then there was an automatic process which would (a) deploy the spoilers (b) deploy the thrust reversers (I guess with auto-throttle setting rev thrust power) and (c) apply max auto-brakes. Since then I have been on other 767's and the crew all state that their aircraft doesn't have this system, and also that they have never heard of it! So, did I imagine this conversation with the crew, were they making it up, or is it a rare option on the 767? M.fiddler@staffs.ac.uk From kls Tue Sep 5 01:59:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tony Blades Subject: Re: auto-throttle usage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: auto-throttle usage Reply-To: tonyB@seavixen.demon.co.uk Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 01:59:57 Airam J Preto asked on the subject of: auto-throttle usage > Which is the standard procedure during: > > - Take-off (auto-throttle engaged?) > - Altitude and speed transitions (auto-throttle + autopilot?); > - Approach and landing (autopilot and then auto-landing?). I fly B737-300, 400 and 500s all of which are fitted with auto-throttle. The auto throttle is engaged prior to T/O and remains engaged thoughout the flight and is only disengaged during the final stages of the approach if a manually flown landing is to be carried out. If an autoland is carried out then the autothrottle disengages automatically 2 seconds after touchdown. I believe that the system and procedures followed on the B757/767 is exactly the same as the aircraft I fly. __ Tony Blades | Tel: 01628 604362 (Burnham) 116 Walpole Road | Burnham | Pager: 0881 830357 Slough, SL1 6PG | e-mail: tonyB@seavixen.demon.co.uk United Kingdom | From kls Tue Sep 5 01:59:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: josjg@euronet.nl (Jos Gielen) Subject: Re: auto-throttle usage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Euronet Internet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 01:59:58 Airam J Preto wrote: >Last week, a T.V. documentary showed a take-off exercise using what >seemed to be a B-767 simulator. As the airplane was rolling gaining >speed one member of the crew said "auto-throttle engaged!". I'm curious >about that. >Which is the standard procedure during: > - Take-off (auto-throttle engaged?) > - Altitude and speed transitions (auto-throttle + autopilot?); > - Approach and landing (autopilot and then auto-landing?). "Standard" procedure differs widely. As a rule you can say that Take-offs are made with auto-throttle (A/T) on and autopilot (A/P) off. That is, on "modern"airplanes. Somewhere after take-off the A/P is engaged. As a pilot you're usually free to do so whenever you feel like it, or when it seems operationally beneficially. There are different minimum heights for A/P engagement per aircraft type however. (typically around 500 ft) Climb, cruise, descent and initial approach are normally flown with A/P and A/T engaged. Whether a landing is performed as an autoland depend on ground equipment and weather. If its going to be an autoland, its also A/T on. Manual approaches can be flown with either A/T on or off. On aircraft like the B767 or B737, with underslung engines the A/T can be a real nuisance during manual approaches, due to the pitching moment the underslung engines create. An MD11 however doesn't have that 'pitching moment due to its tail mounted engine nr 2. It can comfortably be flown with the A/T on until touchdown. The A/T takes care of automatic thrust lever retardation upon the flare manouvre. Apart from unsuitable ground equipment, manual approaches are typically flown in good weather conditions (in an European context this would be more than a mile visibility and more than 300 ft ceiling) or with strong and gusty wind. Apart from reduced visibility, autopilots are still less capable than human pilots, despite what Airbus says. Hope this answers some of your questions. It's hard to soar like an eagle when you have to fly with turkeys From kls Tue Sep 5 01:59:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cyberoid@u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) Subject: Experiencing a new airliner in virtual space Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Worldesign Inc., Seattle Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 01:59:58 Although it has gotten far less press attention than, say, the interior design "previewer" at Boeing, a virtual worlds-based system devised by the French firm, Virtools, merits your attention. Shown at SIGGRAPH, the Virtools display of a forthcoming Airbus airliner -- a plane that has not yet been built -- is extremely impressive. This model runs on (I believe) an Intergraph Pentium workstation and employs Sense8's WorldToolKit for worldbuilding. I believe there is a Virtools Web site, but if not, here is a person to contact: M. Bertrand DUPLAT Associate Director Virtools 1,rue de Beauvais F060300 Senlis, FRANCE 33-1-45 79 94 77 voice 33-1-48 63 21 28 fax Email: virtools@worldnet.net Bob Jacobson Worldesign Inc. Seattle From kls Tue Sep 5 01:59:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tony Blades Subject: Re: exit door latch References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tonyB@seavixen.demon.co.uk Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 01:59:58 In article: Ken Shainker writes: > This past week I was flying on an unnamed airline in a 727-200. I was > sitting in an exit row and noticed before takeoff that the emergency exit > door latch was partially open. I told the flight attendent and she > pushed it closed and didn't seem to worried about it. Should she have > been worried about it? (I know it concerned me!) Also, what keeps some > unstable person on an exit row from pulling it open because they want > some fresh air? Do these doors lock when the pilot announces something > like 'check doors and cross check'? What you saw was most likely the handle cover hanging down a little, but if it was the handle, by moving it back to the fully stowed position the flight attendant ensured that the hatch was securely closed. There are no locks on any doors or hatches, the only thing that prevents someone opening a hatch in flight is cabin pressure. A 2' x 4' overwing exit hatch has around 8 lbs/sq in holding it closed, and that translates to over 4 tons! I don't know of anyone strong enough to move that sort of weight. Once the aircraft is depressurised after it leaves the runway after landing, the hatch could then be opened as the pressure on either side has been equalised. __ Tony Blades | Tel: 01628 604362 (Burnham) 116 Walpole Road | Burnham | Pager: 0881 830357 Slough, SL1 6PG | e-mail: tonyB@seavixen.demon.co.uk United Kingdom | From kls Tue Sep 5 01:59:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bill Hensley Subject: Re: Prog. Language used for 777 software ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Questar Network Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 01:59:58 t016426 wrote: > Can anyone tell me something about the software engineering > of the most important computers and systemcontrollers of the > 777 ? Which tools and languages are used, wich tests performed ?? Hi, Marcus. The 777 was programmed in a variety of languages. One of the most-used was Ada (1983 standard), and C and C++, as well as assembler of various flavors. I don't recall the volume of code used, but if you find an archive site for comp.lang.ada or comp.software-eng, there have been significant discussions on 777 software development languages and issues. Regards, Bill Hensley TRW Oklahoma City Engineering Office bhensley@oceo.trw.com From kls Tue Sep 5 01:59:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wilder@unixg.ubc.ca (Kevin M. Wilder) Subject: Re: ATR Falls on Tail (almost) (Was Prop Brake) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of British Columbia, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 01:59:59 NADIR (Wish.u.knew@Doncha.megaweb.com) wrote: : Haven't seen that problem with the ATR's I worked on, but I did see a : picture of a cargo DC-10 sitting on its tail. The nose gear was at : least 15 feet in the air-would have loved to hear the loaders : explaining that!! "Tail sitting", as I have heard this problem called, is apperently quite a serious concern. One airline (that will remain unnamed) that regularly flies a 747-400 into YVR uses a "Pogo stick" while loading and unloading. It is interesting to note that no other airlines that operate this same aircraft type out of here use Pogo sticks. I wonder if this airline has ever had a problem with their 747's tail sitting... Regards, Kevin "The scientist explores what is; the engineer creates what never has been." - Theodore Von Karman From kls Tue Sep 5 01:59:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: exit door latch References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 01:59:59 In article Ken Shainker writes: >This past week I was flying on an unnamed airline in a 727-200. I was >sitting in an exit row and noticed before takeoff that the emergency exit >door latch was partially open. I told the flight attendent and she >pushed it closed and didn't seem to worried about it. Should she have >been worried about it? (I know it concerned me!) Also, what keeps some >unstable person on an exit row from pulling it open because they want >some fresh air? Do these doors lock when the pilot announces something >like 'check doors and cross check'? There is no locking mechanism. The doors are held shut by a pressure differential. At altitude, the pressure differential will be about 8 psi, which means that for a two square foot area, you're looking at 2400 lbs of pressure holding it in. While David Letterman, who has the strength of ten men, would not have much trouble with this, most of us would. The "check doors" announcement is intended to alert the cabin staff to ensure the doors are set for automatic slide deployment. There's no lock on the doors, either. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Tue Sep 5 01:59:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (Ralph Ricks ) Subject: Re: B737 on gravel Runway References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 01:59:59 In lmcsdes@lmc.ericsson.com (Stephane Desjardins) writes: >Canadian Airlines offers B737 service to small villages in Northern >Canada and it seems they use dedicated aircrafts for these routes. >There is some sort of fender over the nose wheel and the engine intakes >look different. I was told that it might be to prevent damage to the >engine from the gravel runway bouncing at take off and landing. >Can anyone give me more information on those modified aircrafts? Is >that a special kit made by Boeing? How much does it cost to equip a B737 >like this? How many B737 are equiped? Any other types of aircraft? Markair flew some in Alaska until they went titsup. As I remember, I was told the gravel mods cost about half a million bucks. You are right: a deflector aroud the nose gear that comes up near flush with gear up, and engine intake mods. They flew those planes all day with pax, then pulled out the seats and flew all night with freight. Ralph From kls Tue Sep 5 01:59:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jurgens@eskimo.com (Peter Jurgens) Subject: Re: B737 on gravel Runway References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 01:59:59 In article , lmcsdes@lmc.ericsson.com (Stephane Desjardins) wrote: >Canadian Airlines offers B737 service to small villages in Northern >Canada and it seems they use dedicated aircrafts for these routes. >There is some sort of fender over the nose wheel and the engine intakes >look different. I was told that it might be to prevent damage to the engine >from the gravel runway bouncing at take off and landing. > >Can anyone give me more information on those modified aircrafts? Is >that a special kit made by Boeing? How much does it cost to equip a B737 >like this? How many B737 are equiped? Any other types of aircraft? To my knowledge the gravel kit is not available for current generation 737's. The CFM inlet sits only about 18" off the runway making it an exceptional vacuum cleaner. The gravel kit consisted of a deflector above the nosewheel and a nozzel that extended in front and below each engine inlet. High pressure bleed air was shot out the nozzel to deflect dirt away from the inlet. I've seen a flight test video where a 737 makes a landing on a dirt runway and then uses the thrust reversers to slow down. Very impressive. You couldn't hardly see anything aft of the engines, just a boiling wall of dirt. -- Peter A. Jurgens eskimo.com From kls Tue Sep 5 02:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ericrood@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Eric Rood) Subject: ATC reception Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 02:00:00 In the past I have taken along my ICOM A2 and held it up to the window and listening with the headset. I usually asked the flightcrew upon boarding what the departure frequency would be. They would ask why I wanted to know and I'd tell them I wanted to listen on my handheld. No problem. Recently, however, on a trip CMH/ATL and ATL/SJU, the flightcrew requested that I not use my radio. I didn't press the issue. Most interesting conversation overheard enroute DFW/CMH... "[Military callsign] cleared celestial navigation, cancel IFR passing through FL600." Regards, Eric. -- Eric Rood ericrood@freenet.columbus.oh.us "Why let rank lead, when ability can do it better?" (Cmndr Randy "Duke" Cunningham, USN) From kls Tue Sep 5 02:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: The Glass Cockpit Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 02:00:00 is the title of a 9 or so page article in I.E.E.E Spectrum for Sept. 1995. It discusses much of what has been brought up in the Fly-by-Wire thread in this group. In my opinion it does not add anything to what was in the Internet discussion, but some of the assertions about accidents associated with automated cockpits, particularly Airbuses, may be controversial. I.E.E.E. is the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 345 E 47 New York NY 10017 Gerry Life (Senior) Member if IEEE From kls Tue Sep 5 02:00:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: warrior@uclink.berkeley.edu (Gong Kong) Subject: Slats Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Berkeley Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 02:00:01 Hi you all! Just a simple question for all you experts out there: what are the slats for? I know they are extended during takeoff but are they also extended during landing? Thanks in advance! Nico yhu@scuacc.scu.edu From kls Tue Sep 5 02:00:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: droesler@g2613dhr.msr.hp.com (Dennis Roesler) Subject: Aircraft Maneuvers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett Packard Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 02:00:01 I was on a flight from ORD-EWR (Newark) on a 727 when there was suddenly a large wind noise and a sudden descent. The descent was very flat and controlled and it occurred to me the noise was apparently from the deployment of speed brakes. It seemed that the pilot needed to keep altitude for as long as possible (to avoid weather/turbulence?) but then needed to lose altitude quickly as we got close to EWR. Several months later, talking to a pilot that flies 727s I described what happened and he said that a 727 is considered a "pilots airplane" and was capable of just about anything that ATC asked them to do. On a related note, sometime ago (years) I read that the then chief pilot for TWA put a 707 through a roll during a test flight. Is/was a 707 capable of this? It would be interesting to hear comments from those that fly commercial jets on the relative merits of different aircraft and their capabilities, what pilots like and don't like about various aircraft, etc. Dennis From kls Tue Sep 5 02:00:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Aircraft Maneuvers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Sep 95 02:00:01 >On a related note, sometime ago (years) I read that the then >chief pilot for TWA put a 707 through a roll during a test >flight. Is/was a 707 capable of this? I never heard of TWA doing it, but Tex Johnston, a Boeing test pilot, rolled the prototype 707 (the 367-80) twice for the crowds at Seattle's hydroplane races. The story has been discussed many times in this group -- see the archives for more, or most any book on Boeing history. (Some Air Force pilots also rolled a KC-135, the 707's military sister.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From news Tue Sep 5 15:02:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!sp0416.kub.nl!S.Tolboom From: S.Tolboom@kub.nl (S. TOLBOOM) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Sabena goes for Avro RJs, rather than Fokkers Date: 5 Sep 1995 11:28:46 -0700 Organization: Tilburg University, The Netherlands Approved: rna Message-ID: References: <425ju4$mkf@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> >I think this is an interesting decision. On the face of it, I would >have thought the F70 a more likely candidate. Two fewer engines, >and I think that there were already F28s in the Sabena fleet. Plus >I'm sure that Daimler-Benz (controlling owner of Fokker) would have >offered beaucoup discounts on the thing, Fokker is in pretty desperate >shape. The Avro RJ is the most logical choise, Crossair (member of the "Swissair-group", just as Sabena) already operates RJ 85's and has recently ordered RJ 100's; Sabena's regional subsidiary DAT currently operates BAe 146's. Most of the F28's are on short and medium term leases from (amongst others) TAT btw. >Also, the F70 is a more "normal" looking beast. No comments on that! >This must be quite a feather in the BAe cap, and rather a bad blow to >Fokker. I wonder what BAe offered. The deal was probably made at a price at which both BAe and Fokker would make a loss on it. Stephan From news Tue Sep 5 17:44:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: spagiola Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 Date: 5 Sep 1995 13:10:14 -0700 Organization: The World Bank Group Approved: rna Message-ID: <42hj2s$ag2@minerva.worldbank.org> References: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > of the 767 is not a major contribution. The 767's launch order was > placed in July of 1978, nearly two decades ago and long before Airbus > "had suddently captured a fair size (sic) of the market." At that > time, Airbus' only offering was the A300, though the A310 was on the > horizon. Actually, by the late 1970s Airbus had made some very significant inroads in the Pacific rim with orders from Thai, Korean, China Airlines, Philippine Airlines, Singapore, Malaysia Air System, Toa Domestic (and, also on the "silk route", Indian and Pakistan International). Allfor A300s. This was a small share of the overall market, but a significant one for that category of aircraft (100% of it, if youdefine the category as "widebody twins" :-), less if you include the competing DC-10s and TriStars). Stefano From news Tue Sep 5 21:12:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!ceas.rochester.edu!not-for-mail From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Sabena goes for Avro RJs, rather than Fokkers Date: 5 Sep 1995 19:33:53 -0700 Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Approved: rna Message-ID: <42ipir$7q0@isaac.me.rochester.edu> References: <425ju4$mkf@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> >>This must be quite a feather in the BAe cap, and rather a bad blow to >>Fokker. I wonder what BAe offered. It seems these days that the Fokker is a much more popular plane than the BAe in the US. Air Wisconsin seems to be flying BAe 146s mostly on short haul routes in the midwest, I think Air Canada flys them on the Maritime route. The Fokker, though, seems to be a mainstay of American Airlines. Neither plane is as ubiquitious as an MD-80 or 737, though... What is the equipment mix on European routes like? -tim From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 References: <42hj2s$ag2@hicago.COM> <42hj2s$ag2@minerva.worldbank.org> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:05 In article <42hj2s$ag2@minerva.worldbank.org>, spagiola (spagiola@bedlam.worldba nk.org) wrote: > Actually, by the late 1970s Airbus had made some very significant > inroads in the Pacific rim with orders from Thai, Korean, China > Airlines, Philippine Airlines, Singapore, Malaysia Air System, Toa > Domestic (and, also on the "silk route", Indian and Pakistan > International). Allfor A300s. This was a small share of the overall > market, but a significant one for that category of aircraft (100% of > it, if youdefine the category as "widebody twins" :-), less if you > include the competing DC-10s and TriStars). I believe the B767 is also a widebody twin, hence, it's not 100% of the market. JAL, ANA, and China Airlines all had orders of the B767 (you included Toa, then JAL and ANA should be counted). Also, I don't consider the Pacific Rim A300 fleet to be insignificant. I believe the Asain A300/310 fleet account for 35% strong of all the A300/310 in service. Airbus clearly outscored Boeing in the Pacific Rim market in the A300/310 vs. B767-200/300 battle. (Airbus also captured the majority of the Middle East market.) In Asia, Boeing's wide-body twin is almost non-existent outside Japan (and Australasia). I think that's why the A330 was able to secure many orders from the Pacific Rim airlines, initially. However, this time I think Boeing has finally turned the tide. The B777 is definitely picking up steam in the Pacific Rim with seven committed customers (JAL, ANA, JAS, KAL, China Southern, CPA, THAI) and three customers with letters of intent (CAL, EVA, and Air China) with a total of 68 aircraft plus 43 unsigned firm orders; while the A330 has only six customers (KAL, CPA, DragonAir, THAI, MAS, and Garuda) and a total order of 45 aircraft (which include 3 that Garuda allegedly have cancelled). Just a nitpicking: It's Malaysian Airline System (but Malaysia Airlines) ^ -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 References: <42hj2s$ag2@hicago.COM> <42hj2s$ag2@minerva.worldbank.org> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:05 >> Actually, by the late 1970s Airbus had made some very significant >> inroads in the Pacific rim ... This was a small share of the overall >> market, but a significant one for that category of aircraft (100% of >> it, if youdefine the category as "widebody twins" :-), less if you >> include the competing DC-10s and TriStars). >I believe the B767 is also a widebody twin, hence, it's not 100% of >the market. It depends on exactly how you define "the late 1970s" since the 767 was not even launched until the second half of 1978. Before then, yes, Airbus had 100% of the "widebody twin" market, though that's no more meaningful than saying that Boeing has 100% of the 747 market. >Airbus clearly outscored Boeing in the Pacific Rim market in >the A300/310 vs. B767-200/300 battle. That is interesting, especially compared to the 767's dominant share of the North Atlantic market. At a guess, the greater size of the A300 plus a head start kept Airbus in the lead in Asia, where range was not that great an issue. Greater range of later models, early ETOPS, and probably lower operating costs (due to the narrower fuse- lage) gave the 767 the edge in the North Atlantic market, which the 767 pioneered as far as twins are concerned. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Theodore Sternberg Subject: hammocks on airliners Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: a2i network Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:06 Would it be practical to provide passengers hammocks, hung somehow from the ceiling, to sleep in on long trips? Unlike beds, hammocks wouldn't displace seats and would therefore not have to be a terribly expensive feature. Ted Sternberg San Jose, California, USA -- Theodore Sternberg From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: Auto rejected take-off on 767? 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: 06 Sep 95 01:04:06 In article , Martin Fiddler wrote: > A couple of years ago, I was on the flight deck of a 767 and the captain > told me that to assist a rejected take-off, if the throttles were retarded > during the take-off roll, after being at 'full' (toga) power, then there > was an automatic process which would (a) deploy the spoilers (b) deploy > the thrust reversers (I guess with auto-throttle setting rev thrust power) > and (c) apply max auto-brakes. > > Since then I have been on other 767's and the crew all state that their > aircraft doesn't have this system, and also that they have never heard of > it! > > So, did I imagine this conversation with the crew, were they making it > up, or is it a rare option on the 767? I fly B767s and I think that I can shed a little light on this subject. Three systems are involved in this scenario. The autobrake system is normally used in the "RTO" mode during takeoff. In this mode, if the aircraft has accelerated above a certain value and the throttles are retarded the system will apply "Max Antiskid Braking" through the autobrake system . . and that amount of braking will truly make your tie stick straight out in front of you. The spoilers will automatically deploy when the pilot selects reverse thrust. So when the pilot retards the throttles to idle it will result in lots of braking. When he then selects reverse thrust by moving the reverser levers it will cause the reversers to operate and the spoilers will deploy. To my knowledge these systems are fundamental parts of the aircraft and I would be surprised to hear that other operators have different systems. Occasionally it is necessary to reject a takeoff at low speed and that is the reason for arming the system at higher speeds . . you wouldn't want maximum braking if you were aborting a takeoff due to a door light or other small problem at slow speeds. George From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Slats References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:06 In article warrior@uclink.berkeley.edu (Gong Kong) writes: > >Hi you all! > >Just a simple question for all you experts out there: what are the slats >for? I know they are extended during takeoff but are they also extended >during landing? > >Thanks in advance! Slats are used to adjust the camber of the wing, and provide better lift characteristics during slow-speed flight. On Boeing aircraft, slats are automatically deployed based on trailing edge flap position. On the 727, for instance, there are eight slats. All of the slats are deployed whenever the TE flaps are set to 5 degrees or higher. The hardware does not distinguish between takeoff or landing. -- 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 Sep 6 01:04:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: thomas.r.skwarek@medtronic.com (Thomas R. Skwarek) Subject: Re: Prog. Language used for 777 software ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: thomas.r.skwarek@medtronic.com Organization: Medtronic, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:07 The adiru and the saaru were programmed in C with some assembly language. --- Thomas R. Skwarek Thomas.R.Skwarek@medtronic.com ventures phone: x Mail Stop: P211 From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Subject: Re: Slight lateral shaking in back of 777? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BUMCH Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:07 dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) wrote: >My first flight on a 777 took place a week ago.....throughout >the entire flight, there was a noticeable constant side-to-side >bumpiness....But >I did wonder what the hell they were. Anybody know? Daniel, I cannot explain it but I will say that I've felt the same sensation on a Boeing 747-300 and on an Airbus A340. The occurences were on flights with KLM and Lufthansa respectively. Both times, I was sitting in the extreme rear of the cabin. It will be very interesting to follow this discussion. Thornton From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: matalqa.1@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Tareq R. Matalqa) Subject: Re: Slight lateral shaking in back of 777? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:07 In article Ted Deller writes: >I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the lateral motion you >observed, but the couple of times I watched the new B777's take off at >Boeing Field recently, I was struck by the oscillations in the tail >stabilizers as the engines revved for takeoff. >The tail stabilizers flopped up and down quite a bit as the engines >accelerated, but seemed to stop as the plane gained speed and lifted >off. Most planes do that on take off. it is very obvious on the DC-8, and the 727. Have not had the chance to see the 777 takeoff yet. Tareq From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mike Schwartz <73171.753@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Slight lateral shaking in back of 777? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:07 Sounds like the yaw damper was working overtime. Perhaps coupled to the autopilot it was magnified while maintaining heading. From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gman@acs.bu.edu Subject: 777 High-Lift System question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:07 During the flight test phase of the 777, I remember hearing that Boeing was experiencing some trouble with the aircraft's high-lift system. Specifically, 1) the test pilots encountered buffetingwhen the flaps were deployed by a given amount, during certain approach conditions; and 2) the wings generated more lift with the leading-edge slats in the sealed position than in the slotted position. Presumably, these problems were corrected before United took delivery of the aircraft. Anyone know what solutions were developed? Thanks --George C. Mantis gman@acs.bu.edu From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: B737 on gravel Runway References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISFSI Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:08 lmcsdes@lmc.ericsson.com (Stephane Desjardins) wrote: >Canadian Airlines offers B737 service to small villages in Northern >Canada and it seems they use dedicated aircrafts for these routes. >There is some sort of fender over the nose wheel and the engine intakes >look different. I was told that it might be to prevent damage to the engine >from the gravel runway bouncing at take off and landing. > "A new feature developed for the 737-200 was a gravel runway kit. A gravel deflector plate was added behind the nosewheel, remaining outside the fuselage when the undercarriage was retracted. A small tube projecting forward from the bottom of each nacelle directs blast air ahead of the nacelle to break up the inward-rushing vortices that can suck gravel from the ground and force it into the jet intakes." Bowers, _Boeing Aircraft Since 1916_, p. 497 From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: Aircraft Maneuvers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:08 In article you write: >>On a related note, sometime ago (years) I read that the then >>chief pilot for TWA put a 707 through a roll during a test >>flight. Is/was a 707 capable of this? > >I never heard of TWA doing it, but Tex Johnston, a Boeing test pilot, >rolled the prototype 707 (the 367-80) twice for the crowds at Seattle's >hydroplane races. The story has been discussed many times in this >group -- see the archives for more, or most any book on Boeing history. >(Some Air Force pilots also rolled a KC-135, the 707's military sister.) A good TV documentary on aircraft matters (whos name escapes me right now) had a Concorde pilot describe Concorde being barrel-rolled; a pilot friend of mine once related an anecdote about pilots in NZ doing aerobatics in 737s on positioning flights. But seriously, a barrel roll isn't particularly stressful. What you don't see from the ground is that the properly executed roll maintains positive gee; if it weren't for the horizon doing a 360 you couldn't tell from on board that it's happening -- I've seen footage of tea being poured in the cockpit of an aircraft during a roll, without spilling a drop. More to the point, the fuel pumps and anything else that might be sensitive to inverted flight don't know that the plane is upside down, and therefore behave just fine through a roll. -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Aircraft Maneuvers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:08 In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >I never heard of TWA doing it, but Tex Johnston, a Boeing test pilot, >rolled the prototype 707 (the 367-80) twice for the crowds at Seattle's >hydroplane races. The story has been discussed many times in this >group -- see the archives for more, or most any book on Boeing history. >(Some Air Force pilots also rolled a KC-135, the 707's military sister.) If memory serves: when Lufthansa got its first Boeings (I believe they were 707s), they dropped one or two in the Rhine when their pilots attempted to prove they had the right stuff, too. -- 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 Sep 6 01:04:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: S.Tolboom@kub.nl (S. TOLBOOM) Subject: Re: ATR Falls on Tail (almost) (Was Prop Brake) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Tilburg University, The Netherlands Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:08 >"Tail sitting", as I have heard this problem called, is apperently quite >a serious concern. One airline (that will remain unnamed) that regularly >flies a 747-400 into YVR uses a "Pogo stick" while loading and >unloading. It is interesting to note that no other airlines that >operate this same aircraft type out of here use Pogo sticks. I wonder >if this airline has ever had a problem with their 747's tail sitting... Let me guess, it was a 747-400 Combi. If so it would be quite logical to use such a stick, the reason the particular airline (KLM btw?) is the only one who does this at YVR is that they are the only one operating combis into YVR. Stephan From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lenvt@nando.net (Len) Subject: Re: ATR Falls on Tail (almost) (Was Prop Brake) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: lenvt@nando.net Organization: 59fun Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:09 Wish.u.knew@Doncha.megaweb.com (NADIR) wrote: >sikjes@utrc.utc.com wrote: >>snip< >> While we were standing in line to board at the rear stairs, we observed >> the nose gear lift off the ground about two feet! I was convinced the >> tail-cone was going to hit the ramp. A quick thinking baggage handler >> jumped up into the cargo area (fwd, near cockpit), and the nose >> lowered. >... >> Are you ATR pilots familiar with this happening?? Last time I flew on an ATR (a 72) the flight crew took us off the plane from the front back. 5 rows then 5 more rows then 5 more rows until we got to the back. The reason they gave was that the ATR 72 is tail heavy and might do a tail stand if there a bunch of passengers in the back and baggage empty in front. Len --- lenvt@nando.net From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Warren Subject: Dornier 328 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Micron Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:09 Horizon Air, which was the fisrt operator of the Dornier 328 has had alot of problems with the performance of this aircraft, for example they are not able to fly in temp. over 85 degrees, cannot land on a contaiminated runway (more 1/8 of an in. of snow, there have also been problem with runway excursion due to landing gear problems. I know that there are a few other airline that operate them (US Air Express) and I was wondering if anyone knows of any problems other carrirers have had From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: How do fuel guages work? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:09 Jay Vassos-Libove (libove@libove.mindspring.com) writes: > This incident became known as the Gimli Glider. The 767 was > misfueled because all of its fuel gauges were ... malfunctioning ... > ... the aircraft was fueled with checks done by converting > a dipstick measurement in the tanks from a linear (probably metric) > measurement to a volumetric (english, since it was a 767) > measurement... and somebody got a conversion factor exactly > backwards, resulting in *4 instead of /4, so they put 1/4 the > necessary fuel on board. That would be 1/16, wouldn't it? What really happened, though, was that they converted *correctly* from the linear to the volume measure, but got the conversion to *weight* (or mass) wrong. They had to multiply by the correct density for the day's temperature, and inadvertently took the density in the same units used for most other planes. The flight then took off with X pounds of fuel, but since it was an Air Canada 767, it should have been X kilograms. It was therefore underfueled by about 55%. -- Mark Brader, msb@sq.com "Men! Give them enough rope and they'll dig SoftQuad Inc., Toronto their own grave." -- EARTH GIRLS ARE EASY This article is in the public domain. From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) Subject: Are "jets" really jets? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:10 Do present-day commercial airliners really use "jet propulsion" to any significant degree? As I remember the way they explained it to us in junior high school general science in the fifties, in a propellor plane an engine turns a propeller which moves air and produces thrust. In a jet, the purpose of the turbines was not supposed to be to move air directly, but to compress air (and to generate power to run the compressor). The actual propulsion was supposed to come directly from reaction by the expansion of hot gasses as a result of combustion, i.e. basically the same as a rocket. Is a modern-day "jet" really a jet at all, or is it just a kind of turboprop where the propellor has lots of little blades and is concealed within a cowling? -- Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@world.std.com From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Subject: 777 vs A340/A330 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BUMCH Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:10 Does anyone know what the actual/proposed max pax capacities and ranges are for the following aircraft? A340 A330 A340-8000 777-200 777-300 777-100 From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Subject: RANGE OF THE DC-10-30 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BUMCH Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:10 I recently read that USAFRICA is to resume service from Newark to South Africa using McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30's. Is non-stop service possible on this journey with a -10? USAFRICA used to fly MD-11's out of Dulles but they had to return them to American after filing for bankruptcy. Does anyone know why they aren't using MD-11's again? Thornton From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: RANGE OF THE DC-10-30 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:10 >I recently read that USAFRICA is to resume service from Newark >to South Africa using McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30's. Is non-stop >service possible on this journey with a -10? A specifications table in AW&ST several years ago listed the following still-air ranges, in miles, for all the commercial DC-10 variants and derivatives: DC-10-10 4,123 DC-10-15 4,422 DC-10-30 6,357 DC-10-40 5,988 MD-11 7,980 JFK-JNB (I don't have numbers for EWR handy) is about 7,960 miles, so it's a sure bet they'll need a fuel stop, with a couple of likely possibilities including Cape Verde and Senegal. For the return, I'm surprised even the MD-11 could do it non-stop as IAD isn't much closer and JNB is a "hot and high" airport, somewhere around 7,000' elevation as I recall. (I don't think they were flying to/from Cape Town.) >Does anyone know why they aren't using MD-11's again? American's MD-11s probably aren't available any longer due to the FedEx deal. The DC-10-30s are probably a lot cheaper since they are older, too, certainly an appealing attribute for a startup. If the MD-11s had to make a fuel stop anyway, their range advantage would not be of any added value in this application. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: uofmmur@aol.com (UofMMur) Subject: Repair & Overhaul Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: uofmmur@aol.com (UofMMur) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:11 I would like to request information from anyone involved in the repair and overhaul (R&O) business for a research paper I am compiling. While I am specifically interested in the aerospace industry, I am also looking for ideas from businesses overhauling other products such as automobiles, cellular phones, hospital beds, and office furniture. I am extremely interested in hearing from both the providers of R&O services as well as the buyers. My main focus of this research is trying to increase the ability of R&O service providers to quickly and accurately respond to the needs of their customers. If you have any experience with Repair & Overhaul, your response to the following questions would be greatly appreciated: 1. I am trying to understand the order qualifying and order winning criteria of the R&O business. For instance, "What is the most important criteria for your business: due date compliance, turn-around time, quality, cost, etc.?" I would also like to know the scale and scope of your business so that I can determine the correlation between order qualifying/winning criteria and business size. 2. Next, I would be interested in understanding any up front diagnostics that take place in evaluating the product either at the end user site or when it first arrives at the R&O facility. Who determines if the part/product is expendable? How is this process carried out? Is it automated? How? 3. Does a process exist where information is transmitted from the customer to the R&O facility that enables the selection of parts and materials necessary to support the repair? How is this done? Is there a cost threshold where someone needs to determine if the product should be expended? Who makes this decision: customer or repair facility? 4. Is there any process where preventive maintenance information is fed to the R&O facility? 5. What are the current trends in your industry in terms of adding value? 6. Who is managing the assets: customer or repair facility? 7. How are the repair facilities setting themselves up to have the minimum stock to support the contract and business? What types of inventory and order methods exist in the field? 8. How are final tests conducted? Is the process highly manual or is there an automated procedure in place? 9. How is performance being measured both internally and externally? On the basis of these measures of performance, what level do you expect? 10. For your specific business: Industry: Are you a customer or R&O?: Products R&O'd: Annual sales: Number of employees: Level of turnaround time in days: Do you use rotables? Do you use pool parts? Thank you very much for your time and help. From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: identifying engines by sound References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:11 Other interesting engine sounds I've noted in my travels: JT-8d: (not the -200 series) A distinctive wail (almost like a grinding wheel on sheet metal) during taxi/ground operations which fades as the engine accelerates to takeoff thrust (I've been told that this sound is due to inlet guide vane spacing, which is why the guide spacing is often changed as part of a hush-kit). JT-3d: Unmistakeable whistling wail during descent. J-57: Loud loud loud!! (and smoky). The sound of a J-57 KC-135 (or better yet, a B-52) taking off should be experienced by everyone at least once. CFM-56 (and other high-bypass powerplants): Listen to a plane as it lines up for takeoff. If the pilot advances the throttle quickly, there is a surge of very loud sound which then subsides as the engine spools up. I presume this is because the engine core airflow (the noisiest part) responds first, before the fan airflow (which shrouds and muffles the core flow) picks up enough to mask the core noise. -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mike@oscar.demon.co.uk (Mike Collins) Subject: Aircraft operating altitudes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:11 I read a couple of months ago that the new 737 -700/800 series sales success in Europe was due to its ability to fly at 41000 ft thus getting over airway restrictions. Are there any other aircraft in the same class that can fly that high and is this only a European problem? Mike From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: 747-300 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:11 At last.....the mystery is solved! Thanks! BTW, the Thai and Varig airplanes do not have the -400 style wing root fairing. but this still leaves us with the Egyptair -300 with old style engines which *does* have the -400 style wingroot.... Jennings From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: philipp@westnet.com (Ralf Philipp) Subject: Re: Cross Winds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WestNet Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:12 >and American also cancelled all of their flights. Interestingly, neither >Kiwi nor Continental flights were cancelled. Granting that the pilots are >not foolhearty, why the difference in operating rules? The airlines that >cancelled flights use 757's and 767's, I believe. Don't know the >equipment used by the other two. I don't know why some canceled and others didn't, but I do know that Kiwi uses mostly (if not exclusively) B727s, if that helps anyone. I would guess that Kiwi's flights weren't cancelled because their airline is newer and smaller, thus less likely to have an internal beurocracy to set rules and more likely to let pilots decide for themselves (as it's employee owned.) I dunno about Continental, though. Ralf -- Ralf Philipp philipp@westnet.com Home Page: http://www.westnet.com/~philipp/ralf.html From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dzulbas@singnet.com.sg (Dzulkifli Basri) Subject: Re: Cross Winds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: dzul@theos.com (Dzulkifli Basri) Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:12 In , Harold E Gilreath RCP x5125 writes: >"dangerous cross winds" at the airport caused by Hurricane Felix. Delta >and American also cancelled all of their flights. Interestingly, neither >Kiwi nor Continental flights were cancelled. Granting that the pilots are >not foolhearty, why the difference in operating rules?> Different type of aircrafts have different "max demonstrated t/o and landing crosswind" performance (not limiting). Maybe Kiwi and Continental uses different aircrafts compared to the ones used by Delta and American. Assuming that the arrival times of the flights are roughly the same, this is the only reason that I can think of. its only me..............................................................................dzul ******************************************** i am who i am but i am not my company's spokesman From kls Wed Sep 6 01:04:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: olesen@metronet.com (Eric Olesen) Subject: Re: Cross Winds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Texas Metronet, Inc (login info (214/705-2901 - 817/571-0400)) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 95 01:04:12 Harold E Gilreath RCP x5125 (gilreath@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu) wrote: : Several days ago, my USAir flight from Bermuda was cancelled due to : "dangerous cross winds" at the airport caused by Hurricane Felix. Delta : and American also cancelled all of their flights. Interestingly, neither : Kiwi nor Continental flights were cancelled. Granting that the pilots are : not foolhearty, why the difference in operating rules? The airlines that : cancelled flights use 757's and 767's, I believe. Don't know the : equipment used by the other two. Last I knew, both KP and CO were operating 727-200s in and out of BDA, and CO was also operating the 757. It could have to do with the ETOPS rating on the 757, but I can't image how CO would operate where AA and DL didn't if this was really the case. The max crosswind allowable in our flight manual is 30 kts for both the 757 and 727. Each carrier has its own limits. I doubt that the KP or CO pilots were any more daring, but it is possible that their manual allows a higher crosswind. That isn't to imply that they are less safe, but perhaps AA and DL were just a bit more cautious... E From news Wed Sep 6 02:15:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: Michael Carley Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Sabena goes for Avro RJs, rather than Fokkers Date: 6 Sep 1995 01:26:18 -0700 Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <42jkqo$7m9@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> References: <425ju4$mkf@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <42ipir$7q0@isaac.me.rochester.edu> tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) writes: >What is the equipment mix on European routes like? Aer Lingus currently fly A330s (I think, twin engine jobs anyway) and 747s transatlantic, 737s within Europe and Fokker 50s and Saab 2000s on domestic and some cross-channel routes. Otherwise you have Ryanair flying 737s out of Dublin, City Express (a British Airways subsidiary) flying ATR 42s and Virgin using BAe 146s. ps The BAe 146 is, as someone from Alenia put it to me, a silly aeroplane. It looks as if someone took a drawing of a 747 and shrank it. -- Survivors Describe A320 Flight As `Normal' (Aviation Week) m.carley@leoleo.mme.tcd.ie +353 1 6081134 Michael Carley, Mechanical Engineering, Trinity College, Dublin Home page From news Thu Sep 7 00:29:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: spagiola Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Sabena goes for Avro RJs, rather than Fokkers Date: 6 Sep 1995 12:17:11 -0700 Organization: The World Bank Group Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <42kl65$c0f@minerva.worldbank.org> References: <425ju4$mkf@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <42ipir$7q0@isaac.me.rochester.edu> <42jkqo$7m9@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> Michael Carley wrote: > >What is the equipment mix on European routes like? > > Aer Lingus currently fly A330s (I think, twin engine jobs anyway) > and 747s transatlantic, 737s within Europe and Fokker 50s and > Saab 2000s on domestic and some cross-channel routes. Actually, Aer Lingus recently acquired BAe 146s as well; 3 of them, which replaced Fokker 50s on cross Irish sea routes (the F50s were moved to domestic routes and the Saab 340s -- not 2000s -- were sold). > ps The BAe 146 is, as someone from Alenia put it to me, a silly > aeroplane. It looks as if someone took a drawing of a 747 and > shrank it. Tastes differ. But the 146 looks nothing like a 747; more like a miniature C-5 or Il-76. Stefano From news Thu Sep 7 00:30:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: spagiola Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 Date: 6 Sep 1995 12:19:14 -0700 Organization: The World Bank Group Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <42kll1$c9m@minerva.worldbank.org> References: <42hj2s$ag2@hicago.COM> <42hj2s$ag2@minerva.worldbank.org> chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: > > spagiola wrote: > > Actually, by the late 1970s Airbus had made some very significant > > inroads in the Pacific rim .... This was a small share of the > > overall market, but a significant one for that category of > > aircraft (100% of it, if youdefine the category as "widebody > > twins" :-), > I believe the B767 is also a widebody twin, hence, it's not 100% of the > market. Yes, but the 767 wasn't around in the late 1970s, which is the period Karl was discussing in the original post. > JAL, ANA, and China Airlines all had orders of the B767 (you > included Toa, then JAL and ANA should be counted). Ditto here. All these orders came later. > Also, I don't consider the Pacific Rim A300 fleet to be > insignificant. Neither do I; that was the whole point. > Airbus clearly outscored Boeing in the Pacific Rim market in > the A300/310 vs. B767-200/300 battle. (Airbus also captured the > majority of the Middle East market.) In Asia, Boeing's wide-body twin is almo st > non-existent outside Japan (and Australasia). I think that's why the > A330 was able to secure many orders from the Pacific Rim airlines, > initially. However, this time I think Boeing has finally turned the tide. > The B777 is definitely picking up steam in the Pacific Rim with seven > committed customers (JAL, ANA, JAS, KAL, China Southern, CPA, THAI) and > three customers with letters of intent (CAL, EVA, and Air China) with > a total of 68 aircraft plus 43 unsigned firm orders; while the A330 has > only six customers (KAL, CPA, DragonAir, THAI, MAS, and Garuda) and a > total order of 45 aircraft (which include 3 that Garuda allegedly have > cancelled). Boeing definitely seems to have a winner with the 777. Given the commonality between A330 and A340, however, wouldn't a better comparison be 777s vs A330 AND A340s? The Cathay pilot who posted recently seemed to think it was an important advantage. > Just a nitpicking: It's Malaysian Airline System (but Malaysia Airlines) > ^ I stand corrected. Stefano From news Thu Sep 7 00:30:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: spagiola Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 Date: 6 Sep 1995 12:20:15 -0700 Organization: The World Bank Group Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <42klr4$cg1@minerva.worldbank.org> References: <42hj2s$ag2@hicago.COM> <42hj2s$ag2@minerva.worldbank.org> kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > >Airbus clearly outscored Boeing in the Pacific Rim market in > >the A300/310 vs. B767-200/300 battle. > > That is interesting, especially compared to the 767's dominant share > of the North Atlantic market. At a guess, the greater size of the > A300 plus a head start kept Airbus in the lead in Asia, where range > was not that great an issue. Greater range of later models, early > ETOPS, and probably lower operating costs (due to the narrower fuse- > lage) gave the 767 the edge in the North Atlantic market, which the > 767 pioneered as far as twins are concerned. Question: at the time both the A310 and the 767 were entering service (1982-83), Airbus made much of the fact that the A310 could carry two standard LD3 freight containers side by side while the 767 could not. Did this actually prove at all significant in practice? Stefano From kls Thu Sep 7 02:49:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,comp.human-factors Path: bounce-back From: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) Subject: HMI-AI-AS'95 Call for participation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Sep 95 02:49:25 Organization: CLIPS-IMAG, Grenoble, France HMI-AI-AS'95 Call for participation The Fifth International Conference on "Human-Machine Interaction and Artificial Intelligence in Aerospace" will be held in Toulouse, September 27-29, 1995. HMI-AI-AS is concerned with the evolution of human-centered automation of aerospace systems. It has brought together more than 250 scientists, engineers and managers from the aeronautics and space domains, human-machine interaction and artificial intelligence communities, industry and research. In 1995, the main focus will be : From Operations to Design: Closing the Loop. The conference will be organized around the following settings: a paper track including long and short papers, workshops (special interest groups) and panels (general interest). It will be extended to other domains than aerospace in order to compare approaches. WWW info and registration : http://eurydice.onecert.fr/hmi.html Organisation : Helen Wilson E-mail : wilson@onecert.fr -- Francis JAMBON | Équipe Ingénierie des Interfaces Homme-Machine | Human-Computer Interfaces Engineering Group Informations sur/on WWW -> http://www-lgi.imag.fr/Les.Personnes/Francis.Jambon/ Téléphone /Phone : (+33) 76 63 59 70, Télécopieur / Fax : (+33) 76 44 66 75 ___________ CLIPS-IMAG, B203, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France ___________ From kls Thu Sep 7 02:49:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Clive Leyman") Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pucklechurch Consultants Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Sep 95 02:49:26 In article , fmcdave@aol.com wrote: >This is not a direct comment on his posting, but might be an interesting >sidebar for some........They were somewhat concerned because of the speed >at which they were going to have to fly the airplanes. according to them >the A330 and A340 are speed limited due to a buffet problem. >Basically they told me that the wing had been a common design between the >A330/A340 and not tuned for the placement of either two or four engines. >The speed limit they were quoting was .78M! Rick Hughes' message #2965 says most of it, and it was a nice change to read some true "facts" about Airbus aircraft rather that the supposition we normally get. I can add a few things though - the A330 and A340 are designed to cruise at 0.84M, rather than 0.86M, which is why the sweep is less than say a 747. But this is partly the reason why their Lift/Drag ratio is in excess of 20, and the overall aerodynamic efficiency parameter Mach No × (L/D) gives a VERY competitive fuel burn/seat. We did design the wing to have identical aerodynamics on both aircraft, and apart from the local areas around the engine/wing attachments, the structure is also identical. It is not really a question of 'tuning' the wing for either two or four engines - the design concept is that by cashing in on the bending relief of the outer engines, the four-engined aircraft can carry considerably greater TOW for the same structure, and in fact the 'tuning' is in the careful choice of design weights to allow a common structure. In practice, the drag and aeroelastic effects of the outer engines has meant that the A330 has a slightly better drag, but the difference is peanuts - around 1%. The design loads for the two aircraft are also within 1 or 2%, so tuning for two or four engines is not really relevant. Clive Leyman From kls Thu Sep 7 02:49:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 References: <42hj2s$ag2@hicago.COM> <42hj2s$ag2@minerva.worldbank.org> <42kll1$c9m@minerva.worldbank.org> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Sep 95 02:49:26 In article <42kll1$c9m@minerva.worldbank.org>, spagiola (spagiola@worldbank.org) wrote: > chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: > > I believe the B767 is also a widebody twin, hence, it's not 100% of the > > market. > Yes, but the 767 wasn't around in the late 1970s, which is the period > Karl was discussing in the original post. > > JAL, ANA, and China Airlines all had orders of the B767 (you > > included Toa, then JAL and ANA should be counted). > Ditto here. All these orders came later. Since you included China Airlines and Singapore Airlines (both ordered around 1980), that's why I made the earlier statement. I believe China Airlines actually ordered the B767 before they ordered the A300 (which was not orded by CAL but by the Taiwanese government), if memory serves. > > Also, I don't consider the Pacific Rim A300 fleet to be > > insignificant. > Neither do I; that was the whole point. Misunderstood, because you said > This was a small share of the overall market, but a significant one > for that category of aircraft so I took it you meant the share was insignificant. > > I think that's why the > > A330 was able to secure many orders from the Pacific Rim airlines, > > initially. However, this time I think Boeing has finally turned the tide. > > The B777 is definitely picking up steam in the Pacific Rim with seven > > committed customers (JAL, ANA, JAS, KAL, China Southern, CPA, THAI) and > > three customers with letters of intent (CAL, EVA, and Air China) with > > a total of 68 aircraft plus 43 unsigned firm orders; while the A330 has > > only six customers (KAL, CPA, DragonAir, THAI, MAS, and Garuda) and a > > total order of 45 aircraft (which include 3 that Garuda allegedly have > > cancelled). > Boeing definitely seems to have a winner with the 777. Given the > commonality between A330 and A340, however, wouldn't a better > comparison be 777s vs A330 AND A340s? The Cathay pilot who posted > recently seemed to think it was an important advantage. Okay, the A340 has five Pacific Rim A340 customers (CPA, China Eastern, Philippine, Singapore, All Nippon) with a total order of 37. So, it's 111 vs 82 (and Boeing was at least three years behind). However, most of the B777 ordered by the Pacific Rim airlines are of the short-to-medium-haul type. Only China Southern's and some of KAL's are B-market type. That's why I compared the A330 with the B777. As I said it in one of my previous posts, I believe the A340 will remain quite popular with some conservative operators for long-haul flights. About the comments made by a Cathay pilot: 1. If the commonality is so important, why didn't Cathay push Airbus to build the A330-400X instead? From what I heard, Cathay was the strongest proponent for the B777-300. 2. If the commonality is so great, why has Airbus only convinced Cathay to buy the combination? Furthermore, the Cathay A340 deal was cinched only after the PAL order was in jeopardy. I highly doubt the commonality was a major reason for Cathay's order. (Air France eventually will become the second A330/340 operator when they take over Air Inter's A330. Perhaps, Airbus will get Singapore to be the third one. Let's see if that will happen. If Airbus can't, then I really think the so-called A330/340 commonality is just a marketing hype.) 3. Don't forget, the B777 is doing the job of two Airbus aircraft types, commonality is meaningful only if the airlines involved also operate an A320 fleet (but narrowbody aircraft has never been highly demanded among Pacific Rim operators). Airlines only need to maintain one type of engine for the current and any future versions of the B777. However, for the A330/340 family, airlines may need to maintain three (or even four) engine types (since the CFM56, and the CF6-80E1 has reached their growth potential). 4. Let's also look at Cathay's past record of aircraft choices, they have almost always picked the odd-ball aircraft (not necessarily bad aircraft, but definitely not "mainstream"): the Convair 880, the L1011, the _R-R-powered_ B747, and now the A330 and the A340 (the last two are too early to be classified as odd-ball). The only "mainstream" aircraft that Cathay had operated was the B707 (yes, the -320 not the R-R-powered -420). Operating non-mainstream aircraft usually translates into higher opearating cost. By ordering the A330, A340, AND the B777 certainly do not appear to me Cathay is concerned about commonality, efficiency, and cost. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Thu Sep 7 02:49:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 References: <42klr4$cg1@minerva.worldbank.org> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Sep 95 02:49:27 In article <42klr4$cg1@minerva.worldbank.org>, spagiola wrote: > >Question: at the time both the A310 and the 767 were entering service >(1982-83), Airbus made much of the fact that the A310 could carry two >standard LD3 freight containers side by side while the 767 could not. >Did this actually prove at all significant in practice? > When KLM ordered the B767 to replace the A310, it was mentioned that the demand for air cargo in the intra-European markets had dropped. Thus, the B767 would be the more appropriate aircraft for KLM's current need. I would infer that KLM actually did prefer the larger cargo hold of the A310 back in the 80s. Most East Asian carriers and European carriers rely on cargo revenue much more than US carriers do. Therefore, I don't think it's a coincidence that the 767 is very popular among American carriers, while the A300/310 is popular among East Asian and European carriers. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Thu Sep 7 02:49:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: Are "jets" really jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Sep 95 02:49:27 In article , Daniel P. B. Smith wrote: >Is a modern-day "jet" really a jet at all, or is it just a kind of turboprop >where the propellor has lots of little blades and is concealed within >a cowling? I guess you could think of modern engines as cowled turbopros, but the cowling serves a number of important purposes, not the least of which are flow straightening, and flow slowing. Modern day engines are actually turbofan engines, and have a large amount of air that bypasses the core of the engine. Turbojet engines, those where all the air passes through the turbine, have not been used widely for a number of years. A turbofan has a large fan disk on the front of the engine which compresses the air. This compressed air is then separated--some just flows out the back of the engine, and some passes through a number of other compressors, the combustion chamber, and then through the turbine section that provides the power to turn all of the compressors. The core exhaust is then blown out the back to provide some thrust, but most of the thrust is provided by the bypass air. Turbofans are more efficient because they need less fuel, since there is less air being mixed into the combustion section. They are also much quieter. Thrust can be created by moving a small mass of air through a huge acceleration (turbojet), or by moving a large mass of air through a small acceleration (turbofan). Noise is roughly related to the seventh power of the difference in flow speed between the thurst stream and the local air velocity, so even small decreases in thrust stream velocity can result in large changes in noise level. -- Keith Barr barr@netcom.com Aerospace Engineer ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ba/barr/index.html COMM AS&MEL/IA/A&IGI Westminster, Colorado #include From kls Thu Sep 7 02:49:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: hammocks on airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Sep 95 02:49:28 In article , Theodore Sternberg wrote: >Would it be practical to provide passengers hammocks, hung somehow from >the ceiling, to sleep in on long trips? Unlike beds, hammocks wouldn't >displace seats and would therefore not have to be a terribly expensive >feature. But what happens in bad turbulence? It's not a pretty thought. RNA From kls Thu Sep 7 02:49:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Subject: Re: hammocks on airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Sep 95 02:49:28 Theodore Sternberg shaped the electrons to say: >Would it be practical to provide passengers hammocks, hung somehow from >the ceiling, to sleep in on long trips? Unlike beds, hammocks wouldn't 1. No headroom already, there is no room for a hammock over the seats. 2. No regulatory body would ever permit it, a hammock is nonrigid, there is no effective way to strap someone in. If something unexpected happens people will be hurt. In a crash they would be in the way and hinder escapes. Let alone people falling out. 3. How many people do you know who are willing to climb into a hammock in front of everyone else and go to sleep? 4. There certainly isn't enough room for on hammock per passenger, who decides who gets one? -- megazone@world.std.com 510-735-8583 MegaZone's Waste Of Time Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.stories - Maintainer: Ani Difranco Mailing List - Mail to majordomo@world.std.com with 'subscribe ani-difranco' in the body. From kls Thu Sep 7 02:49:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: QSWX01A@prodigy.com (Keith Brown) Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Sep 95 02:49:28 I'm certainly not an expert, but I'm sure there are no "standard" rates of climb that would be used as there are too many variables involved. Certainly, many airlines use performance profiles, some programmed into flight directors, and some only provided the pilot at dispatch, but what the pilot actually flies depends on his mood, aircraft weight and performance as well as more obscure factors as passenger comfort (how well does the pressurization system keep up or lag behind, as the case may be). I work as an en-route (center) air traffic controller and I will see same type of aircraft from same company fly vastly different climb speeds and rates of climb. An average for older aircraft (B727, DC9, etc.) would probably be 1000 fpm and newer aircraft (B737-300(400,500), B757, etc) would probably be around 2000 fpm. Those are initial climb rates. Cruise climbs would be more likely to take passenger comfort and safety into consideration, 500 fpm or less. I am trying to program an air traffic simulator for training scenarios and I have randomized these somewhat within the performance specs of the individual aircraft. Hope this helps a little. - KEITH BROWN QSWX01A@prodigy.com From kls Thu Sep 7 02:49:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: julian@gatwick.Geco-Prakla.slb.com Subject: re: Cabin pressure controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Sep 95 02:49:28 mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:- >In my limited experience with DC-9s, I have found that pressurisation of >these planes is not up to par with newer planes. Others have also told me >that they shared that opinion. [snip] I can recall the following aircraft causing me (and others) severe pain in the sinuses during descent. BAC 1-11, DC9 (MD80), VC10. None of the wide bodies (DC10, Airbuses, 747) have bothered me although I the air in a BA 747-400 was terribly dry. Maybe the humidifier had given up. From kls Thu Sep 7 02:49:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tony Blades Subject: Re: Aircraft Maneuvers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tonyB@seavixen.demon.co.uk Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Sep 95 02:49:29 > In article you write: > >>On a related note, sometime ago (years) I read that the then > >>chief pilot for TWA put a 707 through a roll during a test > >>flight. Is/was a 707 capable of this? > > > >I never heard of TWA doing it, but Tex Johnston, a Boeing test pilot, > >rolled the prototype 707 (the 367-80) twice for the crowds at Seattle's > >hydroplane races. The story has been discussed many times in this > >group -- see the archives for more, or most any book on Boeing history. > >(Some Air Force pilots also rolled a KC-135, the 707's military sister.) Tex Johson did indeed barrel roll the prototype B707, I have some video footage of that event, and whilst I accept that a properly executed barrel roll is positive all the way round, there remain plenty of scope for error. If Tex had got it wrong, Boeing would probably not be in existance today, because they were betting there shirt on the B707. > But seriously, a barrel roll isn't particularly stressful. What you don't > see from the ground is that the properly executed roll maintains positive > gee; if it weren't for the horizon doing a 360 you couldn't tell from on > board that it's happening ... I agree with above, but it is equaly very easy to get a barrel roll horribly wrong, with the result that the aircraft could be badly stressed well beyond its design limits and result in possible structural failure. As a professional pilot I would not want to fly a non-aerobatic aeroplane that had been barrel rolled. There was a rumour many years ago that a Lufthansa crew had barrel rolled a B707 during training, and having got the roll wrong, managed to lose, and I mean lose two engines on one wing. They literally came off the airframe! __ Tony Blades | Tel: 01628 604362 (Burnham) 116 Walpole Road | 0115 960 8888 (Nottingham) Burnham | Pager: 0881 830357 Slough, SL1 6PG | e-mail: tonyB@seavixen.demon.co.uk United Kingdom | From kls Thu Sep 7 02:49:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: WSJ reports ValuJet as potential MD-95 launch customer Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Sep 95 02:49:29 The Thursday, September 7, issue of the Wall St. Journal has an article (p. A2 in the Western Edition) claiming "ValuJet is willing to buy 50 of McDonnell Douglas Corp.'s planned MD-95 jets for more than $1 billion." (Wednesday's Aviation Daily says ValuJet is looking at the 737, A319, MD-80, and Fokker 100. Yes, MD-80 and not MD-95 as reported by the WSJ.) The article makes it sound like MD's acceptance of the order is a bigger issue than VJ placing it: "Last year, McDonnell Douglas's directors were said to have set several hurdles that would have to be cleared before production of the plane proceeds, including the need for a total of 70 or more orders from at least two carriers, preferably including at least one airline widely recognized as an established carrier." Northwest was targeted as the MD-95 launch customer the first time the aircraft was offered, in 1991. When the market cooled and MD shelved the MD-95 several years ago, they helped convince Northwest to refurbish many of its older DC-9s. Now, MD is pushing for an order for 20 MD-95s from Northwest, which with a VJ order for 50 would obviously meet the board's launch criteria. Just as obviously, Northwest's DC-9 refurb- ishment program means selling them the MD-95 is not easy! Another mentioned as a "key factor" in securing an order from Northwest is whether Pratt & Whitney will be selected as the engine supplier for the MD-95, and their pricing. I found this interesting as everything else I have heard in the past year or so has said the BMW Rolls-Royce BR700 would power the MD-95. Finally, the article has a couple of interesting clues on pricing. The possible VJ order, as noted above, is 50 planes at more than $1 billion. At an even billion, that works out to just $20 million per plane. The article also mentions an MD-90 order from Taiwan's EVA Air, valued at $348 million if all 12 planes in the order are delivered, $29 million per MD-90. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From news Thu Sep 7 03:28:27 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!ceas.rochester.edu!not-for-mail From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Sabena goes for Avro RJs, rather than Fokkers Date: 6 Sep 1995 20:31:35 -0700 Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <42lkv0$emp@isaac.me.rochester.edu> References: <425ju4$mkf@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <42ipir$7q0@isaac.me.rochester.edu> <42jkqo$7m9@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> <42kl65$c0f@minerva.worldbank.org> spagiola wrote: >Michael Carley wrote: Tim Takahashi wrote : >> >What is the equipment mix on European routes like? >> Aer Lingus currently fly A330s.. 747s.. 737s... Fokker 50s and Saab >Actually, Aer Lingus recently acquired BAe 146s as well; 3 of them, >which replaced Fokker 50s on cross Irish sea routes (the F50s were >moved to domestic routes and the Saab 340s -- not 2000s -- were sold). >> ps The BAe 146 is, as someone from Alenia put it to me, a silly >> aeroplane. It looks as if someone took a drawing of a 747 and >> shrank it. > >Tastes differ. But the 146 looks nothing like a 747; more like >a miniature C-5 or Il-76. I too think it has an Ilyushin-esque quality to it. The anhedral and all... I got a ride on one once, on the Dayton-Chicago hop (otherwise serviced by ATR 72s (American Eagle) and B737-200s (United). I thought I got the prime seat - window, underneath the wing - a good spot to look at the innovative high-lift system in action. No thrust gates on an BAe, you know. Too bad the seat was the one windowless window seat. 8^( >From a passenger standpoint, I prefer the B737-500 to the BAe. The BAe was noisy in an odd way. -tim From kls Fri Sep 8 02:35:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk ("Niels M. Sampath") Subject: RANGE OF THE DC-10-30 References: 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 Sep 95 02:35:32 In article you write: > >I recently read that USAFRICA is to resume service from Newark > >to South Africa using McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30's. Is non-stop > >service possible on this journey with a -10? > JFK-JNB (I don't have numbers for EWR handy) is about 7,960 miles, so > it's a sure bet they'll need a fuel stop, with a couple of likely > possibilities including Cape Verde and Senegal. In the latest World AIrline Fleets (I think it was) it says the `new' (DC-10 equipped) USAfrica will stop at Dakar. I also am pretty sure that the `old' (MD-11 equipped) USAfrica stopped at Cape Verde. -- Niels From kls Fri Sep 8 02:35:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Peter Isendahl Subject: BMW Rolls-Royce Homepage Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Technical University Berlin, Germany Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 95 02:35:32 BMW Rolls-Royce Homepage can be found at: HTTP://www.netmbx.de/brr/welcome.html From kls Fri Sep 8 02:35:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bwalts@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Brandon M Walts) Subject: Re: exit door latch References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Oregon, Eugene Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 95 02:35:32 In article , Tony Blades wrote: >There are no locks on any doors or hatches, the only thing that prevents >someone opening a hatch in flight is cabin pressure. A 2' x 4' overwing >exit hatch has around 8 lbs/sq in holding it closed, and that translates >to over 4 tons! I don't know of anyone strong enough to move that sort >of weight. Once the aircraft is depressurised after it leaves the runway >after landing, the hatch could then be opened as the pressure on either >side has been equalised. On a related note, what's the case with outward-opening doors, like the kind on Airbus aircraft, airstair doors, etc.? On a couple of occasions, while flying on A300s, the rear galley/lavatory area turned into a makeshift bar and gathering spot, often with people standing inches from the door handles. I was personally worried by this, and wondered if there was something that kept doors of this type from being opened in flight. From kls Fri Sep 8 02:35:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Robert D. Seals" Subject: Re: re: Cabin pressure controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, SUNY Albany Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 95 02:35:33 I have no idea whether pressurization methods are different or better or worse on various planes. However, I do know that "ear block" and "sinus block" are well known results of upper respiratory infections and nasal allergic reactions. Normally, small openings inside the head (like the eustachian tube) allow fluids to pass back and forth to allow the pressure to equalize with cabin pressure. When you get some kinds of infections, maybe a cold, the tubes swell to the point that the fluids cannot pass. The result is unbelievable pain. I thought there was something wrong with the cabin pressure on one flight I was on, until I realized (months later) what had actually happened: I was sick with a cold, and I got sinus block. I read about this in the Cessna "Pilot Safety and Warning Supplements" that my brother-in-law gave me. So, maybe some planes have pressure problems, or maybe you are prone to colds. rob From kls Fri Sep 8 02:35:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins) Subject: Re: Cabin pressure controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rosemount, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 95 02:35:33 I've done some research into cabin pressure control as a passenger with a hiker's altimeter, and I've read Robert Dorsett's articles on the subject. I've seen the cabin pressure controller while riding in the jumpseat of a corporate jet (4 engine, 2 pod, Lockheed). My business is process control, not aircraft control systems. The cabin pressure controller had both an altitude setting and a rate of change setting, which was calibrated in feet/min as I remember it. There has to be a controller for maximum pressure difference (inside to outside the hull), but that could have been as simple as a safety valve. Pressure control of gas in a closed vessel requires two valves, one to let gas in and one to let it out. The combination of the two can regulate gas flow through the vessel. In one article Robert said that the pressure controller regulated the outlet valve position. Something still needs to regulate the amount of air bled from the engines. Pressure is under the control of the flight deck, up to a point. Climbing out of Amsterdam on a 747, my altimeter kept reading sea level for 5 minutes, as the ground dwindled away below us. Then it began rising at about 300 feet per minute, leveling off at about 6000 feet. This was held during cruise, but rose to 8000 feet when the engines were throttled back for descent. This makes sense, because the engines are not producing enough bypass air to maintain pressure. There's nothing the Captain can do about that. The worst time I have with pressure is on approach, when the engines spool up and down as required to stay on the approach path. I've no idea how flow is controlled. I hear it is lower now that there is less smoking aboard flights, but I don't know if it can be controlled from the cockpit or must be set on the ground. On one flight, a child adross from us became violently airsick. We had no option to change seats on a computer optimised flight load. I said to a flight attendant, "You know how you ask if there's anything at all we can do to make your flight more pleasant, well there is." "Change your seats?" she says. "No, ask the flight deck to increase the ventilation in here to what it was when you carried a load of smokers." She went away shaking her head. So, what are the cabin air control systems comprised of, in terms of sensors, controllers, and actuators? Bill Hawkins bill@bvc.frco.com From kls Fri Sep 8 02:35:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: QSWX01A@prodigy.com (Keith Brown) Subject: Re: hammocks on airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 95 02:35:33 I, of course, agree that hammocks on commercial aircraft are certainly impractical for a variety of reasons. I have to tell you though, that from personal experience, if you have to sleep on an airplane, a hammock is the way to go! When I was an Air Force crewmember on C130's many years ago, I and some of my peers used to carry around a little "fishnet" hammock that we bought at a sporting goods store. When compacted correctly, it would fit into a space about 3-4 cubic inches. It came with two steel rings on each end and was the perfect length to extend accross the cargo compartment and hook onto two opposite litter stanchions. On long overwater flights and such, when there was room to stretch out, it was heaven! The hammock would swing with all but the most jarring turbulence and there was no vibration. If it weren't for all the noise around, one might think he was underneath the shade trees in his back yard. - KEITH BROWN QSWX01A@prodigy.com From kls Fri Sep 8 02:35:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eddy Subject: Re: hammocks on airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Liverpool Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 95 02:35:34 Have I heard somewhere that the SIA 747-400's have beds (?!) or something for the first class passengers???? Another question (unrelated) - Do some airlines call their captains "Commanders" why not captain!!! I suppose it sounds more important!? --eddy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What I want to find out is -- do parrots know much about Astro-Turf? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From kls Fri Sep 8 02:35:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: solomon@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (William Joseph Solomon) Subject: Re: hammocks on airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 95 02:35:34 Theodore Sternberg writes: >Would it be practical to provide passengers hammocks, hung somehow from >the ceiling, to sleep in on long trips? Unlike beds, hammocks wouldn't >displace seats and would therefore not have to be a terribly expensive >feature. I was thinking along these lines last time I spent about 14 hours over the Pacific. It sure would me nice to have the cabin arranged so that there was enough room to lay down with a straight back. Perhaps they could stack you in like some of those modern ecconomy Japanese hotels you occasionally see on TV where everone crawls into a horizontal box about 3 ft x 3 ft x 8 ft. There seems to be a lot of waste space between heads and overhead lockers which is only used when people stand up. -- Bill Solomon, Civil&Mechanical Engineering Dept. University of Tasmania, Australia From kls Fri Sep 8 02:35:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: Aircraft Maneuvers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 95 02:35:34 tonyB@seavixen.demon.co.uk writes: >Tex Johson did indeed barrel roll the prototype B707, I have some video >footage of that event, and whilst I accept that a properly executed barrel >roll is positive all the way round, there remain plenty of scope for error. >If Tex had got it wrong, Boeing would probably not be in existance today, >because they were betting there shirt on the B707. That's not really true. When Boeing decided to build the Dash-80, they were making huge profits from military aircraft, particularly the B-52, and the Dash-80 was also a prototype for the KC-135 to feed said B-52s. Also, Boeing was being hit hard by excess profit taxes. So the risk was not that great, and the payoff was getting taken seriously as an airliner manufacturer. >There was a rumour many years ago that a Lufthansa crew had barrel rolled >a B707 during training, and having got the roll wrong, managed to lose, >and I mean lose two engines on one wing. They literally came off the >airframe! Is this a confusion with Dutch roll? Early 707s had insufficient lateral stability, a fault fixed at Boeing's expense by adding more tail, and could easily yaw enough that the asymmetric airflow over the swept wings would start to roll the plane. The extra drag on the wing away from the yaw would yaw it back, but the resulting oscillation would just get worse until the pilot corrected it or the plane flipped. This characteristic of swept-wing aircraft is why the yaw damper is there, but on the 707 the yaw damper wasn't enough to prevent this happening. Several cases of this on training flights, where inexperienced pilots couldn't correct the yaw in time, resulted in lost engines and/or complete loss of airframe and lives. I didn't think any Lufthansa planes were affected though. Dutch roll is *not* a "properly executed roll" ... 8-) -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Fri Sep 8 02:35:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: Are "jets" really jets? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 95 02:35:34 dpbsmith@world.std.com writes: >Is a modern-day "jet" really a jet at all, or is it just a kind of turboprop >where the propellor has lots of little blades and is concealed within >a cowling? A modern fanjet has a bypass ratio of about 5:1, that is five times as much air goes through the fan and straight back out as goes through the engine core. But that doesn't mean five times the thrust comes from the fan, since the core air comes out the tailpipe a *lot* faster. A turboprop, on the other hand, dissipates most of the engine's energy into the turbine to drive the propellor; very little thrust comes from the tailpipe. "Ducted fan" is the term used to describe an engine that looks like a fanjet but behaves like a turboprop. -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Fri Sep 8 02:35:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Are "jets" really jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 95 02:35:34 >A modern fanjet has a bypass ratio of about 5:1, that is five times as >much air goes through the fan and straight back out as goes through the >engine core. Earlier this year, in article , Andrew Chuang claimed the bypass ratio of the GE90 was around 9:1 or 10:1, where as the PW4084 and Trent 800 were around 6:1 or 7:1. Those are all 777 engines, so 5:1 is probably about right if you consider "modern fanjet" to be what you'd find on a 747-400 or MD-11 -- modern, yes, though no longer state-of-the-art. >But that doesn't mean five times the thrust comes from the >fan, since the core air comes out the tailpipe a *lot* faster. Good point. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Sep 8 02:35:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Are "jets" really 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: 08 Sep 95 02:35:35 In article dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) writes: >Is a modern-day "jet" really a jet at all, or is it just a kind of turboprop >where the propellor has lots of little blades and is concealed within >a cowling? If you go to a library and search for "jet," you will likely come up with only a few pubs. If you search for "gas turbine engine," you will come up with an extensive education in thermodynamics, including many, many applications to airplane propulsion. "Jet" is not a well-defined term; it never has been. In propulsion, there are two issues: how to generate thrust, and how to keep the engine running. Reciprocal engines are big, unreliable, and unsuitable for providing significant power. Therefore, gas turbine engines are used for modern designs. These include a series of compressors, a combustion chamber to help keep the thing running, and an exhaust. If you hang a gas turbine engine on an airplane (just a series of compressors), you have a turbojet. This is not an efficient design. Modern designs are turbofans. They add one or more fan blades at the front. Depending on the bypass ratio of a turbofan engine, the thrust produced by the fan can range as much as 30 to 75 per cent. The first turbofan designs did not have much of a bypass ratio, and were similar to the turbojets which preceded them; the latest designs have huge bypass ratios. "Jet" engines are significantly different from turboprops: 1. There may be more than one fan blade in front. The JT8D series, for example, has two. 2. The ducting and stator vane effect helps direct airflow and control compression. 3. The fan blades are not controllable as prop blades are. They are fixed in their relative locations. There are also many more blade elements, compared to props: the ducted and fixed design allows them to be used at higher rotational velocities than props, which permit them to be used at much higher speeds. 4. The fan blades (which are part of the low-pressure compressor) help provide controlled airflow for the turbine section. 5. They are EXTREMELY reliable. The gas turbine accounts for much of this, and would be a characteristic shared with a turboprop, but the engine itself can withstand significant damage. 6. They are MUCH quieter. Bottom line: Turbofans might be easy to dismiss as a ducted prop, but in reality, they're much more. >-- >Daniel P. B. Smith >dpbsmith@world.std.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 Fri Sep 8 02:35:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lookout!msagara@uunet.uu.net (Martin Sagara) Subject: Re: Are "jets" really jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: US WEST Information Technologies Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 95 02:35:35 Daniel P. B. Smith (dpbsmith@world.std.com) wrote: : Is a modern-day "jet" really a jet at all, or is it just a kind of turboprop : where the propellor has lots of little blades and is concealed within : a cowling? Daniel: This is an interesting question and I would answer by saying no, high-bypass turbofans are NOT a species of turboprop. My reasoning is that the rotational motion of the tubine shaft of a turboprop turns a reduction gear to reduce the rotational speed of the propeller. The compressor blades of the turbofan do not have this feature, they are turning at the same speed as the spool that they are mounted to. I'm no expert, just my opinion. -- Martin Sagara Volunteer Staffmember Wings Over The Rockies Aviation & Space Museum Hangar 1, Old Lowry AFB Denver, CO USA msagara@lookout.ecte.uswc.uswest.com "Visualize Whirled Peas" From kls Fri Sep 8 02:35:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: Re: Are "jets" really jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 95 02:35:35 Keith Barr wrote: >Daniel P. B. Smith wrote: >>Is a modern-day "jet" really a jet at all? >I guess you could think of modern engines as cowled turboprops >A turbofan has a large fan disk on the front of the engine >most of the thrust is provided by the bypass air >Turbofans are more efficient because they need less fuel Reason being is fairly straightforwards : A Brayton cycle motor (turbofan,prop,etc.) is like a diesel engine (rather than a conventional gasoline powered engine) in that it always burns fuel in the presence of excess oxygen. The efficiency of such a cycle is tied up in the effective compression ratio of the motor. There is no throttle (and associated pumping losses). Clearly the maximum compression ratio will occur at a fairly high turbine speed. At the same time, the compression needs to be maintained against a certain backpressure. Optimal backpressure is greater than that provided by well designed exit turbines used to run the compressor. In other words, the power drained from the exhaust turbines and used to drive the fan disk (or propellor) is necessary for compression. You could design a restrictive exit, in lieu of secondary turbines... but that would be inefficient in a thermodynamic sense. From a power to weight standpoint, a restrictive exhuast with additional fuel injection (i.e. an afterburner) works well. A question? Is there a high-bypass ratio turbofan with afterburners? (I think the answer may be YES - the A-10 "thunderbolt" motors?) -tim From kls Fri Sep 8 02:35:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eirikur@ix.netcom.com () Subject: Re: Are "jets" really jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 95 02:35:36 dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) wrote: >Do present-day commercial airliners really use "jet propulsion" to any >significant degree? As I remember the way they explained it to us >in junior high school general science in the fifties, in a propellor plane >an engine turns a propeller which moves air and produces thrust. In a >jet, the purpose of the turbines was not supposed to be to move air >directly, but to compress air (and to generate power to run the compressor). >The actual propulsion was supposed to come directly from reaction by the >expansion of hot gasses as a result of combustion, i.e. basically the >same as a rocket. >Is a modern-day "jet" really a jet at all, or is it just a kind of turboprop >where the propellor has lots of little blades and is concealed within >a cowling? Daniel, The answer to your question is yes. Jet engines draw in a large amount of air very quickly, compress it and force it into a combustion chamber where it mixes with the fuel. Here the fuel is atomized by the airflow, and combusted and then forced through a set of turbines. These turbines are rotated by the exhaust gasses and are directly splined to the compressor or compressors as may be the case. This in turn rotates the compressor making it a self sustaining system. The thrust is actually produced in the combustion chamber, not by the compressor per-say. The gasses exiting the engine are hotter and occupy more volume than the air or gasses being drawn in. Thus, jet engines "push" rather than "pull" as is the case with the t-prop. There is a whole lot more info that I could type her for you, but it would take a couple of months. There are numerous types of power plants for aircraft out there ranging from reciprocating props to turbo-props (which actually have a small jet engine that drives the prop) to turbojets, turbofans,ramjets and so on. My best advice to you would be to consult your local library to learn more about these engines. I do hope that I have helped you out, if you have any furthr questions post them online or e-mail me directly. JCD USAF AVMAINT A&P e-mail : eirikur@ix.netcom.com From kls Fri Sep 8 02:54:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: D.P.Rhodes@lut.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: 777 vs A340/A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Loughborough University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 95 02:54:02 In article Thornton Shepherd wrote: > Does anyone know what the actual/proposed max pax capacities > and ranges are for the following aircraft? > > A340 A340-200 Max capacity (exit limited): 440 Two class seating: 303 Three class seating: 262 Range with three class seating: 7750nm A340-300 Max capacity (exit limited): 440 Two class seating: 335 Three class seating: 295 Range with three class seating: 6750nm > A330 Max capacity (exit limited): 440 Two class seating: 335 Three class seating: - Range with two class seating: ~4750nm > A340-8000 Proposed A340-200 development with 4(?) LD3 containers replaced by fuel tanks in cargo forward and aft of wing. Range in excess of 8,000nm with A340-200 payload. > 777-200 Max capacity (exit limited): 440 Two class seating: 375 Three class seating: 310 Range with two class seating (A model): ~4500nm Range with three class seating (B model): ~6500nm > 777-300 Proposed stretch of 777-200. Length exceeds that of 747-400. Increases three class seating to 375. I would guess the stretch would have an extra pair of exits increasing max seating (exit limited to 550). > 777-100 Not sure about this, perhaps someone else can give some details. Hope that helps -- Mr. Darren P. Rhodes | Dept. of Aeronautical & Automotive Engineering tel: [+44] 01509 223454 | & Transport Studies fax: [+44] 01509 267613 | Loughborough University of Technology email: D.P.Rhodes@lut.ac.uk | Loughborough, Leics., England, LE11 3TU From news Sat Sep 9 14:02:16 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Fokker deadmeat? Followup-To: misc.transport.air-industry Date: 8 Sep 1995 11:49:06 -0700 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <42q372$pp@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Followups to misc.transport.air-industry. There was a small article in today's Wall St Journal about Daimler and the Dutch govt fighting over the future of Fokker. Daimler says that the Dutch govt must inject equity and subsidies into Fokker for it to survive, while the Dutch govt insists that Fokker is now a matter for Daimler. Not too surprising that Daimler would ask this. After all, it runs the German branch of Airbus, so when in trouble, think subsidy. Rather incredible that it would blatantly _ask for such a thing, though. Fokker has had an amazing amount of trouble over the last five years or so. It's really quite surprising, because BAe/Avro continues to survive, though offhand I'd have said that the F100 was a more successful program than the 146/RJ. Certainly they sold the F100 in numbers that Avro would give its eyeteeth for (e.g. 75 F100 to American Airlines). All I can think is that Fokker was incredibly flabby five years ago, so five years of slimming have still not produced an efficient company. I'd be surprised to see Fokker die, simply because it goes against the European grain to allow a national champion to die. However, a complicating factor is that the Dutch may already have let the company go psychologically when they sold it off (well, half of it at least) to Daimler. Given the traditional Dutch antipathy to the Germans, that was a rather large step. RNA From kls Sun Sep 10 13:26:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: S.Tolboom@kub.nl (S. TOLBOOM) Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 References: <42klr4$cg1@minerva.worldbank.org> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Tilburg University, The Netherlands Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Sep 95 13:26:28 >When KLM ordered the B767 to replace the A310, it was mentioned that >the demand for air cargo in the intra-European markets had dropped. >Thus, the B767 would be the more appropriate aircraft for KLM's current >need. I would infer that KLM actually did prefer the larger cargo >hold of the A310 back in the 80s. As Andrew suggests, the main reason KLM ordered the A310's was their greater cargo capacity, due to a wider cargo hold. Stephan From kls Sun Sep 10 13:26:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Cabin pressure controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Sep 95 13:26:29 In article bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins) writes: >valve position. Something still needs to regulate the amount of >air bled from the engines. On designs I've examined, there really isn't anything. Engine bleed goes to the packs, which go through the air distribution system, which results in the pressure build-up in the cabin, which is then regulated by the outflow valve, which is regulated by a motor, which is (finally) regulated by the pressurization controller. There can be variations of pressure (and certainly variations of rate of climb) depending on engine thrust settings (and hence airflow). For example, if you lose an engine on a typical leaky 727 at altitude, you'd have to start descending pretty soon in order to maintain pressure. On the 727, the distribution system has one flow buffer to control the amount of airflow to the flight deck. This is a fixed proportion (15-20% of the total air). There is also a overpressure valve, to protect the distribution system itself. This is not part of the pressurization system. >I've no idea how flow is controlled. I hear it is lower now that >there is less smoking aboard flights, but I don't know if it can >be controlled from the cockpit or must be set on the ground. The only flow control available to the crew is to shut off a pack. On the 727, there are two packs: if you shut them off, the airplane will grad- ually depressurize. Since pack operation robs you of a couple of EPR points, this results in higher operating costs. So some airlines encourage the deactivation of packs. There is also an "auto pack trip" option at takeoff, which will trip the packs if there is engine failure at takeoff. This helps provide maximum possible engine power. On older 727s, there was a little airflow lever, to further control bleed effects. For example, you'd want maximum airflow while boarding passengers (all the hot bodies). But this was not part of the overall pressurization process. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Sun Sep 10 13:26:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Dutch Roll Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Sep 95 13:26:29 I know that Dutch roll is a coupled yaw and roll oscillation that occurs in swept wing aircraft. What I don't know is why it is called "Dutch" roll. Does anyone know the origin of the term? From kls Sun Sep 10 13:26:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ralph Phillips Subject: DC-10-30 avionics Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Ralph Phillips Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Sep 95 13:26:29 Can anyone enlighten me with regard to the avionics fit likely to be found in a DC-10-30 manufactured in 1984, specifically, will there be:- EFIS (I presume not) FMC - and how will this compare to the current Boeing equivalent Autopilot - likewise, will there be an LNAV equivalent, or is it a case of manually tracking towards beacons. Any other comparative info appreciated. thanks Ralph Phillips From kls Sun Sep 10 13:26:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Subject: Re: Dornier 328 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CIESIN Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Sep 95 13:26:29 Warren wrote: >Horizon Air, which was the fisrt operator of the Dornier 328 has had alot >of problems with the performance of this aircraft, for example they are >not able to fly in temp. over 85 degrees ... >I know that there are a few other airline that operate them (US Air >Express) and I was wondering if anyone knows of any problems other >carrirers have had I recently flew on a USAir D-328 from Pittsburgh, and the ambient air temperature was well over 85 F. For a commuter plane, it seemed very stable and I was impressed. I'm curious to see what problems there may be with the aircraft, especially since I liked it so much! dale tuttle From kls Sun Sep 10 13:26:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pdaniel@acslink.net.au (Paul Daniel) Subject: Re: auto-throttle usage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prologic Pty Ltd Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Sep 95 13:26:29 Airam J Preto wrote: >Which is the standard procedure during: > - Take-off (auto-throttle engaged?) > - Altitude and speed transitions (auto-throttle + autopilot?); > - Approach and landing (autopilot and then auto-landing?). This is probably a dumb question from someone who's fascinated by big jets but isn't lucky enough to fly. I realise the role of an A/P is to maintain constant height and heading based on settings made by the flight crew or FMS. But what is the role of the A/T? What targets does it try to achieve? When are these set up? For each flight or are there some sort of standard settings? Obviously the throttle settings are going to be different for climb, cruise, descent, etc. How does the A/T work out the current situation? From kls Sun Sep 10 13:26:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Vincent Subject: Re: thoughts on the A330 References: <42klr4$cg1@minerva.worldbank.org> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Sep 95 13:26:30 I would like to add that the A310's cargo carrying capabilities as compared to that of the Boeing 767 played a pivotal role in SIA's selection of the A310 over the 767 as their regional workhorse.The eventual disposal of their meagre 757 fleet and their subsequent replacement with additional A310s shows just how important cargo services are to an East Asian carrier. From kls Sun Sep 10 13:26:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steven Grunblatt Subject: Did the Chinese ever attempt to copy the 707? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UBS Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Sep 95 13:26:30 I recall reading somewhere that in the 1970s the Chinese government purchased 2 Boeing 707s. After delivery,Boeing lost track of the aircraft's whereabouts. It was speculated that the aircraft were dismantled, and unsuccessfully copied. Can anyone elaborate? From kls Sun Sep 10 13:26:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.autos.vw Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (Ralph Ricks ) Subject: VW rolling ramp - clever idea Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Sep 95 13:26:30 Aero California, based in La Paz, Baja California, Mexico, has developed a unique ramp vehicle for maintenance of their DC-9 jets. They took the body off of a VW beetle and built a "rolling ramp" using the pan and running gear. It has a six foot square platform over the center of the car, which is six foot high. It also has a five foot square platform over the rear, which is removable for access to the engine, etc. There is another smaller platform in the front. Even the front fenders are flat, making nice steps. The latest mod is a windshield for those nasty days in paradise. There are two seats in the middle, of course. This is the greatest ramp vehicle I have ever seen. A mech can haul parts to the plane, and then use the hauler as access to high places, instead of a regular van and a ladder. Since VW beetles are still made in Mexico, repair parts will always be available. They have built several of these 'Rampas', improving a little with each one. An enterprising person could do quite well commercially with these things, I believe. Of course, an OSHA version would have guard rails, safety belts, etc. Ralph "A car is only good for getting you to the airport." From kls Sun Sep 10 13:26:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: 707 loses two engines 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: 10 Sep 95 13:26:30 There was a message posted recently that mentioned a LH 707 that lost two engines while recovering from a dive/roll. This reminded me of an old FAA (maybe CAA?) film that discussed loss of control in early DC-8s and B-707s that was attributed to the horizontal stablizer not being trimmed properly when the airplane encountered turbulence. The film included a Northwest captain that explained the problem and some 'Clutch Cargo' style animations showing airplanes diving and engines departing the airframe. I believe that the stab being improperly trimmed caused the elevator to lose effectiveness. Any aerodynamic/flight control types out there that could refresh my memory on this? Dave From kls Sun Sep 10 13:26:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bildan@ix.netcom.com (Bill Daniels ) Subject: Effecient transport Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Sep 95 13:26:31 Is it possible, with available or speculative technology, to build a cargo aircraft that would compete on a cost-per-ton-mile basis with ground transport? Bill Daniels From kls Sun Sep 10 13:26:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@mo.net (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: Aircraft Maneuvers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: -=MO.NET=- P-Net, Inc's Missouri Operations Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Sep 95 13:26:31 Don Stokes wrote: >A good TV documentary on aircraft matters (whos name escapes me right now) >had a Concorde pilot describe Concorde being barrel-rolled; a pilot friend >of mine once related an anecdote about pilots in NZ doing aerobatics in >737s on positioning flights. I believe the documentary was the excellent multi-part series by TBS/BBC, called "Reaching for the Skies". A former Captain co-worker of mine, used to enjoy making loose items in the cockpit "float" during positioning flights in his ATR. A mutual friend, who was a dispatcher with our company, at the time, was also attempting weightlessness in the cabin, during some of these trips! He was a suberb, natural pilot, but I think he really wanted to fly F18's! Regards, Steven From kls Sun Sep 10 13:26:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@mo.net (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: B737 on gravel Runway References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: -=MO.NET=- P-Net, Inc's Missouri Operations Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Sep 95 13:26:31 >>Canadian Airlines offers B737 service to small villages in Northern >>Canada and it seems they use dedicated aircrafts for these routes. >>There is some sort of fender over the nose wheel and the engine intakes >>look different. I was told that it might be to prevent damage to the engine >>from the gravel runway bouncing at take off and landing. Those 737-200's were from Nordair, before the merge. They also had an external wire HF antenna that ran from the vertical fin to the forward fuselage. Most of them were also, operated in a combi configuration, and were equipped with a cargo door. I have some excellent photos I took in Toronto of them. Steven From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (Ralph Ricks ) Subject: Re: Effecient transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:25 In bildan@ix.netcom.com (Bill Daniels ) writes: > >Is it possible, with available or speculative technology, to build a >cargo aircraft that would compete on a cost-per-ton-mile basis with >ground transport? If you add interest on the money invested in the products, aircargo already competes. That's why it is so successful. It is good economic sense to haul new luxury cars by air, but not coal. However, a large part of the cargo in the Berlin airlift was coal. Ralph From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) Subject: Re: Effecient transport 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: 11 Sep 95 21:27:25 In article , bildan@ix.netcom.com (Bill Daniels ) wrote: > Is it possible, with available or speculative technology, to build a > cargo aircraft that would compete on a cost-per-ton-mile basis with > ground transport? No!, if you mean on a direct operating cost per ton-mile basis. On a total system cost basis, yes. That is when you include storage, warehousing and packaging costs, the speed of the airplane can pay off. High value goods cannot afford to sit on a ship for weeks. Being able to order material to arrive just when you need it, being responsive to last minute orders, can avoid warehouse costs, etc. -- Richard Shevell Email: shevell@leland.stanford.edu From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jfc@mit.edu (John Carr) Subject: Exit capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute Of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:26 In article , Darren Rhodes wrote: >A340-200 >Max capacity (exit limited): 440 Do exit limits vary amoung countries according to the policies of regulatory agencies or are they standard? -- John Carr (jfc@mit.edu) From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Emergency exits capacity Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:26 I have a few question on emergency exits for airplanes : Is the "must be able to empty plane in 90 seconds" a real requirement or just urban legend ? Are there specific and widely accepted ways to measure each exit's capacity in an emergency ? If so, what are the criteria used ? (door size, chute length, cabin/aisle design ?) Or do aircraft manufacturers actually load up a plane with people and make the test ? Does anyone have specific numbers on how many passengers a full fledged door (with chute) can process (per minute ?) and how over-wing exits fair in that regard ? If the "90 seconds" requirement is true, does it apply to a plane with all of its doors usable, or does it assume that a certain percentage of its doors will be unusable ? From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kenpac@ix.netcom.com (J. Kenneth E ) Subject: Re: exit door latch References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:26 In bwalts@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Brandon M Walts) writes: >On a related note, what's the case with outward-opening doors, like >the kind on Airbus aircraft, airstair doors, etc.? On a couple of >occasions, while flying on A300s, the rear galley/lavatory area >turned into a makeshift bar and gathering spot, often with people >standing inches from the door handles. I was personally worried by >this, and wondered if there was something that kept doors of this >type from being opened in flight. Still no need to worry Brandon. ALL airliner doors are plug type, meaning that they must be pulled inside somewhat prior to swinging outward. It just appears that they swing open freely. So unless somebody standing there can pull a door open that has the equivalent of 4 tons pushing against it you are perfectly safe. Ken From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Nicolas Ercan Murat Subject: Re: exit door latch References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:26 On 8 Sep 1995, Brandon M Walts wrote: > >someone opening a hatch in flight is cabin pressure. A 2' x 4' overwing > >exit hatch has around 8 lbs/sq in holding it closed, and that translates > >to over 4 tons! I don't know of anyone strong enough to move that sort > >of weight. Once the aircraft is depressurised after it leaves the runway > >after landing, the hatch could then be opened as the pressure on either > >side has been equalised. > On a related note, what's the case with outward-opening doors, like > the kind on Airbus aircraft, airstair doors, etc.? On a couple of > occasions, while flying on A300s, the rear galley/lavatory area > turned into a makeshift bar and gathering spot, often with people > standing inches from the door handles. I was personally worried by > this, and wondered if there was something that kept doors of this > type from being opened in flight. As in the earlier case, the pressure differential and door mechanism will not let door open so easily while in flight. This was proven when an evacuation slide on an PIA A310 decided to inflate during flight. The door opening handle on all airbus' is a long metallic handle that is lifted from down to up (as opposed to the Boeings and MD where is anti/clockwise 180 degree motion). So when the slide began inflating, it crew out of the packboard and decorative cover and started lifting the door handle towards "open". Now, the force required was so high that the door warped and bent rather than the opening the door. Also, any movement on the handle (however small) generateds an ECAM message on the flight deck. The end of the story was that an on-board mechanic ran back and gave a big stab with his screwdriver and punctured the slide. Bottom line is that, at cruising altitude, no way the door is going to open so easily. Nick Cabin Interior & Payload Systems From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jens <100604.3210@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Dornier 328 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: sent via CompuServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:27 Question: What's the source of your information? Haven't heard yet of the problems? Ciao Jens (working for a regional aircraft operator) -- From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (Ralph Ricks ) Subject: Re: Dornier 328 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:27 In writes: >Warren wrote: >>Horizon Air, which was the fisrt operator of the Dornier 328 has had alot >>of problems with the performance of this aircraft, for example they are >>not able to fly in temp. over 85 degrees ... Why am I not surprised? The Europeans do not understand hot weather. One of the biggest problems with the FOkker 100 is air conditioning packs that are too small for the plane in hot climates. When it gets to 95 degrees F, the A320 packs start failing excessively, and the engines spike over-temp. Even all my friends and acquaintances with Mercedes have experienced air conditioning failures at $2,000+ each. Ralph From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: Re: Dutch Roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:27 Andrew Goldfinger (Andy.Goldfinger@aplmail.jhuapl.edu) wrote: : I know that Dutch roll is a coupled yaw and roll oscillation that occurs : in swept wing aircraft. : What I don't know is why it is called "Dutch" roll. Does anyone know the : origin of the term? Several centuries ago when I was an undergraduate in the Aeronautical Engineering department at MIT, the professor who taught the introductory aaircraft stability and control course (name available on request) said that the name Dutch Roll is used because the motion of the aircraft seems similar to that of an ice skater slowly gliding down the frozen canals of the Netherlands. I was not aware that the motion occurs only on swept wing aircraft. Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@NETCOM.COM From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eertink@nlr.nl (Johan Eertink) Subject: Re: Dutch Roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The National Aerospace Laboratory NLR Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:27 Andrew Goldfinger (Andy.Goldfinger@aplmail.jhuapl.edu) wrote: : What I don't know is why it is called "Dutch" roll. Does anyone know the : origin of the term? We were told in aircraft stability and control class, that the movement of the aircraft in a Dutch roll is very much like the the movement of a skater on the ice (Not hockey or artistic skating, but the long distance skating). Now, since this kind of skating is _very_ Dutch, it became known as a Dutch roll. -- | Johan Eertink | eertink@nlr.nl (These are personal opinions, they do not represent NLR's view) From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Dutch Roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:28 Andrew Goldfinger asks:- > What I don't know is why it is called "Dutch" roll. Does anyone know the > origin of the term? Everything nasty is called "Dutch" (with the exception of my friends ** from The Netherlands, all of whom are delightful! :-) I think it goes back to the 18th Century when England was at war with Holland and a few boatloads of Dutch uncles (probably full of Dutch courage) sailed up the Thames and wrecked the English fleet at anchor. (I hope this message is acceptable on the net. I don't want Karl wagging the Dutch finger at me! :-) Pete Mellor ** PS: On second thoughts, I would certainly describe my friend Patrice as a "Dutch treat"! :-) From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kspringe@phoenix.phoenix.net (Ken) Subject: Re: DC-10-30 avionics References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Phoenix Data Systems Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:28 In article Ralph Phillips writes: >Can anyone enlighten me with regard to the avionics fit likely to >be found in a DC-10-30 manufactured in 1984, specifically ... No EFIS or FMC the autopilot is a Sperry SP-50. From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (Ralph Ricks ) Subject: Re: Did the Chinese ever attempt to copy the 707? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:28 In Steven Grunblatt writes: >I recall reading somewhere that in the 1970s the Chinese government >purchased 2 Boeing 707s. After delivery,Boeing lost track of the >aircraft's whereabouts. It was speculated that the aircraft were >dismantled, and unsuccessfully copied. Yes, there was mention, and pictures, in AvWeek a number of times. They even copied the radios, piece by piece. A colleague of mine was on an early US aviation tour of China in about 1976, and lifted a drape off a work table, and saw a Collins HF transceiver, of the type in the 707, being copied. The Chinese guides became very upset. He also got to visit with the US ambassador at the time, George Bush. Ralph From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mps1@cec.wustl.edu (Mihir Pramod Shah) Subject: Re: Did the Chinese ever attempt to copy the 707? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:28 In article , Steven Grunblatt wrote: >I recall reading somewhere that in the 1970s the Chinese government >purchased 2 Boeing 707s. After delivery,Boeing lost track of the >aircraft's whereabouts. It was speculated that the aircraft were >dismantled, and unsuccessfully copied. Well, according to the "Chronicle of Aviation", a 980+ page book on the history of commerical, general, and military flight, the Chinese did build their first jetliner in 1980. It was a narrow-body 4-engines-under-the-wing airplane that looked VERY MUCH like a 707. Here's the caption under the picture of the plane: "Similar in appearance to the Boeing 707, the Shanghai Y-10 was China's first indigenous get airliner, but the design was an anachronism in 1950's style." Now, whether this design was based on the dismantled 707's, I don't know for sure, but it obviously wouldn't surprise me after looking at the picture and caption. Mihir -- Mihir Pramod Shah Email: mps1@cec.wustl.edu Washington University Phone: (314) 935-1118 From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kchao@acsu.buffalo.edu (Kuang-Chung Chao) Subject: Re: Did the Chinese ever attempt to copy the 707? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UB Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:29 In article , Steven Grunblatt wrote: >I recall reading somewhere that in the 1970s the Chinese government >purchased 2 Boeing 707s. After delivery,Boeing lost track of the >aircraft's whereabouts. It was speculated that the aircraft were >dismantled, and unsuccessfully copied. AFAIK, there was an attempt by the Chinese to built a large ( by their standard ) jet transport modeled from 707. It was named Y-10 ( Y is the first letter of transport in romanized Chinese ). The prototype was said to be a disappointment. It can barely take off under its empty weight. Chinese did not have good enough engine at the time, neither now. The project was scrapped after 2 prototypes were built. The company responsible for it was Shanghai Aircraft, the one that builds MD-80s under license. I think one of the prototypes is in the aviation museum in Beijing or somewhere else. AW&ST and Jane's has reports about it in late 80s or so. These are residues of long-term memory, don't flame me if I'm wrong. ;) hope this helps. kc -- Kuang-Chung "K.C." Chao Tel: +1 (716) 691-5524 Dept. of Electrical and Computer Eng. kchao@acsu.buffalo.edu State Univ. of NY at Buffalo http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~kchao From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Bryan H. Lang" Subject: Re: Did the Chinese ever attempt to copy the 707? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: California State University, Chico Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:29 On 10 Sep 1995, Steven Grunblatt wrote: > I recall reading somewhere that in the 1970s the Chinese government > purchased 2 Boeing 707s. After delivery,Boeing lost track of the > aircraft's whereabouts. It was speculated that the aircraft were > dismantled, and unsuccessfully copied. > > Can anyone elaborate? > Steven- If memory serves, the story went more or less as follows. In the mid-70s, China bought 10 707-320s from Boeing, along with 40 "spare" engines. Boeing allegedly realized that this was far more spare engines than necessary, but didn't want to jeopardize a potentially huge marketplace (history notes that they judged correctly). China then created the Y-10, a 707 clone, and equipped it with the spare engines. They were not quite the success that China had hoped for. I recall some photos - seemed to have larger cockpit windows but retained the 707 planform. Don't recall how many were ever produced. Just skiimed my fleet guides for 77-85, and I don't see the Y10 listed for CAAC. Does anyone have any reference books containing the story of this aircraft? TIA, -BHL From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Did the Chinese ever attempt to copy the 707? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:29 Although I can't lay my hands on the book in question, I have a book which has a photo of a 707 lookalike produced by the Chinese ca. 1975. Why in the world they went to all the trouble, I have no idea, but they did indeed build one. I have no idea what it was called, or if it ever flew, but there was a photo of it in the book... It wasn't quite as true a copy as the Tu-4 Bull was of the B-29, as the cockpit windows were done differently, but it definitely had JT3D nacelles right off of the 707. More information if I can find the book. Jennings Heilig From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rwi@whidbey.whidbey.com (Richard Isakson) Subject: Re: Aircraft Maneuvers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Whidbey Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:29 In sci.aeronautics.airliners Don Stokes said: >tonyB@seavixen.demon.co.uk writes: >>There was a rumour many years ago that a Lufthansa crew had barrel rolled >>a B707 during training, and having got the roll wrong, managed to lose, >>and I mean lose two engines on one wing. They literally came off the >>airframe! >Is this a confusion with Dutch roll? Actually, it was a flight test maneuver known as a rudder doublet. It's a test of an airplanes lateral stability where the pilot first pushes one rudder all the way down then switches and does the same thing with the other. The rudder is then released and the crew sees what the airplane will do. In this case, it was a demo flight over Mount Rainier and the airline crew was flying the plane. Apparently this was a normal test with that airline but they didn't have a lot of experience with jet airliners. So who did? The maneuver threw off the outboard engines and the airplane wasn't able to maintain altitude. They crashed near Tacoma. -- Rich (rwi@whidbey.com) From kls Mon Sep 11 21:27:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Aircraft Maneuvers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Sep 95 21:27:29 During the Gulf War a KC-135E tanker got tangled in the wake turbulence of the aircraft 3 miles ahead of it and rolled (not Dutch roll - the real thing). In the process, they lost both the left hand engines. They literally fell off the airplane. The airplane was landed safely (after much puckering, wailing, and gnashing of teeth) shortly afterward, and the repaired airplane is currently in service at Selfridge ANGB, Michigan with the AFRES squadron there. This was in Reader's Digest (so it must be true...), and I've spoken with the pilot of the aircraft who told me the whole story...amazing airplanes they build in Seattle... Jennings Heilig From kls Tue Sep 12 02:44:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Cabin pressure controls 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: 12 Sep 95 02:44:29 >valve position. Something still needs to regulate the amount of >air bled from the engines. >On designs I've examined, there really isn't anything. The pack valves do control the amount of air flowing into the pack - the proper terminology is actually 'pack flow control valve'. I'll have to check the books, but I believe that a 727 pack valve allows flow on the order of 60-70 lbs per minute. The 757/767 pack valve (probably on other newer airplanes) actually have a low-flow and a hi-flow mode which is what allows a single pack 757/767 to cruise at normal altitudes. An older airplane like a 727/737 is limited to about 25,000' on one pack. Dave From kls Tue Sep 12 02:44:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Martin Fiddler Subject: Where did all the air vents go? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Sep 95 02:44:30 When I fly on older aircraft, there is invariably an individual air vent for each passenger. These supply a welcoming blast of cool air, but if not wanted they can obviously be turned off. Great. The more modern aircraft I've been on, including B747-400, B757-200, A320, etc, do not have these. This seems a reall pity, as I find they provide much greater comfort and control of ones own envioronment. So, why don't modern aircraft have individual air vents any more? Is it because it saves fuel to have less bleed air from the engine, or because it is assumed that more modern aircraft have better temperature management in the passenger cabin? Surely the modern high-bypass engines can more easily 'spare' a little air for the vents? Am I the only one who mourns their passing? M.fiddler@staffs.ac.uk From kls Tue Sep 12 02:44:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sikjes@utrc.utc.com Subject: Re: ATR Falls on Tail (almost) (Was Prop Brake) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UTRC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Sep 95 02:44:30 >Last time I flew on an ATR (a 72) the flight crew took us off the >plane from the front back. 5 rows then 5 more rows then 5 more rows >until we got to the back. The reason they gave was that the ATR 72 is >tail heavy and might do a tail stand if there a bunch of passengers in >the back and baggage empty in front. > > >Len >--- Rethink your statement. Unloaded from the front first to avoid a tail- heavy situation? Am I missing something? Maybe that's why the pax door is in the rear. So the rear seats are unloaded first. However, this still doesn't work becuase as the plane empties, the folks that were in the front are all standing in the rear (in line to exit). From kls Tue Sep 12 02:44:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: me@remain.com (Michael Ehrlich) Subject: Re: Auto rejected take-off on 767? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ehrlich Professional Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Sep 95 02:44:30 In article , Martin Fiddler wrote: > A couple of years ago, I was on the flight deck of a 767 and the captain > told me that to assist a rejected take-off, if the throttles were retarded > during the take-off roll, after being at 'full' (toga) power, then there > was an automatic process which would (a) deploy the spoilers (b) deploy > the thrust reversers (I guess with auto-throttle setting rev thrust power) > and (c) apply max auto-brakes. > > Since then I have been on other 767's and the crew all state that their > aircraft doesn't have this system, and also that they have never heard of > it! > > So, did I imagine this conversation with the crew, were they making it > up, or is it a rare option on the 767? Hello, This answer comes from a crew qualified on the 767 at _one_ american air carrier. Of course we cannot speak for all Boeing options; however, on our fleet the autobrakes do have an RTO (Rejected TakeOff) function which will apply maximum braking whenever throttles are retarded once airspeed is above 80 knots. When reverse thrust levers are moved up into interlock the spoilers will also deploy. Therefore, all one need do is retard throttles to initiate braking and select reverse thrust to deploy spoilers. Keeping it on the runway at this point is also considered good form. Reverse thrust is _not_ selected automatically. mike me@remain.com From kls Tue Sep 12 20:18:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Where did all the air vents go? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Sep 95 20:18:53 In article Martin Fiddler writes: > [ wondering why gasper outlets are disappearing from modern aircraft ] >So, why don't modern aircraft have individual air vents any more? It is because it is now a purchaser option, and the purchasing airline declined tou buy it. Write a nasty letter to the cheap little airline that declined to buy it! -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Tue Sep 12 20:18:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: Emergency exits capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Sep 95 20:18:53 re Evacuation time FAR 25.803 Emergancy Evacuation (c) For ailplanes having a seating capacity of more than 44 passengers, it must be shown that the maximum seating capacity, including the number of crewmembers required by the operating rules for which certification is requested, can be evacuated from the airplane to the ground under simulated emergancy conditions within 90 seconds. Compliance with thie requirement must be shown by actual demonstration using the test criteria outlined in Appendix J... Appendix J (a) The emergancy evacuation must be conducted either during the dark of the night or during daylight with the dark of night simulated. (f) Each external door and exit, and internal door or curtain, must be in the takeoff configuration. (h)(1) At least 40% must be female (h)(2) At least 35% must be over 50 (h)(3) At least 15% must be female over 50 (h)(4) Three life-size dolls, must be carried to simulate live infants 2 years or younger (k) Before the start of the demonstration, approximately one-hald of the total average amount of carry-on baggage, blankets, pillows, and other simular articles must be distributed at several locations in aisles and emergancy exit access ways to create minor obstructions. (p) Not more than 50 percent ofthe embergancy exits in the sides of the fuselage of an airplane that meets all of the requirements applicable to required emergancy exits for that airplane may be used for the demonstration. Exits that are not to be used in the demonstration must have the exit handle deactivated or must be indicated by red lights, red tape, or other acceptable means placed outside the exit to indicate fire or other reason why they are unusable. The exits to be used must be representative of all of the emergancy exits on the airplane. (s) The evacuation time period is completed when the last occupant has evacuated the airplane and is on the ground. This is typically a demonstration which results in injuries. During the MD-11 program, on of the (h)(3) classification dove out the door, overshot the ramp and broke her neck. Friction burns and broken arms are also typical injuries (as they are during actual emergancy conditions). In the UK a test was done where the passengers were paid for each item of carry on they managed to take out with them. The demonstration was VERY realistic in that it turned violent as passengers fought to get out with their 'stuff.' Hope this answeres your questions. From kls Tue Sep 12 20:18:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: D.P.Rhodes@lut.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: Exit capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Loughborough University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Sep 95 20:18:53 In article John Carr wrote: > In article , > Darren Rhodes wrote: > > >A340-200 > >Max capacity (exit limited): 440 > > Do exit limits vary amoung countries according to the policies of > regulatory agencies or are they standard? Exit limits are defined by Federal Airworthiness Regulations (USA) (FAR Part 25 for civil aircraft) and the Joint Airworthiness Regulations (Europe) (JAR Part 25 for civil aircraft). All major civil aircraft must be certified for either or often both. I think the Boeing 777 was the first to be certified for both simultaneously. The regulations have been drawn up after several of evacuation demonstrations. The rules differ for below and above 299 seats. Basically above 299 seats you can use Type A and Type I doors. Each pair of type A doors allows 110 seats, each pair of type I 45 seats. Hence in the case of the Airbus 330/340 and Boeing 777 they have 4 pairs of type A doors giving a maximum of 440 seats. Below 299 seats becomes for complex due to the number of door types available. Hope that answered the question! -- Mr. Darren P. Rhodes | Dept. of Aeronautical & Automotive Engineering tel: [+44] 01509 223454 | & Transport Studies fax: [+44] 01509 267613 | Loughborough University of Technology email: D.P.Rhodes@lut.ac.uk | Loughborough, Leics., England, LE11 3TU From kls Tue Sep 12 20:18:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: D.P.Rhodes@lut.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: Emergency exits capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Loughborough University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Sep 95 20:18:54 In article Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > I have a few question on emergency exits for airplanes : > > Is the "must be able to empty plane in 90 seconds" a real requirement or just > urban legend ? All planes must meet this requirement. There are strict regulations on people used for such activities: >From JAR 25.801 At least 30 percent female At least 5 percent over 60 years old At least 5 percent but not more than 10 percent must be children, prorated through that age group. Three life-size dolls, not included in the passenger total, must be carried by passeners to simulate live infants 2 years old or younger. No person can used that has taken part in one less than 6 moths previous. Also no airport/airline related staff may be used as passengers. The test must be carried out at night or in a darkened room to simulate night. Seat belts must be fastened. Approx. one-half of the typical hand baggage load must be scattered around the cabin. Not more than 50 percent of the emergency exits must be used. Etc... > Are there specific and widely accepted ways to measure each exit's capacity in > an emergency ? If so, what are the criteria used ? (door size, chute length, > cabin/aisle design ?) Or do aircraft manufacturers actually load up a plane > with people and make the test ? Doors are categorized according to size. Briefly: Type A: not less than 42 inches by 72 inches. Type I: Not less than 24 inches by 48 inches. Type II: Not less than 20 inches by 44 inches. Type III: Not less than 20 inches by 36 inches. Type IV: Not less than 19 inches by 26 inches. Ventral: Must be type I size. Chutes must long enough so that they touch the ground should undercarriage collapse occur. They must inflate in 10 seconds and withstand a 25kt cross wind. All exits over 6ft from the ground must have chutes. Yes the manufactures load the planes up to make the test. I believe the exact rules have changed recently, after a person was paralysed after slipping at the top of the slide and breaking their neck. They now simply evacuate into a room and extra time is added. > Does anyone have specific numbers on how many passengers a full fledged door > (with chute) can process (per minute ?) and how over-wing exits fair in that > regard ? A pair of type A doors allows 110 people to be evcuated in 90 seconds. > If the "90 seconds" requirement is true, does it apply to a plane with all of > its doors usable, or does it assume that a certain percentage of its doors will > be unusable ? See above! Number of exits is: Type 1 Type II Type III Type IV 1 to 9 1 10 to 19 1 20 to 39 1 1 40 to 79 1 1 80 to 109 1 2 110 to 139 2 1 140 to 179 2 2 Over 179 people the follwing one pair of the following type gives extra pax: Type A 110 Type I 45 Type II 40 Type IV 35 Over 299 only Type A and Type I doors can used. Hope that answers all your questions!!! -- Mr. Darren P. Rhodes | Dept. of Aeronautical & Automotive Engineering tel: [+44] 01509 223454 | & Transport Studies fax: [+44] 01509 267613 | Loughborough University of Technology email: D.P.Rhodes@lut.ac.uk | Loughborough, Leics., England, LE11 3TU From kls Tue Sep 12 20:18:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Re: exit door latch References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Sep 95 20:18:54 In article Nicolas Ercan Murat, vis@amy29.Stanford.EDU writes: >This was proven when an evacuation slide on an PIA A310 decided to >inflate during flight ... >The end of the story was that an on-board mechanic ran back and gave >a big stab with his screwdriver and punctured the slide. What gas is used to inflate the slides? If it is CO2, was it safe to puncture the slide and release the gas into the cabin? (This question arose in my mind since I am now reading "Lost Moon" by Lovell about Apollo 13, and they had a problem with a life vest inflating. They were very careful to vent the CO2 into space rather than release it into the cabin). From kls Tue Sep 12 20:18:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: re: Cabin pressure controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: pete@meads.demon.co.uk Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Sep 95 20:18:54 In article: julian@gatwick.Geco-Prakla.slb.com writes: > I can recall the following aircraft causing me (and others) severe > pain in the sinuses during descent. BAC 1-11, DC9 (MD80), VC10. > None of the wide bodies (DC10, Airbuses, 747) have bothered me > although I the air in a BA 747-400 was terribly dry. Maybe the > humidifier had given up. Humidifiers on the 747-400 are either all deactivated, or now not fitted by Boeing. The humid air buggers up all the electronics, CRTs, and computers :( HOWEVER, on my nice, old, steam-driven 747-236, we have a working humidifier, and you can tell the difference. :) regards -- ############################################################# ## Pete Finlay ## pete@meads.demon.co.uk ## ## in southern England ## paf3@student.open.ac.uk ## ############################################################# From kls Tue Sep 12 20:18:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: CDVC38A@prodigy.com (Doug Christiansen) Subject: re: Cabin pressure controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Sep 95 20:18:55 Having flown both the DC-9 & 737, I would say yes, the '9 has a slightly inferior system. Some models require the crew to maually reselect the altitude controls before letdown, I remember this often caused a bit of a "bump". The newer 737's I now fly are all automatic and somewhat smoother. From kls Tue Sep 12 20:18:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Cabin pressure controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Sep 95 20:18:55 In article tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) writes: >>valve position. Something still needs to regulate the amount of >>air bled from the engines. > >>On designs I've examined, there really isn't anything. > >The pack valves do control the amount of air flowing into the pack - the >proper terminology is actually 'pack flow control valve'. I'll have to >check the books, but I believe that a 727 pack valve allows flow on the >order of 60-70 lbs per minute. I'm sure there must be relief mechanisms to control flow within parts of the distribution manifolds. But I would argue that such mechanisms are not part of the pressurization system per se: they're just flow limiters, and are static in nature. I'm also not clear what the purpose of a 60-70 ppm limit would be: from my information, pack airflow can exceed 140 lbs/minute. Based on SAE ARP 1270, I do not think it would be possible to maintain pressurization controller authority on 60-70 ppm/pack. I hope I'm not arguing semantics here... -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Tue Sep 12 20:18:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) Subject: Re: Dutch Roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TMC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Sep 95 20:18:55 In article , Pete Mellor writes: |> Andrew Goldfinger asks:- |> |> > What I don't know is why it is called "Dutch" roll. Does anyone know the |> > origin of the term? |> |> Everything nasty is called "Dutch" (with the exception of my friends ** |> from The Netherlands, all of whom are delightful! :-) |> |> I think it goes back to the 18th Century when England was at war with |> Holland and a few boatloads of Dutch uncles (probably full of Dutch |> courage) sailed up the Thames and wrecked the English fleet at anchor. The 17th century, not the 18th. And the Medway, not the Thames. (I can understand that the British are not as good at remembering this particular moment in their history as the Dutch are.) But your etymology, about the origin of miscellaneous derogatory phrases in English about the Dutch, is correct. As you will understand, it is a frequent topic on alt.usage.english and soc.culture.netherlands. As to the Dutch roll, several people have compared it to the movement of a long-distance skater. Being familiar with both, I must say I don't see any likeness. I prefer Pete's explanation. Daan Sandee sandee@think.com Cambridge, MA 02142 From kls Tue Sep 12 20:18:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: herrmann@ls4.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Peter Herrmann) Subject: Re: Dornier 328 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: herrmann@ls4.informatik.uni-dortmund.de Organization: University of Dortmund Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Sep 95 20:18:56 In article , rickydik@ix.netcom.com (Ralph Ricks ) writes: |>>Warren wrote: |>>>Horizon Air, which was the fisrt operator of the Dornier 328 has had alot |>>>of problems with the performance of this aircraft, for example they are |>>>not able to fly in temp. over 85 degrees ... |> |>Why am I not surprised? The Europeans do not understand hot weather. |>One of the biggest problems with the FOkker 100 is air conditioning |>packs that are too small for the plane in hot climates. |>When it gets to 95 degrees F, the A320 packs start failing excessively, |>and the engines spike over-temp. Ralph, this is a bold claim! I don't know about the hot and high performance of the F100. But the A320 is used by Tunis Air, Egypt Air, Kuwait Airways, Gulf Air, SAA, Indian Airlines, Air Lanka, Dragon Air, Ansett, Mexicana and a carrier of Costa Rica (SACSA (?)). Those planes have to operate in areas with temperatures nearly always exceeding 95 degrees F. And wasn't the excellent hot and high performance of the 320 a major reason for United and America West to buy it supporting their Denver resp. Phoenix operations? Regards Peter -- Peter Herrmann, Dipl.Inf. herrmann@ls4.informatik.uni-dortmund.de Dept.of.Comp.Science IV Subj.: Distr. Systems / Comp. Networks University of Dortmund D-44221 Dortmund From kls Tue Sep 12 20:18:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Dornier 328 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Sep 95 20:18:56 >|>When it gets to 95 degrees F, the A320 packs start failing excessively, >|>and the engines spike over-temp. >And wasn't the excellent hot and high performance of the 320 a major >reason for United and America West to buy it supporting their Denver >resp. Phoenix operations? It sounds like Ralph was focusing mostly on air conditioning. The hot- and-high performance of the A320 that was attractive to United (and AW if you say so, though I've never heard much about why they bought the A320) refers to takeoff performance, which could be stunning even though lousy a/c results in passengers stunned from heatstroke. Hot-and-high performance is a part of "understanding hot weather" of course, if only a piece of the picture. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Tue Sep 12 20:18:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jhacker@ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey Hacker ) Subject: Re: Dornier 328 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 Sep 95 20:18:56 Warren wrote: >Horizon Air, which was the fisrt operator of the Dornier 328 has had alot >of problems with the performance of this aircraft, for example they are >not able to fly in temp. over 85 degrees ... Lone Star Airlines out of DFW flies Dorniers to and from Chihuahua and Hermosillo, Mexico, and the temperatures in DFW at least were over 100 farenheit (38 celsius) most of August. Was the problem with hot weather performance corrected or was Warren incorrect? Jeff From news Tue Sep 12 18:22:35 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!news.emf.net!gatech!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: charlie98@aol.com (Charlie 98) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Sabena goes for Avro RJs, rather than Fokkers Date: 12 Sep 1995 16:39:49 GMT Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <434d4l$4r8@kragar.kei.com> References: <42lkv0$emp@isaac.me.rochester.edu> Acquisition decisions aren't made soley on the merits of the aircraft. I understand that the manufacturer is offering some astounding financing on the aircraft. They are also making some incredible guarantees with respect operating costs and performance. Time will tell if the aircraft is as good as its builder says. I strongly suspect we'll see some red faces over the the next few years. From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dan Whyman Subject: Rolls-Royce Pratt & Whitney Merge Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:46 Reply-to: d.whyman@bham.ac.uk Organization: The University of Birmingham A few weeks ago, speculation existed in the British press regarding overtures by Pratt & Whitney towards Rolls-Royce about a possible merger of there commercaill aero engine business. Does it make sense and is it feasible? -- Dan Whyman University of Birmingham From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Schaefer Subject: Strange noise on a 767 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:47 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) The thread on engine noises reminded me of a flight I took several years ago...SFO to STL on a 767 (model unknown). During boarding, I hear a strange, loud motor noise start/stop several times. The sound returned as the plane circled over STL and continued until landing. I've often wondered what it might be, and haven't heard it on any other flight. It seemed to emanate from below the wing.... From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Emergency exits capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:48 In article , Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: >I have a few question on emergency exits for airplanes : > >Is the "must be able to empty plane in 90 seconds" a real requirement or just >urban legend ? It's real. Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 25 (aka FAR 25): Sec. 25.803 Emergency evacuation. (a) Each crew and passenger area must have emergency means to allow rapid evacuation in crash landings, with the landing gear extended as well as with the landing gear retracted, considering the possibility of the airplane being on fire. (b) [Reserved] (c) For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 44 passengers, it must be shown that the maximum seating capacity, including the number of crewmembers required by the operating rules for which certification is requested, can be evacuated from the airplane to the ground under simulated emergency conditions within 90 seconds. Compliance with this requirement must be shown by actual demonstration using the test criteria outlined in appendix J of this part unless the Administrator finds that a combination of analysis and testing will provide data equivalent to that which would be obtained by actual demonstration. (d) [Reserved] >Are there specific and widely accepted ways to measure each exit's capacity in >an emergency ? If so, what are the criteria used ? (door size, chute length, >cabin/aisle design ?) Or do aircraft manufacturers actually load up a plane >with people and make the test ? Yes and yes. The relevant sections are: - Sec. 25.801 Ditching. - Sec. 25.803 Emergency evacuation. - Sec. 25.807 Emergency exits. - Sec. 25.809 Emergency exit arrangement. - Sec. 25.810 Emergency egress assist means and escape routes. - Sec. 25.811 Emergency exit marking. - Sec. 25.812 Emergency lighting. - Sec. 25.813 Emergency exit access. - Sec. 25.815 Width of aisle. - Sec. 25.817 Maximum number of seats abreast. - Sec. 25.819 Lower deck service compartments (including galleys). Ventilation and Heating - Sec. 25.831 Ventilation. - Sec. 25.832 Cabin ozone concentration. - Sec. 25.833 Combustion heating systems. And the way that you test this is to put a plane in a darkened hanger, stuff it full of ordinary people (a representative sample of volunteers), fire up some big fans to blow the slides around, turn out the lights, tell everyone to evacuate, and carry the wounded away in ambulances. Yes, people get hurt doing this, sometimes seriously. Most tests on large airliners will break a few bones. >Does anyone have specific numbers on how many passengers a full fledged door >(with chute) can process (per minute ?) and how over-wing exits fair in that >regard ? Casual reading of the FARs doesn't give a number -- the number is going to be a function of the other numbers sepcified in FAR 25. >If the "90 seconds" requirement is true, does it apply to a plane with all of >its doors usable, or does it assume that a certain percentage of its doors will >be unusable ? The test does use all doors. The problem is that a parked aircraft in a hangar with volunteers doing what they're told is a very different animal to a damaged and burning airliner leaning on some of its gear and with several exits reading straight into the middle of a fire. FAR 25 simply specifies that in the best case, ie aircraft intact and all doors working, the plane can be evacuated in 90 seconds -- in real life it may well be much longer than that. The Aloha "737 convertible" took 25 minutes to evacuate, despite being basically intact and firmly on the runway with no fire. Note that the forward doors were forward of the pert of the fuselage that tore off (although the picture I have here shows the right hand door doesn't have the slide deployed -- they're deployed on both rear exits). FARs can be browsed on the Web at: http://acro.harvard.edu/GA/fars.html -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Emergency exits capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Leading Edge Aviation Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:49 In article , mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) wrote: >I have a few question on emergency exits for airplanes : > >Is the "must be able to empty plane in 90 seconds" a real requirement or just >urban legend ? > >Are there specific and widely accepted ways to measure each exit's capacity in >an emergency ? If so, what are the criteria used ? (door size, chute length, >cabin/aisle design ?) Or do aircraft manufacturers actually load up a plane >with people and make the test ? > >Does anyone have specific numbers on how many passengers a full fledged door >(with chute) can process (per minute ?) and how over-wing exits fair in that >regard ? > >If the "90 seconds" requirement is true, does it apply to a plane with all of >its doors usable, or does it assume that a certain percentage of its doors will >be unusable ? THe requirement is for 90 second evacuation with half of the doors inoperative. THe tests are conducted with real people in a cabin mockup with smoke and all but this is not really atrue test as people react much differently when they are actually in danger of dying. I do not have specific numbers but I'm sure over the last 50 or so years the enginneers have compiled enough data to be able to plan the required exits and their positions. NOTE: On aircraft in service, if a door is not operative the plane can not carry passengers in the area adjacent to the exit. THe actual number of passengers that are not boarded obviously depends on the type of aircraft. Hope that helps. -- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org http://www.io.org/~bradg/ Leading Edge Aviation Services Aviation Maintenance, The Backbone of Aviation. From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rwi@whidbey.whidbey.com (Richard Isakson) Subject: Re: Emergency exits capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Whidbey Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:49 In sci.aeronautics.airliners mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) said: >Is the "must be able to empty plane in 90 seconds" a real requirement or >just urban legend? Both FAR 25.803 and FAR 121.291 require this test. FAR 25 is for airplane manufacturers and FAR 121 is for airline operations. -- Rich (rwi@whidbey.com) From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Jonathan N. Deitch) Subject: Re: Emergency exits capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Georgia State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:50 mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) writes: >Is the "must be able to empty plane in 90 seconds" a real requirement or just >urban legend ? When a ValuJet DC-9 caught fire here in Atlanta, they emptied the plane (which was full) in just about 90 seconds. The head flight attendant was the last one out and she had burns on the back of her legs. Realize, the fire started in the back, she was standing in the front door -- the fire travelled from the back to the front that quickly ... I believe it ... it made for impressive video on the news -- the local ABC affiliate has a motorized camera on the roof of the Hartsfield (ATL) control tower ... - Jonathan -- musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu jdeitch@aol.com http://www.gsu.edu/~musjndx From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Niels M. Sampath" Subject: emerg.exit wing markings (fwd) 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: 18 Sep 95 12:06:50 On Sept. 1 (95) I was at London Heathrow and from the observation deck noticed an Air France pax. 737-200 operating with NO emergency exit wing markings (the arrows/paint telling people to head straight for the trailing edge). Is this a violation of ICAO rules? I have photographic evidence showing the reg. and `data-back' date info.... should I snitch to someone? who? -- Niels From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Subject: Re: Where did all the air vents go? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:50 Martin Fiddler shaped the electrons to say: >The more modern aircraft I've been on, including B747-400, B757-200, >A320, etc, do not have these. This seems a reall pity, as I find they >provide much greater comfort and control of ones own envioronment. I don't know who you were flying with, but I've been on all three of those in the past year and they *all* have the AC vents - I've never seen a commercial jet without them. -- megazone@world.std.com 510-735-8583 MegaZone's Waste Of Time Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.stories - Maintainer: Ani Difranco Mailing List - Mail to majordomo@world.std.com with 'subscribe ani-difranco' in the body. From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Where did all the air vents go? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Leading Edge Aviation Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:51 In article , Martin Fiddler wrote: >When I fly on older aircraft, there is invariably an individual air vent >for each passenger. These supply a welcoming blast of cool air, but >if not wanted they can obviously be turned off. Great. > >The more modern aircraft I've been on, including B747-400, B757-200, >A320, etc, do not have these. This seems a reall pity, as I find they >provide much greater comfort and control of ones own envioronment. These vents are for what is termed "Gasper Air". Its main purpose was to alleviate claustrophobic (sp?) feelings in passengers. Since the cabins of newer and more spacious they are not needed as much. They should still be used because I have never been on a flight (and I've been on alot) where the cabin temp has actually been comfortable for me. it's always either too hot (usually) or too cold. These gasper vents are great when it's too warm. -- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org http://www.io.org/~bradg/ Leading Edge Aviation Services Aviation Maintenance, The Backbone of Aviation. From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: Where did all the air vents go? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:52 writes: >> [ wondering why gasper outlets are disappearing from modern aircraft ] >>So, why don't modern aircraft have individual air vents any more? >It is because it is now a purchaser option, and the purchasing airline >declined tou buy it. Those little eye-ball 'thingies' are called gaspers and are actually very expensive. Each is individually ducted, adding weight to the aircraft, manufacturing costs, and generally increasing the life-cycle cost of the aircraft. In addition, they really limit the flexibility for changing the interior configuration. How many times have you been on an aircraft and had the overhead panel 'not quite right'? This lead to the the concept of routing air to the cabin through a fixed series of vents in the overhead panels. Less duct work (and that ducting is made from a titanium alloy by the way to save weight), greater flexibility for moving seat groups closer together (NorthWest:( or farther apart (TWA :), and less maintenance (the self loading cargo can't break what they can't touch). Having said all of that, and knowing why it's done, I still don't like it. They have taken away the only piece of the airplane that I could control, and now what do I do when the overly perfumed lady sits down next to me as I fly off to Amsterdam? Brian From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Michael.Page@sci.monash.edu.au (Michael Page) Subject: Re: Where did all the air vents go? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Department of Mathematics, Monash University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:52 In article rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: >In article Martin Fiddler writes: >> [ wondering why gasper outlets are disappearing from modern aircraft ] >>So, why don't modern aircraft have individual air vents any more? QANTAS 747-400s have them, BA 747-400s don't (at least the ones I've been on). I asked one of the BA flight attendants how I was supposed to control the ventilation (particularly as I was down the back near the smoking section) and was told that "modern aircraft didn't need them". Ha! >It is because it is now a purchaser option, and the purchasing airline >declined tou buy it. > >Write a nasty letter to the cheap little airline that declined to buy it! So what else does that cheap little airline cut back on? Michael -- Michael Page map@hal.maths.monash.edu.au Mathematics Department, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Where did all the air vents go? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:53 Martin Fiddler wrote: > >When I fly on older aircraft, there is invariably an individual air vent >for each passenger. These supply a welcoming blast of cool air, but >if not wanted they can obviously be turned off. Great. > >The more modern aircraft I've been on, including B747-400, B757-200, >A320, etc, do not have these. This seems a reall pity, as I find they >provide much greater comfort and control of ones own envioronment. I regularly fly Delta 757's (now my favorite aircraft, since the good old 727-200's are getting more and more scarce) and they definitely have the standard air vents. I usually find the air vents on widebodies (of all makes) to be nearly useless since they are so far overhead, but I can't think of a single modern narrow-body that I've flown on that doesn't have individual air-vents. Perhaps its just differences in how each airline chooses to equip their planes. Question: a certain amount of airflow is absolutely necessary to maintain passenger comfort. In my experience, the more the better- I find that older "leakier" airliners are less likely to give me burning eyes and a headache than newer tighter ships. If an airline chooses to delete the individual vents, where is all that airflow re-directed? Please tell me that overall fresh airflow isn't just reduced further still. -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: Dutch Roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:53 dorfman@netcom.com writes: >Andrew Goldfinger (Andy.Goldfinger@aplmail.jhuapl.edu) wrote: >that the name Dutch Roll is used because the motion of the aircraft seems >similar to that of an ice skater slowly gliding down the frozen canals of >the Netherlands. > I was not aware that the motion occurs only on swept wing aircraft. I think the term predates swept wing aircraft, but swept wings are prone to Dutch roll more than straight wings. If a swept wing aircraft yaws, one wing gets a lot more lift and drag than the other, where the airflow is running down the leading edge rather then over the wing. The result is a roll on the "forward" wing, and a tendency to yaw back, setting up an oscillation. If you don't have enough directional stability (read: a good big tail) the yaw back can be greater than the initial yaw, and the plane can quickly go out of control. With a straight wing, the both wings stay at more or less the same angle to the airflow, and apart from factors such as the "wind shadow" of the fuselage, you don't get the same asymmetry in airflow as with a swept wing. -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: K.G.A.Lewis@sussex.ac.uk (Ken Lewis) Subject: Re: Sabena goes for Avro RJs, rather than Fokkers References: <42lkv0$emp@isaac.me.rochester.edu> <434d4l$4r8@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: University of Sussex Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:54 Charlie 98 (charlie98@aol.com) wrote: : Acquisition decisions aren't made soley on the merits of the aircraft. I : understand that the manufacturer is offering some astounding financing on : the aircraft. They are also making some incredible guarantees with : respect operating costs and performance. Time will tell if the aircraft : is as good as its builder says. I strongly suspect we'll see some red : faces over the the next few years. I would be very surprised if airlines were not fully aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the Avro RJ. After all its been around and developed over a number of years. of course there are discounts etc but in the end the airline will be using the plane for a number of years and it cant afford to have a suspect plane. Ken Lewis From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: julian@gatwick.Geco-Prakla.slb.com Subject: AA 777 into Gatwick (UK)? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:54 I can't be sure because the sun glare angle was all wrong for me but a large twin looking very like a 777 came into Gatwick airport this morning at about 11am (Wed 13-Sep-1995). I'm pretty sure it was American Airlines, certainly a very large wide body twinjet. The clincher would be the 6 wheeled mains which I pretty sure I saw - though I only got a glimpse. Wishful thinking, halucinating at my workstation or are 777s flying into Gatwick? julian@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com Schlumberger Geco-Prakla, Gatwick, UK From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: AA 777 into Gatwick (UK)? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:55 >I can't be sure because the sun glare angle was all wrong for me but >a large twin looking very like a 777 came into Gatwick airport this >morning at about 11am (Wed 13-Sep-1995). I'm pretty sure it was >American Airlines, certainly a very large wide body twinjet. I believe United is still the only airline which has the 777, and UA doesn't fly into Gatwick, unless a flight diverted from Heathrow for some reason. BA gets their first 777 this Thursday assuming everything stays on schedule. One of the other customers with Pratt and Whitney engines *might* have already gotten one or two, but it would have been one of the Asian customers. It could be a test aircraft, of course, though not American, as AA has not ordered the 777. The 777 that performed the 1000-flight ETOPS test for the 777/PW4084 combo was in normal UA colors and mostly flew a circuit (including IAD, MIA, DEN, LAX) that was typical of the rotation a UA 777 in normal service might operate. A similar test is being done with the 777/GE90 combo, in BA colors. It's quite plausible that it might have been operating into Gatwick -- more likely there than LHR with its slot restrictions. My guesses, in decreasing order of probability: AA 767 if you feel more strongly it was AA than a 777 BA 777 on a test flight UA 777 diverted from LHR -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: A320 comments Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:58 A friend of mine recently converted over to the A320. At my request, he has prepared the following comments regarding the aircraft. These comments are posted with his permission. Date: 20 Aug 95 21:21:04 EDT David: I am on my way back home after having about 36 hours off from training. I have finished ground school, the written exam, the 3 hour oral exam, and fixed-base simulator training. I have my first full-flight simulator session at 1pm this afternoon. In all, I will have spent about 80 hours in "the box" before I go on the line. I'll finish up ground training on 30 August and go on I.O.E. (initial operating experience) sometime during the first 10 days of Sept. I will then go on vacation to the Reno Air Races until the 21st and then out on "the line" as an A320 F/O. So far the training has been very good, and the aircraft is OK but not outstanding. The A320 is used by us to fly mainly the 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 hour legs, typically half-transcontinental, such as our central hub to SEA or SAN. Many of the layovers are in SEA, SFO and SAN on the west coast and BWI, BOS, etc. on the east coast. My general impressions of the aircraft: Many of the systems/features are excellent, but a few are well below average. (Note: since I haven't flown the actual aircraft yet, comments about handling are really relative to the simulator. Comments about systems are from an operational point of view, not a maintenance/ engineering point of view since we didn't cover the actual design of the systems in class.) Specifically, 1. Fly-by-wire. The flight control laws and the failure degradation modes are excellent. The flight control laws are: Normal Law, Alternate Law, Direct Law, Mechanical Backup, and Unusual Attitude Law. It requires multiple failures of similar but independent systems to degrade. It takes a degradation of two levels to reach the same flight characteristics that a 727/737/DC-9 starts out with. We have had only one degradation to Alternate Law in the time we've been flying them. The minimal mechanical backup available (rudder and pitch trim) is intended to allow the pilot time to get a computer back up on line and should be adequate. 2. Sidestick controller: This is GREAT!!!! It is natural from either seat. It takes only about 10 seconds to feel comfortable with it. I think Boeing missed the boat by putting a yoke in the 777. It is different from the F-16 in that it has much more movement (about an inch and a half in any direction). I think that there should be more "feel" but it's pretty good as it is. 3. Main systems: All of the main aircraft systems, hydraulics, electrical, pneumatic, brakes, etc. are well configured from an operational point of view. Systems recover/reconfigure from failures well and are easy to understand and manage. I don't know about the robustness of the systems, but we are getting good dispatch reliability so they must be OK. Rumors have it that the mechanics think that we'll have reliability problems in the future due to the "mimimum gauge" philosophy that is found in all new-generation aircraft. 4. APU: The APU itself is fine but there is one very poor flight deck mechanization. It in not possible to tell directly from the overhead panel whether or not the APU is on-line and powering the aircraft. I believe that a mis-design of switch moding is to blame. Someone just wasn't thinking operationally here. 5. Flight Management Guidance System.(FMGS) If there is a weakpoint, this is it! The system was designed by Honeywell of Minneapolis and they were not allowed to look at, or use any Boeing ideas. We can't completely blame the frogs for this. I would have to say that I find the system to be inconsistant from mode to mode and it is apparent that it was designed by EE's sitting at a desk and not by operationally oriented people. Each mode has a certain "logic" to it and you can make a good argument for each individual case, but as a complete system, it is seriously lacking. There are some basic ATC functions that can't be done at all! It looks like the chief of avionics integration/flightdeckers didn't do their job very well. As always, pilots can adapt, and I'm sure that I'll overlook the numerous faults shortly, but there shouldn't be any faults in the interface and there are. 6. Autothrottles: I don't like the autothrottles that don't move. I much prefer the feedback that moving levers provide. I am sure that I'll get used to it in the future, but I think that this is a basic pilot-integration shortcoming of the A-320. Boeing is definately right in my opinion. 7. ACARS/FMGS integration: There isn't any! The ACARS doesn't talk to the FMGS and vice versa. (even thought they use the same interface panel). It is often necessary to enter the same data more than once. In a perfect world ACARS data would be available to the FMGS and the pilot would have the option on auto-inserting it or putting it in manually. 8. Inertial Reference System (not INS!!!) The system is poorly designed from my point of view. The three ring laser gyros can not be updated. The FMGS calculates where it believes the aircraft is by using a weighted position from the three RLG's and DME/DME or VOR/DME to determine a position, but the IRS itself is never updated. I believe that it should have been mechanized such that the IRS tracks drift rate and uses that info to provide update biases. 9. The aircraft can't dump fuel and the max landing weight is significantly lower than the max togw. 10. The aircraft has 40 some computers but doesn't even have a basic calculator function on any display. How thoughtful.... 11. Pitch trim indications are labeled such that they indicate the position of the l.e. of the stab. Thus a small nose up pitch trim setting would be labeled "-1.0 " This has the possibility of causing problems. The trim works correctly of course. It's just labeled wrong from my viewpoint. 12. More FMGS stuff: It's easy to do hard stuff... but hard to do easy stuff! Fully automatic CAT III approaches and landing are a snap, but just going around tha pattern doing touch and go's is a major pain in the ass. The PNF is always heads-down typing on the damn panel. 13. Gust Load Aleviation: They put in a gust load function. I've heard about the idea for 20 years but apparently no one ever actually put one on an aricraft before the A-320. It doesn't work...... In summary: Like any other airplane in the world, the A-320 has both good points and bad points. It they had thought more about how the operator uses the airplane to make the flight go easier and less about optimizing the computer to make it efficient from a code point of view, the aircraft would have been better. However, it is quite adequate as it is and as always the pilots are left to adapt to the deficiencies. Then an accident happens... Did I hear someone say "Design-induced pilot error...?" ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sep 18 12:06:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Horn Subject: Re: Dutch Roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: FlightSafety International Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:58 In article , dorfman@netcom.com says... > I was not aware that the motion occurs only on swept wing aircraft. All aircraft experience dutch rolls, some worse than others. Some of the worst aircraft that I personally know are ones with winglets. I do dot know why this is. The Westwind II as well as many Lear (Bombardier) products have a real nasty Dutch roll effect. From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Cabin Pressurization 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: 18 Sep 95 12:06:58 Regarding the discussion concerning control of air from an engine and into the cabin, here is the information that I got (from vendor manuals) on a couple of pack valves. MD-80 pack valve regulates flow to 65-89 lbs/min. With both packs operating that's 130-178 lbs/min. I wasn't able to find the info for the 727, but since the 727 doesn't recirculate air like the MD-80 it may need a higher flow rate. B-757 has two flow rates depending on single or two pack operation. For two-pack operation (low flow mode) each valve regulates to 72 lbs/min. For single-pack (hi flow mode) operation the valve regulates to 105-117 lbs/min. This allows one pack to provide 80% of the air that is supplied in two-pack operation. Of course, I think the original question was, how is air bleed from the engines controlled? It's controlled by the bleed valves (Pressure Regulating and Shutoff Valve - PRSOV) on the engines that regulate pressure in the pneumatic system to about 40psi and about 450 degrees F. The way this is done depends, of course, on the airplane. The 757 bleed system is quite different then that on a 727. Hope this clears things up a little. Dave From kls Mon Sep 18 12:06:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Shahab Hasan Subject: BAD-Web WWW site Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:06:59 http://fornax.arc.nasa.gov:9999/badweb/badweb.html The Systems Analysis Branch of NASA Ames Research Center would like to announce the release of BAD-Web. BAD-Web (Basic Aircraft Design Web) is a World Wide Web site where you can design your own airliner by entering various aircraft parameters and then see the results of your choices. You will get back a picture of your airplane as well as weight, aerodynamics, and performance estimates and a calculated ticket price for a trip from SFO to JFK. Give it a try; if your ticket price is cheap enough you'll make our Hall of Fame! Mild Disclaimer: ---------------- We offer the BAD-Web for educational and informational purposes only to give some insight into the tradeoffs involved in aircraft design. The analyses have been greatly simplified and several assumptions have been made to ensure rapid turn-around time. Trying to design and build an actual airplane using BAD-Web would not be very smart and certainly fruitless. Many more details are available at the site itself: http://fornax.arc.nasa.gov:9999/badweb/badweb.html Sincerely, Shahab Hasan, member of the BAD-Web development team -- *---------------------------------------------------------------------* | Shahab Hasan, NASA Ames Research Center (shahab@kolob.arc.nasa.gov) | | http://fornax.arc.nasa.gov:9999/people/shahab/shahab.html | *---------------------------------------------------------------------* From kls Mon Sep 18 12:07:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: BAD-Web WWW site References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:07:00 >http://fornax.arc.nasa.gov:9999/badweb/badweb.html >The Systems Analysis Branch of NASA Ames Research Center would >like to announce the release of BAD-Web. BAD-Web (Basic Aircraft >Design Web) is a World Wide Web site where you can design your >own airliner by entering various aircraft parameters and then >see the results of your choices. This site is a WONDERFUL idea! I've only experimented with it a little bit so far, but I did manage to get my name in the Hall of Fame by the simple expedient of taking the basic 737-200 design and increasing wing area and passenger count to the same as a 757, switching to the 757's RB.211-535 engines too. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Sep 18 12:07:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Christopher Chan Subject: Special Colored British Airways Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: LinkAGE Online Ltd. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:07:00 On the September 15,1995, at 1725 HK time, British Airways flight number BA27 arrived Hongkong with a specially designed aircraft. The aircraft, Boeing 747-400 (G-CIVB), has a special logo celebrating International Children Conference. Does any body know where in WWW can aquire this photo? I'm very impressed with this lovely aircraft. Also, if anybody wants a schedule of Hongkong's airport, don't hesitate to contact me! Christopher From kls Mon Sep 18 12:07:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: baco-new@seatimes.com (Byron Acchido) Subject: 737 rudder evidence Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Seattle Times Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:07:05 Published Sept. 8, 1995 The Seattle Times pp. A-1 Questions remain in two 737 crashes In two crashes of Boeing 737s _ including one a year ago today _ a mechanism that controls the rudder was immediately suspected. After tests, investigators said there was no evidence that the mechanism had failed in either crash. But questions remain whether those tests were done right. by Byron Acohido Seattle Times aerospace reporter On a blustery spring day four years ago, two United Airlines pilots banked their Boeing 737 jetliner for final approach into Colorado Springs when the plane suddenly flipped and slammed nose first into the ground. All 25 on board were killed. Because of the sudden flip, investigators immediately suspected the rudder _ the large slab on the vertical tail section that controls a jet's direction _ of playing a role in the disaster. Over the past three decades, pilots have reported hundreds o f incidents of 737 rudders moving inadvertently and causing aircraft to swerve temporarily out of control. From the wreckage, investigators retrieved a badly mangled power control unit (PCU), a complex assembly of pistons, levers, cranks, shafts and valves that directs pressurized hydraulic fluid to move the rudder. The PCU's valves were jammed so severely by fire that investigators from Boeing and the PCU manufacturer, Parker Bertea Aerospace, had to pound them free with a hammer and chisel-like tool. Inside, they found moisture, traces of a mysterious white p owder and stringy, bronze-like chips. But no analysis of the contaminants was conducted, despite manufacturer's records dating to 1965 showing that dirty hydraulic fluid can jam the PCU and cause severe uncommanded movements of the rudder. Greg Phillips, the National Transportation Safety Board's rudder systems expert, said investigators at the time didn't think the debris was important. Investigators did test the PCU itself, but not before many key parts were misplaced, replaced or rebuilt to factory-new tolerances. The part then operated smoothly enough@noCQ@ro for investigators to conclude that there was no evidence of malfunctio n. Twenty-two months later, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), responsible since 1926 for determining the cause of airplane accidents, conceded that United Flight 585 was the first crash of a modern jetliner it could not solve. The second might be the crash of USAir Flight 427, still unsolved after a disastrous end a year ago today. Last Sept. 8, two USAir pilots flew a 737 packed with business travelers, families and vacationers into clear, calm skies over Pittsburgh.@bo @roFlight 427 was in a routine descent when it suddenly flipped and screamed nose first into a wooded ravin e. All 132 on board died instantly. Investigators again suspected the rudder, and this time treated the PCU more methodically, videotaping each step in handling the part. Before testing the PCU, Parker engineers replaced the main shaft and all external linkages and levers, because the part was too damaged to operate. Lab tests were run and the rebuilt part operated smoothly. Only then did investigators disassemble the PCU. Inside, they found minute particles of steel and aluminum-nickel-bronze. This time, investigators tested to see whether a PCU like the one used on 737s could flush very high concentrations of debris through its valves, yet continue to operate smoothly. Tests directed by a Boeing engineer found that it could. However, an independent hydraulics expert now says those tests were conducted under conditions unlikely to occur in flight. Still, based on analysis of the rebuilt PCU and contaminants recovered from inside the device, NTSB Chairman Jim Hall says there is no evidence the USAir jet's PCU jammed. William Laynor, acting NTSB director of aviation safety, emphasized that a jammed PCU has yet to be linked to any of the 61 737s that have crashed since the jet entered commercial service in 1967. He attributed the hundreds of reports of rogue rudde r movements to routine electrical malfunctions. Twenty-one 737s have crashed in the 1990s, including three since the Pittsburgh accident. Laynor acknowledges that if dirty fluid jammed both the PCU's internal valves, ``you're going to have a major controllability problem.'' But he said no correcti ve measures are under consideration. ``We haven't seen that (PCU jams) to be a realistic danger in all the service history of this airplane,'' Laynor said. Boeing spokesman Steve Thieme said the 737 remains statistically among the safest jet models flying. Thieme contends that rudder system testing in the investigations of the Colorado Springs and Pittsburgh crashes legitimately found no evidence of the PCU's involvement. The stakes are high with the 737, the most widely used jet in the world, with more than 2,600 in service. In the past two years alone, pilots have reported more than 200 cases of inadvertent 737 rudder movements in flight. Experts worry that some of those incidents could be examples of mild PCU jams perhaps foreshadowing a major jam that could occur when the aircraft is at low altitude, leaving the pilots little room to maneuver. Most airlines that fly 737s are considering following United Airlines' example and providing special pilot training on how to recover from unusual flying positions. United began ``advanced maneuvers'' training for 737 pilots last year. Industry concern has been heightened by a recent Federal Aviation Administration report outlining several ways the PCU could trigger uncommanded rudder movements. The FAA has asked Boeing to analyze the probability of PCU malfunctions posing a haza rd. However, aviation and legal records show safety authorities have been slow to address 737 rudder concerns partly because they rely almost exclusively on manufacturers for technical orientation in solving crashes and tracking emerging safety issues. In July 1992, for instance, authorities learned that, under certain conditions, 737 PCUs could inadvertently reverse in flight. It wasn't until March 1994 that the FAA ordered airlines to fix the problem, giving 737 operators until March 1999 to do so. Dr. Bernard Loeb, director of the safety board's office of research and engineering, said few independent sources understand complex airplane systems comprehensively enough to look for signs of trouble. ``Absolutely, this is the best way to do this,'' Loeb said. However, sources close to the crash investigations and lawyers pressing claims in Colorado Springs and Pittsburgh characterize the testing done to date as inadequate. Two attorneys representing families of passengers from the Colorado Springs crash h ave been particularly outspoken. Philadelphia attorney Art Wolk, who primarily represents families of air-disaster victims, describes the safety board's investigative technique as ``ridiculous.'' ``In other words, you take a part that's broken and is suspected of causing a problem, then you fix it until it works and then pronounce it not to have been a factor,'' Wolk said. San Francisco attorney Dennis Lods, who specializes in technical aspects of airplane systems, said he doubts officials will get to the bottom of the 737's rudder problems. At risk, he says, is another crash. ``I'm not at all satisfied with the thoroughness of the investigations,'' Lods said. ``There's great deference to the manufacturer that isn't warranted.'' Aviation and legal records paint a picture of the role manufacturers have played in the Colorado Springs and Pittsburgh investigations. Two Parker Bertea crash investigators recently testified in cases pressed by Wolk and Lods that engineers knew from the day the PCU was designed that dirty hydraulic fluid could restrict movement of its interval valves. While this is characteristic of PCUs in general, designers knew the 737 PCU would have to be in near-perfect adjustment and free of even the smallest traces of debris to operate properly. The PCU's two internal valves were designed to move smoothly back and forth, opening and closing holes, called ports, which permit pressurized hydraulic fluid to move through various chambers. The even flow of pressurized fluid between the chambers c auses the rudder to move. But contaminants can collect around the ports and wedge between the valves, upsetting the flow of hydraulic fluid and causing the rudder to move inadvertently, according to Karun Nair, a Houston-based independent hydraulics systems designer. Should its valves jam upon receiving a command to move the rudder slightly, the PCU would swing the rudder all the way over, Parker engineers Steve Weik and Shihyung Sheng testified. The PCU's filtering system is relatively coarse, which experts say could make it particularly susceptible to varying degrees of jamming. The valves are separated by a microscopic distance of 2 microns, while the filtering system is designed to trap contaminants 10 microns or larger. The human eye cannot see anything smaller than 40 microns; the diameter of a human hair is 89 microns. Visible debris was found in the PCUs of the United and USAir jets. According to testimony by another Parker engineer, Wally Walz, investigators found an unknown, white, powdery substance, traces of water and stringy, bronze-like chips inside the United jet's PCU. ``It was a white substance none of us understood,'' said Walz, adding that it was ``unusual to see the bronze-appearing material.'' Phillips, the safety board's rudder expert, said investigators at the time ``hadn't seen any service history'' indicating such contaminants might be a problem. Phillips said he assumed the PCU's filters prevented anything dangerous from getting into its internal parts. But when particles of steel and aluminum-nickel-bronze turned up in the USAir jet's PCU, Phillips asked Boeing engineer John Curulla to conduct some tests. Curulla took a PCU similar to that used on 737s and set it up to receive constant movement com mands from an electrically-powered actuator. Curulla added sand, steel and aluminum-nickel-bronze to the PCU, which operated smoothly even with very high concentrations of debris. Phillips said Curulla's tests helped convince him ``that we've proven that contamination wasn't a factor'' in the Pittsburgh crash. But hydraulics expert Nair said Curulla's tests flushed debris through the valves in a way unlikely to occur in flight. ``Their conclusion is correct for what they did,'' Nair said. ``But it is hard to imagine that somebody is going to shake the rudder in flight back and forth all the time.'' Jams typically come and go, varying in severity and often leaving no trace, as contaminants work their way free in the constantly moving fluid, Nair said. A more representative test would be to monitor the USAir jet's PCU operating with dirty fluid over a period of time, with only occasional commands from manual levers that match the pilot's rudder pedals, Nair said. ``You have to do a waiting game, and eventually, it will happen,'' Nair said. After failing to find enough evidence to implicate the PCU in Colorado Springs, the safety board extensively examined _ but did not accept _ a Boeing theory that a freak gust of wind, bouncing like a horizontal tornado off nearby foothills, caused t he crash. This month, the safety board will explore a Boeing theory that another kind of horizontal tornado caused the USAir jet to crash in Pittsburgh. Elaborate flight tests, estimated to cost $2 million, will examine whether spiraling turbulence from the wings of a jet 4 miles ahead might have tossed USAir Flight 427 into a prolonged twisting motion. * * * From kls Mon Sep 18 12:07:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Dornier 328 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:07:06 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >and-high performance of the A320 that was attractive to United (and AW > if you say so, though I've never heard much about why they bought the >A320) I thought America West got the A320s because some leasing company ended up with a bunch on their hands after Braniff II went belly-up. RNA From kls Mon Sep 18 12:07:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: e.h.bogart@larc.nasa.gov (Ed Bogart) Subject: Re: exit door latch References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: none Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:07:07 In article , kenpac@ix.netcom.com (J. Kenneth E ) wrote: > In bwalts@darkwing.uoregon.edu > (Brandon M Walts) writes: > >On a related note, what's the case with outward-opening doors, like > >the kind on Airbus aircraft, airstair doors, etc.? > Still no need to worry Brandon. ALL airliner doors are plug type, > meaning that they must be pulled inside somewhat prior to swinging > outward. It just appears that they swing open freely. If I'm not mistaken, the 777 does NOT have plug doors. I don't have a clue how the latches work but I would geuss someone has thought about the "opening in flight" problem. Ed From kls Mon Sep 18 12:07:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stephen@genesis1.physics.YALE.EDU (Stephen B. Selipsky) Subject: Re: exit door latch References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:07:07 In article Andrew Goldfinger writes: > > What gas is used to inflate [emergency evacuation] slides? > If it is CO2, was it safe [after accidental in-flight deplyoment] to > puncture the slide and release the gas into the cabin? (This question > arose in my mind since I am now reading "Lost Moon" by Lovell about Apollo > 13, and they had a problem with a life vest inflating. They were very > careful to vent the CO2 into space rather than release it into the cabin). Apollo 13's problem was their need to reoxygenate breathing air with chemical packs, jury-rigged beyond normal capacity for the emergency. In a pressurized airplane with fresh external air available, this isn't a problem, you would just need to avoid excessive initial CO_2 concentration (during the few minutes the cabin air takes to be recycled). Expanded to cabin pressure, CO_2 volume is a couple of times the slide's volume, which is a few percent of cabin volume... A few percent CO_2 in breathing air isn't a big health problem, a few passengers might possibly get dizzy for a few minutes. Regards, -- Stephen Selipsky (Physicist not airplane expert!) From kls Mon Sep 18 12:07:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Nicolas E. Murat" Subject: Re: exit door latch References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Sep 95 12:07:08 On 12 Sep 1995, Andrew Goldfinger wrote: > In article Nicolas Ercan Murat, > vis@amy29.Stanford.EDU writes: > >This was proven when an evacuation slide on an PIA A310 decided to > >inflate during flight ... > > >The end of the story was that an on-board mechanic ran back and gave > >a big stab with his screwdriver and punctured the slide. > > What gas is used to inflate the slides? If it is CO2, was it safe to > puncture the slide and release the gas into the cabin? (This question > arose in my mind since I am now reading "Lost Moon" by Lovell about Apollo > 13, and they had a problem with a life vest inflating. They were very > careful to vent the CO2 into space rather than release it into the cabin). The slide inflation is activated by a small gas bottle. I am unfortunately not certain of what the gas is. However, the gas dispensed by the bottle is small in comparison to the amount of air required in the slide. The main inflation is done through "aspirators" which suck in air when the slide is deployed, so the gas bottles are in effect only there to kick in the system and are too small to fill the whole slide anyway. In any case, I do not think that CO2 dispension into the cabin does has the same consequences as in a space craft... Also, as an aside, I would like to note how complex the slide/rafts on commercial aircraft are complex. They are one of the systems (ATA 25-62) with the most complications during maintenance and in design itself. -Nick Cabin Interior & Payload Systems From kls Fri Sep 22 00:18:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk (Henry Law) Subject: 757 engine (fan?) noise during freewheel Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Sep 95 00:18:29 Reply-To: hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Organization: Home Frequently when boarding a BA 757 (RR engines) by steps rather than through an air bridge I hear a distinct metallic clanking from the engine closest to me, which is nearly always still freewheeling from the previous sector. It's regular, but with gaps - rather like the sort of noise you'd make by rattling something metal along some iron railings. I've heard it in these circumstances for years so it's obviously not what it sounds like (which is the fan blades hitting the cowling! :-) but I've always wondered what it was. Can one of our 757 jockeys enlighten me? -- Henry Law <>< hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Manchester, England From kls Fri Sep 22 00:18:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: A320 comments 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 Sep 95 00:18:30 >13. Gust Load Aleviation: They put in a gust load function. I've heard >about the idea for 20 years but apparently no one ever actually put one >on an aricraft before the A-320. It doesn't work...... Would this be the same as Maneuvering DLC or the Active Control Surface system on the L/1011? Just wondering. Dave From kls Fri Sep 22 00:18:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Niels M. Sampath" Subject: Re: AA 777 into Gatwick (UK)? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: airliners@chicago.com Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Sep 95 00:18:30 In article julian@gatwick.Geco-Prakla.slb.com writes: > I can't be sure because the sun glare angle was all wrong for me but > a large twin looking very like a 777 came into Gatwick airport this > morning at about 11am (Wed 13-Sep-1995). I'm pretty sure it was > American Airlines, certainly a very large wide body twinjet. The > clincher would be the 6 wheeled mains which I pretty sure I saw - > though I only got a glimpse. You wouldn't be the first to be fooled after seeing, in fact, a 767-300. I blew 1/2 a roll of film in May at LHR before I realized I was looking at a UAL 7-SIX-7. Yours in humble-pie -- Niels From kls Fri Sep 22 00:18:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stephen@grace.rt.cs.boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) Subject: Re: AA 777 into Gatwick (UK)? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Sep 95 00:18:31 > >I can't be sure because the sun glare angle was all wrong for me but > >a large twin looking very like a 777 came into Gatwick airport this > >morning at about 11am (Wed 13-Sep-1995). I'm pretty sure it was > >American Airlines, certainly a very large wide body twinjet. > > My guesses, in decreasing order of probability: > > AA 767 if you feel more strongly it was AA than a 777 > BA 777 on a test flight > UA 777 diverted from LHR I believe the aircraft you saw was WA001, the first Boeing 777. It was visiting Gatwick around that date on a European marketing campaign. See appended Boeing public news release on the trip. WA001 is in Boeing livery (white over blue with red, white and blue stripes and a big 777 on the tail; look at http://www.boeing.com/777.html for a graphic). Stephen -- 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. Public News Release 9-4-95 Boeing 777 Visits Europe on Demonstration Tour SEATTLE, Sept. 4, 1995 -- The first Boeing 777, designated WA001, will depart Seattle on Sept. 6 for an eight-day tour of Europe. During the tour, the airplane will travel 21,722 kilometers (13,500 statute miles/11,729 nautical miles) and visit six different cities: Geneva, Switzerland; Warsaw, Poland; Vienna, Austria; Gatwick Airport outside London, England; and Frankfurt, Germany before returning to Seattle on Sept. 13. The European tour provides an opportunity to preview the newest Boeing jetliner to airline customers, government officials, aviation industry experts and the news media. It will provide an opportunity to satisfy European interest in the new airplane, which can fly faster and farther with lower operating cost than any of its competitors, while providing an all-new standard of passenger comfort. "You can't believe the magnificence of this airplane until you see and touch it," said Tom Basacchi, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group vice president, international sales for Europe and Russia. "Much of the credit for the 777 goes to our customers, who have been involved from the very beginning in developing the airplane's size, range and configuration." Despite a downturn in the airline industry, the 777 has captured more than 70 percent of all orders in its market category since its launch in October 1990. Sixteen customers on four continents have placed orders for 167 of the new 777s. "The 777," Basacchi explained, "not only has the range, seating capacity and technologies the airlines want, but it offers them operating costs that are about 9 percent below the competition. It also has an interior that can be reconfigured in hours rather than weeks and provides passengers a spacious, open cabin, with more head room, the widest interior in its class, the widest economy seat to go into service and the most advanced in- flight entertainment and business capabilities available." During the course of the tour, the airplane will establish speed records on its departure, Seattle to Geneva and return, Frankfurt to Seattle. It returns to Seattle on Sept. 13. From kls Fri Sep 22 00:18:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ralph Phillips Subject: Re: AA 777 into Gatwick (UK)? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Ralph Phillips Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Sep 95 00:18:31 >>I can't be sure because the sun glare angle was all wrong for me but >>a large twin looking very like a 777 came into Gatwick airport this >>morning at about 11am (Wed 13-Sep-1995). I'm pretty sure it was >>American Airlines, certainly a very large wide body twinjet. [snip] >My guesses, in decreasing order of probability: > > AA 767 if you feel more strongly it was AA than a 777 > BA 777 on a test flight > UA 777 diverted from LHR The 777 that went into Gatwick on the 13th was in Boeing colours, and was there to give demo flights for MD's, chief pilots, etc., and doing the general PR bit. However, when I set of for Rimini this morning (20th), a UA 777 (or possibly a 767, I wasn't very close) was parked in the maintenance area on the north side - I know not why. Ralph Phillips From kls Fri Sep 22 00:18:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lyons@lyons.seanet.com Subject: Re: Strange noise on a 767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Seanet Online Services, Seattle WA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Sep 95 00:18:31 David Schaefer wrote: >The thread on engine noises reminded me of a flight I took several years >ago...SFO to STL on a 767 (model unknown). During boarding, I hear a >strange, loud motor noise start/stop several times. > >The sound returned as the plane circled over STL and continued until >landing. I've often wondered what it might be, and haven't heard it on >any other flight. It seemed to emanate from below the wing.... > David, I work for an airline as an Avionics tech. The noises you heard were more than likely the electric hyd. pumps or the flap/slat motors running. About the only time you here them is on takeoff and landings. But you may here them on the ground if the flight crew or the mechanics are checking them for some reason. If you get concerned the next time you fly just ask the flight attendant,they may be able to tell you or just look out the window and see if the leading edges or trailing edges are moving. There is alot more noise than movement so look quick. Hope this helps....... From kls Fri Sep 22 00:18:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Cabin Pressurization 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 Sep 95 00:18:32 In article tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) writes: >Regarding the discussion concerning control of air from an engine and into >the cabin, here is the information that I got (from vendor manuals) on a >couple of pack valves. But the question is still: is this regulation a component of the *pressur- ization* system? Does it respond to user commands or as a byproduct of what the pressurization controller is trying to do? -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Fri Sep 22 00:18:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: leishman@hellcat.eng.umd.edu. (leishman) Subject: Question: Cabin environment on long haul flights Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Maryland, College Park Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Sep 95 00:18:32 After a recent transatlatic flight on American airlines, my brother related a rather alarming experience. The cabin temperature on the MD-11 was maintained way too high (estimated in excess of 85F), and despite many complaints from passengers, the crew did absolutely nothing until 1-hour out from London, where they finally turned on the air cooling. In addition, many passengers experinenced dizziness, light headiness and naucea. I've been hearing that on eastbound transatlantic overnight flights some airlines deliberately elevate cabin temparatures to make passengers sleep (parhaps this reduces cabin staff workload?), and also reduce oxygen flow in the cabin to save money. Is this really a common practice among airlines? Any comments sure would be appreciated. gordon(leishman@eng.umd.edu) From kls Fri Sep 22 00:18:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kapoor34@equity.wharton.upenn.edu (Sanjiv Kapoor) Subject: Re: Where did all the air vents go? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Pennsylvania Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Sep 95 00:18:32 Steve Lacker (slacker@arlut.utexas.edu) wrote: : Martin Fiddler wrote: : > : >When I fly on older aircraft, there is invariably an individual air vent : >for each passenger. These supply a welcoming blast of cool air, but : >if not wanted they can obviously be turned off. Great. : > : >The more modern aircraft I've been on, including B747-400, B757-200, : >A320, etc, do not have these. This seems a reall pity, as I find they : >provide much greater comfort and control of ones own envioronment. I have flown 747-400s on Thai, Singapore, Cathay, Air China, and Air India, as well as A330s on Cathay and Dragonair, in the last couple of months. The only airline that still had these air-vents was Air-India, much to my surprise (because they are not normally known for their attention to in-flight amenities). I, too, find the option to do away with air-vents one of the distressing aspects of the newer airplanes! :-( -Sanjiv. From kls Fri Sep 22 00:18:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: exit door latch References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Leading Edge Aviation Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Sep 95 00:18:33 In article , "Nicolas E. Murat" wrote: >On 12 Sep 1995, Andrew Goldfinger wrote: > >> In article Nicolas Ercan Murat, >> vis@amy29.Stanford.EDU writes: >> >This was proven when an evacuation slide on an PIA A310 decided to >> >inflate during flight ... >> >> >The end of the story was that an on-board mechanic ran back and gave >> >a big stab with his screwdriver and punctured the slide. >> >> What gas is used to inflate the slides? If it is CO2, was it safe to >> puncture the slide and release the gas into the cabin? (This question >> arose in my mind since I am now reading "Lost Moon" by Lovell about Apollo >> 13, and they had a problem with a life vest inflating. They were very >> careful to vent the CO2 into space rather than release it into the cabin). > >The slide inflation is activated by a small gas bottle. I am unfortunately >not certain of what the gas is. > The gas is NITROGEN. Harmless you breathe about 80% Nitrogen anyway. Besides the cabin air is "Turned over" quite rapidly. So There would Be no real Problem. >However, the gas dispensed by the bottle is small in comparison to the >amount of air required in the slide. The main inflation is done through >"aspirators" which suck in air when the slide is deployed, so the gas bottles >are in effect only there to kick in the system and are too small to fill >the whole slide anyway. > You know.....I did not know that. Thats very interesting. >In any case, I do not think that CO2 dispension into the cabin does has >the same consequences as in a space craft... Also, as an aside, I would like >to note how complex the slide/rafts on commercial aircraft are complex. They >are one of the systems (ATA 25-62) with the most complications during >maintenance and in design itself. > I would guess that in a space craft the air is finite in an airplane theres always more. I have seen accidental deployments several times The systems are very tempermental. -- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org http://www.io.org/~bradg/ Leading Edge Aviation Services Aviation Maintenance, The Backbone of Aviation. From kls Fri Sep 22 00:18:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: exit door latch 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 Sep 95 00:18:33 >Expanded to cabin pressure, CO_2 volume is a couple of times the slide's >volume, which is a few percent of cabin volume... A few percent CO_2 in >breathing air isn't a big health problem, a few passengers might possibly >get dizzy for a few minutes. If memory serves, through the use of a jet pump, about 75% of the volume of the inflated slide is actually plain, old air. From kls Fri Sep 22 00:18:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dswanson@gulfaero.com (Davin Swanson) Subject: Re: exit door latch References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: very little Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Sep 95 00:18:33 In article , Ed Bogart wrote: >In article , kenpac@ix.netcom.com >(J. Kenneth E ) wrote: >> Still no need to worry Brandon. ALL airliner doors are plug type, >> meaning that they must be pulled inside somewhat prior to swinging >> outward. It just appears that they swing open freely. > >If I'm not mistaken, the 777 does NOT have plug doors. I don't have a clue >how the latches work but I would geuss someone has thought about the "opening >in flight" problem. AFAIK, most non-plug type swing-open doors are secured by pins that extend from the door into the frame when the door is closed. Closing the door latch extends the pins into a locked position, and opening the latch retracts the pins back into the door in order to allow it to open. --davin -- Davin Swanson dswanson@mickey.eng.gulfaero.com My opinions aren't necessarily those of Gulfstream Aerospace. From kls Fri Sep 22 00:18:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jwilson@ott.hookup.net (Joe M Wilson) Subject: Navigation Question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, Oakville, Ontario, CANADA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Sep 95 00:18:33 I recently had the extreme pleasure of riding in the Cockpit of an A320 Airbus for an entire flight.(Ottawa to Toronto).I wondered if someone could explain to me the basics of the Airbus's Inertial Navigation System. I Didn't want to bother the captain or the co-pilot with the question at the time.I had asked so many questions at the time I feared they would kick me out of the cockpit. Thanks....Joe Joe Wilson jwilson@hookup.net Bell Mobility Cellular jwilson@mobility.com Network Operations jmwilson@msn.com Ottawa Canada ac529@freenet.carleton.ca 613-724-9248 http://www.hookup.net/~jwilson From kls Fri Sep 22 00:18:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dmacdoug@aol.com (DMacDoug) Subject: EMI levels possible due to airborne military jammers? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: dmacdoug@aol.com (DMacDoug) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Sep 95 00:18:34 Does anyone have any knowledge of the EMI levels which could be encountered in flight, due to presence of airborne electronic countermeasures (jammers)? Current engine FADEC's and aircraft avionics are Certified to withstand EMI levels of 200 volts/meter. Is it possible, assuming normal minimum air traffic control separation distances, that a commercial aircraft could encounter EMI levels greater than the 200 volts/meter, if some nearby military aircraft (Wild Weasel, EA-6B Prowler, EF-111, or whatever) happened to light off his jamming equipment, let's say as part of some exercise?? I'm trying to understand if this could theoretically be the source of some control system anomalies which don't seem to have any identifiable cause. From kls Fri Sep 22 00:18:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gaia1@aol.com (Gaia 1) Subject: Re: Effecient transport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: gaia1@aol.com (Gaia 1) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Sep 95 00:18:34 This economic calculations are very unreal because they do not include all the major costs. If you aircargo a luxury car or apples from the State of Washington to JFK, you have to include the environmental costs of airpollution, health costs of noise pollution to mention major costs categories. If businesses or people want these aircargo services, let them pay for it. It is not fair to dump these environmental costs on the taxpayers at large and airport communities in particular. Anyone interested in this Pigovian economics may want to read Paul Hawken's best selling book "The Ecology of Commerce. A Declaration of Sustainability". (Harper Business 1994) Frans C. Verhagen, Ph.D. ===We are made wise not by recollections of the past, but our responsibility to the future"==(George Bernard Shaw) From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Martin McGrath Subject: Re: A320 comments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:40 I read your friends comments with great interest. I've been on the A320 for about 6 months. Coming from a F-100 & DC-9, I find the "minibus" very refreshing. A few comments, it is a bitch to learn! But, like any aircraft, after a while it is natural. The comment about pattern work is well taken. As a check pilot on the 320, I do quite alot of pattern work. I found a simple solution to the problem. Simply, do your normal FMGC routing to your destination, when in the terminal area, add a waypoint, vor, etc, between you and the approach. You never reach the added fix, therfore you never lose your nav map. Then just do whatever you want, manual fly, maual throttle, approaches, other than managed vor or adf, and you are all set. As long as you are not using FMGS for primary nav, it's no problem. More later. Regards From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Rick Hughes Subject: Re: A320 comments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: iiNet Technologies Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:41 In Article, wrote: > >13. Gust Load Aleviation: They put in a gust load function. I've heard > >about the idea for 20 years but apparently no one ever actually put one > >on an aricraft before the A-320. It doesn't work...... > > Would this be the same as Maneuvering DLC or the Active Control Surface > system on the L/1011? Just wondering. The principle is quite different. In the Tristar DLC was designed more to provide a more precise, direct and almost instantaneous addition/subtraction of lift. It made very little difference to the actual structural loads on the wing itself. I haven't flown the A320, so can't comment on that directly; however, the A330/340 has a system known as Manouevre Load Alleviation (MLA). It works something like this: "The purpose of MLA is to redistribute the lift over the wing to relieve structural loads on the outer wing surfaces (bending moment). The demanded load factor is maintained. MLA utilises spoilers 4, 5, and 6 and the ailerons. The MLA becomes active when side stick is pulled less than 8 degrees and load factor is more than 2 g in which case: - The ailerons are deflected symmetrically upwards: Maximum 11 degrees added to roll demand if any. - The spoilers 4, 5, 6 are deflected symmetrically: Maximum 9 degrees added to roll demand if any. - Deflection is proportional to load factor in excess of 2 g. - An elevator demand is simultaneously applied to compensate for the pitching moment induced by spoilers and ailerons. The load alleviation is only available when: - aircraft speed is above 250 kts. - FLAPS lever is in 0 position. - in Normal or Alternate law flight mode. The MLA has priority over Speedbrakes." Perhaps closer to the Gust Load Alleviation on the A320 is the Turbulence Damping Function on the A330/340. Its purpose is to damp the structural loads induced by atmospheric turbulence. The PRIMS (Flight Control Primary Computers) compute a turbulence damping command which is added to the Normal Law command for the elevator and the yaw damper. Like a lot of things in FBW aircraft, you don't notice them working for you, but they are there nonetheless. IMHO ... the system works very well and the previous correspondent may well feel differently about the A320 with more time spent operating the system. I still felt uncomfortable at his point in the conversion process with non-moving throttles, but have learnt to fully appreciate the benefits of the system now that I've been operating the A340 for the past 12 months. Airbus put a lot of refinements into the A330/340 in response to the perceived/actual shortcomings of the A320, and I believe most would be pleasantly surprised. Rick Hughes Perth Western Australia From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: K.G.A.Lewis@sussex.ac.uk (Ken Lewis) Subject: Re: A320 comments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Sussex Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:41 David Lednicer (dave@amiwest.com) wrote: : A friend of mine recently converted over to the A320. At my : request, he has prepared the following comments regarding the aircraft. : These comments are posted with his permission. ... : 9. The aircraft can't dump fuel and the max landing weight is : significantly lower than the max togw. Lots of very interesting and useful info deleted. Many thanks for the insight. Sorry, but I'm staggered you say there is no fuel dump. Surely, if there is a serious malfunction ealry in the flight, it MUST be possible to dump fuel to get the weight down to an OK landing weight. I cant believe it would get CAA/FAA etc approval without it. Comments appreciated Ken Lewis From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Where did all the air vents go? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Leading Edge Aviation Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:42 In article , Steve Lacker wrote: >Question: a certain amount of airflow is absolutely necessary to maintain >passenger comfort. In my experience, the more the better- I find that >older "leakier" airliners are less likely to give me burning eyes and a >headache than newer tighter ships. If an airline chooses to delete the >individual vents, where is all that airflow re-directed? Please tell me >that overall fresh airflow isn't just reduced further still. Actually the turnover of air in a modern airliner is quite rapid. THe entire volume of air in a wide body aircraft is replaced about every 10 minutes. Thats alot of airflow. There is also a recirculation system which filters the air within the aircraft. But I still like those little eyeballs. -- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org http://www.io.org/~bradg/ Leading Edge Aviation Services Aviation Maintenance, The Backbone of Aviation. From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: zpeter@netcom.com (Peter Zadrozny) Subject: Re: Where did all the air vents go? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:42 Just did a round trip between SFO and JFK. On the way to JFK the 767 of United had the air vents (2-3-2) even on business class. On the way back to SFO the 767 did not have them. The business class cabin was arranged differently. The one with air vents had on the back of business class first the galley, then the toilets. The one without vents had first the toilets then the galley. Peter From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Where did all the air vents go? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:43 In reference to UA 767s SFO-JFK and return ... >The business class cabin was arranged differently. The one with air vents >had on the back of business class first the galley, then the toilets. The >one without vents had first the toilets then the galley. That sounds like a 767-300 and a 767-200, respectively, glancing at a seating diagram. UA's -200s are literally the first ones built -- they have #2 off the line, #1 having been kept by Boeing. The -300s, in contrast, are relatively new, the first one having been delivered in 1991. I do recall that UA omitted the gaspers on the 767-200s; it sounds like they listened to customers and put them back on the next 767 order. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lize@hookup.net (liz elliott) Subject: Concorde Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, Oakville, Ontario, CANADA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:43 Can anyone help with a question regarding metal stress during flight in the Concord at high speeds. Someone I know spoke to an airline pilot who said the Concord stretches at speeds past mach 1. Can anyone elucidate on this. Why does it happen or does it happen? From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:43 >Concord stretches at speeds past mach 1. Can anyone elucidate on this. >Why does it happen or does it happen? As I recall, it stretches roughly 12-18 inches at supersonic cruise. This is a result of the high heat, itself caused by air friction. Just as the metals in a thermostat expand and contract with changes in temperature, Concorde's fuselage expands with heat and contracts when it cools. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rartus@lava.net (Richard Artus) Subject: Re: Fourth landing gear on MD aircraft ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NotMuch Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:44 > The center gear started on the later series DC-10's and was added due to > the tendency to develop keel beam cracks due to the weight in the center > of the fuselage between the widely spaced main gear. Rubbish, that center gear is for support of upper aft aux fuel tank on -30 and -40 series DC-10's and MD-11s. From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: b17864@vaxb.phx1.aro.allied.com Subject: Re: 757 engine (fan?) noise during freewheel References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AlliedSignal Engines Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:44 In article , hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk (Henry Law) writes: > Frequently when boarding a BA 757 (RR engines) by steps rather than > through an air bridge I hear a distinct metallic clanking from the > engine closest to me, which is nearly always still freewheeling from the > previous sector. It's regular, but with gaps - rather like the sort of > noise you'd make by rattling something metal along some iron railings. > I've heard it in these circumstances for years so it's obviously not > what it sounds like (which is the fan blades hitting the cowling! :-) > but I've always wondered what it was. Can one of our 757 jockeys > enlighten me? I hope this response is not over kill, but that is problem when an engineer tries to explain something. The sound you hear is the fan blades rattling around hitting as the fan slowly rotates. The blade attachment (called a dovetail) is tapered; narrow at top and wide at the bottom. The blade slides into a similarly shaped slot in the fan disk. The attachment is designed so the when the fan is rotating at high speeds, centrifugal forces wedges the blades firmly in the slots. At very low speed (like when the fan is windmilling on the ground), the blades are loose (for small engines, typically a few thousandth of an inch). As the rotor slowly spins, the blades on the bottom are seated in the slot due to gravity, as they move to the top, they fall out. This makes noise. Also, if the fan has mid span dampers (those little ears on the blades), there is enough movement in the blades that the adjacent blades can clank together. So, you weren't far off the mark. The blades aren't hitting the cowling, just each other. Mark Johnston AlliedSignal Engines Phx AZ From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: 757 engine (fan?) noise during freewheel 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: 28 Sep 95 03:52:44 >Frequently when boarding a BA 757 (RR engines) by steps rather than >through an air bridge I hear a distinct metallic clanking from the >engine closest to me, The sound you hear is the blades hitting each other! The fan blades ( on any fan engine, not just those from RR) are not ridgidly attached to the hub, they are allowed to move some. As the fan rotates the blade at the top flops to the other side and hits the blade next to it. Perfectly normal, in fact the problem comes when the blades don't clank. This causes an imbalance in the fan and vibration. >which is nearly always still freewheeling from the previous sector. You said you were boarding when you heard the sound, so at least 15-20 minutes have passed since the engine was shutdown. I'd say it's wind causing the fan to turn. From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: 757 engine (fan?) noise during freewheel References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:45 In article , Henry Law wrote: >I've heard it in these circumstances for years so it's obviously not >what it sounds like (which is the fan blades hitting the cowling! :-) >but I've always wondered what it was. Can one of our 757 jockeys >enlighten me? I am not a 757 jockey (sniff), but the clinking is the fan blades moving around in their mounts. The mounts have a little bit of play in them to allow for expansion due to heating when the engine is running. Centrifugal force holds the blades in the proper position when the engine is running. You will hear similar sounds on most all turbofan engines when they are slowly spinning. -- Keith Barr barr@netcom.com COM-ASMEL-IA-A&IGI Westminster, Colorado, USA http://chinook.atd.ucar.edu/~barr From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: 757 engine (fan?) noise during freewheel References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:45 hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk (Henry Law) wrote: >Frequently when boarding a BA 757 (RR engines) by steps rather than >through an air bridge I hear a distinct metallic clanking from the >engine closest to me, which is nearly always still freewheeling from the >previous sector. It's regular, but with gaps - rather like the sort of >noise you'd make by rattling something metal along some iron railings. FWIW- I've heard this same sound on a 727-200 once. I was seated in the tail, and the galley staff opened the rear door to take on supplies shortly after reaching the gate, so the engines were still freewheeling. I leaned over and looked down the throat of the engine, and best I could guess there were about 3 rattles (clanks) per rotation of the fan. Chink--a-Clank---Chink--a-Clank. (best conversion to ASCII I can muster). I'm curious as to what this is also. Its interesting to note that the two of us have observed this sound on *very* different engine types (high-bypass 3-spool RR vs. an older JT8D). -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: 757 engine (fan?) noise during freewheel References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Leading Edge Aviation Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:45 In article , hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk (Henry Law) wrote: >Frequently when boarding a BA 757 (RR engines) by steps rather than >through an air bridge I hear a distinct metallic clanking from the >engine closest to me, which is nearly always still freewheeling from the >previous sector. It's regular, but with gaps - rather like the sort of >noise you'd make by rattling something metal along some iron railings. >I've heard it in these circumstances for years so it's obviously not >what it sounds like (which is the fan blades hitting the cowling! :-) >but I've always wondered what it was. Can one of our 757 jockeys >enlighten me? The noise you hear is the sound of the "Part span shrouds" banging together as the fan slowly rotates the "Clappers" hit together and make the noise. The shrouds are there to cause rigidity of the fan when under load (running) They maintain balance and spacing of the blades. On newer generation engines the fan has rigid blades which do not require these shrouds so there is no noise when the fan "freewheels" From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chris tassio Subject: 777 vs 767-757 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: news@shiva.usa.net Organization: HIGH-LIFT WINGS INC. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:45 Is there anyone who can give a pilot report on the 777 vs the 767-757? Thanks-chris (capt-A300) From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rartus@lava.net (Richard Artus) Subject: Re: Airplane Toilets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NotMuch Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:46 > No aircraft are legally permitted to do this. Toilets must be emptied by > one of the so-called "honey wagon" waste-removal trucks after the aircraft > has landed. Those vehicles are also know as Turd Hearses! From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: misc1666@csc.canterbury.ac.nz Subject: Fuel tank safety mech.(question) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:46 Considering the possibility of fuel tanks exploding in emergency landings etc. Is it conceivable that they could pump foam into the fuel tanks before the plane hit the ground. Matt, University of Canterbury, New Zealand From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (Ralph Ricks ) Subject: Re: EMI levels possible due to airborne military jammers? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:46 In dmacdoug@aol.com (DMacDoug) writes: >Does anyone have any knowledge of the EMI levels which could be >encountered in flight, due to presence of airborne electronic >countermeasures (jammers)? Don't know about that, but I have often seen a "spoke" on a weather radar in an airliner that points right to a mil. base or ship. Also, there have been cases of the mil. in Nevada playing games: "Four targets approaching at high speed from four different directions at our altitude on TCAS display. ATC said no other traffic in area." This ceased after some ex-mil. airline pilots with USAF contacts were alerted. From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: EMI levels possible due to airborne military jammers? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:46 Having been in the EW business once up on a time in a former life, I can pretty well put a categorical "no" to your question up as a one-word answer. First, the likelihood of any type of EW aircraft "lighting up" anywhere near a civilian airliner is *extrememly* remote. This is usually only done for a specific purpose (i.e. and exercise), and these are usually well away from other aircraft, population centers, etc. Second, EW aircraft jam very specific frequency bands. For many and various reasons, it's not wise practice to go around jamming the whole EM frequency spectrum (which is what you'd have to do to affect something like a FADEC system). One of the things an EW aircraft doesn't want to do is give it's secrets away. You jam a specific frequency at a specific time for a specific reason. Not to say that they *couldn't* jam everything from DC to Daylight as we used to say, but you just don't do it. Theoretically, it might be possible for an EW airplane to jam something like a FADEC system inadvertently, but the circumstances would have to be so far out of the norm it's hard to imagine how it could happen. Cheers, Jennings Heilig From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "peter (p.j.) ashwood-smith" Subject: Re: EMI levels possible due to airborne military jammers? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell-Northern Research Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:47 >Does anyone have any knowledge of the EMI levels which could be >encountered in flight, due to presence of airborne electronic >countermeasures (jammers)? Current engine FADEC's and aircraft avionics >are Certified to withstand EMI levels of 200 volts/meter. Is it possible, >assuming normal minimum air traffic control separation distances, that a >commercial aircraft could encounter EMI levels greater than the 200 >volts/meter, if some nearby military aircraft (Wild Weasel, EA-6B Prowler, >EF-111, or whatever) happened to light off his jamming equipment, let's >say as part of some exercise?? I'm trying to understand if this could >theoretically be the source of some control system anomalies which don't >seem to have any identifiable cause. While I don't know anything about the kind of EMI levels that can be produced by electronic countermeasuers devices I do know something about software and I would be more concerned about the software causing these kinds of problems than just about anything else. Besides if you were getting hit the memories would probably go nuts. You'd get parity etc. errors pretty quickly. There is nothing like several millions lines of real time code to create problems with no identifiable cause. -- Cheers, ------------------------------------------------- Peter Ashwood-Smith | email: petera@bnr.ca Bell Northern Research | work : (613)763-4534 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | home : (819)595-9032 From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hauser@sfu.ca (Peter Hauser) Subject: Pilot interfacing with newer avionics Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Simon Fraser University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:47 I am currently writing a report for my course in Engineering and Society (at SFU) on the societal impact of automation in the cockpit. My report focusses on the pilot to aircraft interface. In my investigations to date, I have found that although automation in the cockpit greatly reduces pilot stress, as well as increasing general aircraft efficiency, there may be a few dangers as well. Some of these dangers include the possibility of miscommunications between the pilot and the aircraft as a result of mode-dependant control systems (especially in critical situations). Another may be the false sense of security that may arise in pilots due to a greatly reduced workload in the cockpit. I am intersted in hearing first-hand accounts from pilots who fly some of the more modern airliners (such as the A320, A330, B777, MD11 etc..) as well as any aviation incident stories that may be attributed to the new technologies and their affects. Thanks in advance, Peter Hauser hauser@sfu.ca From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: garyn@pacifier.com (Gary Neff) Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,misc.transport.air-industry Organization: Pacifier, a public access Internet site. (360-693-0325) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:47 John P. Wangermann (wangermn@tucson.Princeton.EDU) wrote: : Can someone tell me what the standard climb rates are that airlines use : for jet aircraft, say B767 or B747. For example, what are the climb : rates for : initial climb : climb to cruise altitude : en-route altitude changes (e.g., FL270 to FL290) : descent John, I can help you out as far as a moderatly loaded Fokker F-28 on a standard day. Initial climb: 3000-4000 fpm. Climb to cruise altitude: 1500-2000 fpm. Enroute altitude changes: About the same. Decent, idle power, 320kias: 5000-6000fpm. Gary -- Gary Neff From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Boeing in the WSJ Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:47 The "Heard on the Street" column in the Oct. 27 WSJ (p. C2) has an article on Boeing, debating whether or not Boeing's current stock price is too high. Various interesting views. The part I found most interesting was a comment that the 777 will make more money for Boeing in real dollars than the 747 -- a pretty remarkable notion considering the 747 has been the most profitable airliner program ever, and unlike the 777 has been without a direct compet- itor for its entire life. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Robert J. Gordon" Subject: Re: Boeing in the WSJ References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rjg@nwu.edu Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:47 > The "Heard on the Street" column in the Oct. 27 WSJ (p. C2) has an > article on Boeing, debating whether or not Boeing's current stock > price is too high. Various interesting views. The part I found > most interesting was a comment that the 777 will make more money > for Boeing in real dollars than the 747 -- a pretty remarkable > notion considering the 747 has been the most profitable airliner > program ever, and unlike the 777 has been without a direct compet- > itor for its entire life. I read the column too. The comment on 777 program profitability is sheer speculation. I could make the case this way. 777 could be more profitable **if**: (1) There will be no further 747 derivatives, and no 600-seater. (2) There will be a big family of 777 derivatives that will soon make the 747 obsolete. (3) The 747 program has been going now for 26 years. The 777 program will go for 50 years. (4) "We've gone about as fur as we can go" on engine technology, so new 777-replacement aircraft are many decades away, not just one decade or so. (5) The MD-11 will eventually cease production, and the 777 will wipe 330/340 off the map. -- Robert J. Gordon, Chair and Stanley G. Harris Professor Department of Economics, Northwestern University Evanston IL 60208-2600 rjg@nwu.edu From kls Thu Sep 28 03:52:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing in the WSJ References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 28 Sep 95 03:52:48 > 777 could be more profitable **if**: > (1) There will be no further 747 derivatives, and no 600-seater. I'd be very surprised if the 747-500 (stretched -400) doesn't appear before the end of the decade. However, that's a niche aircraft, and I don't see it having a material impact on the 777. In the same way, some North Atlantic markets still use 747s but most of that market has moved to 767s and other twins flying greater frequencices or serving smaller hubs. I don't expect any other 747 derivatives, and I think the VLCT (etc.) is a dead duck for the foreseeable future. > (2) There will be a big family of 777 derivatives that will soon make > the 747 obsolete. This is well on its way. The 777-200 replaces the 747-100 with a modest seat penalty, and the B market version will replace the 747-200 with the same seat proviso. The 777-300 will eliminate the seat dif- ferential and with engine developments will match the 747-200's range. The proposed 777-100 will easily outdistance the 747-400 (which itself beats the 747SP), and while it won't have the capacity, I think it's likely that greater frequencies will negate this problem, just as the lower capacity of the 767 hasn't been a major problem in replacing the 747-100 across the North Atlantic. Higher frequencies across the Pacific might seem to be a problem for some of the airports that are already overtaxed, e.g., NRT, but there is some compensation in the better time distribution. New airports such as KIX and Chek Lap Kok will also add capacity. > (3) The 747 program has been going now for 26 years. The 777 program > will go for 50 years. I think Boeing expects this. > (4) "We've gone about as fur as we can go" on engine technology, so new > 777-replacement aircraft are many decades away, not just one decade or so. The GE90 problems are temporary, predictable, teething problems, at least from a technical standpoint. (From a marketing standpoint, the GE90 problems have cost GE dearly, and the loss of sales to PW and RR now will make life exceedingly difficult for the GE90 program in the long run.) Once all the bugs are worked out, the GE90 should have plenty of growth room, and there's no reason to believe other engine manufacturers won't be able to match or beat the GE90 with their own new designs. The real question here is, given a significantly bigger engine, what would you do with it? Build a 600-seat twin or tri-jet? Having four engines isn't what put the VLCT on ice, insufficient demand for so large a plane is what did it. In the U.S. and across the Atlantic, the trend has been towards smaller planes, flying higher frequencies and/or thinner routes. It's hard to see a market for a significantly bigger engine than what is and will be flying on the 777. Looking back on your comment, I suppose you could have meant greater efficiency instead of greater thrust. Together with improvements in aerodynamics, one might ask how long it would be until the 777 could be replaced by a similarly sized but far more efficient aircraft, much as the 727 was eclipsed by the 757 and A320. In the last two decades, it seems that technological gains in the relevant areas have not been coming in leaps and bounds as they were in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore, I think it unlikely that the 777 will rapidly become technologically obsolescent unless some *major* development appears, something akin to the turbojet replacing the piston engine. It could happen, but it'll be a surprise for all of us. > (5) The MD-11 will eventually cease production, and the 777 will > wipe 330/340 off the map. The order books for both the MD-11 and the A330 have both taken a pretty severe beating since the 777 was launched, so at least part of this seems plausible. The A340 will see some strong competition from the 777-100 if and when the latter is launched, but I suspect ETOPS will remain an issue for quite some time, and that will help the A340. Crew commonality with the A320 family will also be a boon to the A340. The biggest problem facing the A340, I think, is engines for growth, since the CFM56 is already being pushed pretty hard and a new engine would not be a very appealing alternative. My prediction is that the MD-11 will either die completely or linger on with minimal sales in niche markets. The A340 will continue though it won't set any sales (or profit) records. The A330 will do well in the form of the A329, a shortened version to replace the A300-600. It may also linger in its base form with meager sales, buoyed by common- ality with the A340 and A329 which will allow it to continue when it would otherwise die. Despite my feelings about Boeing, I find the 777's impressive showing so far to be quite surprising. I expected it to do well, but I did not think it would do as well as it has against the MD-11 and A330, at least not so quickly. In summary, I think it is at least plausible that the 777 could be as profitable as the 747 or even better. I wouldn't wager too much on the proposition, however, at least not yet. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From news Thu Sep 28 23:36:14 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Ansett "fixes" its 767s Date: 28 Sep 1995 17:40:45 -0700 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Saw a small article in one of the most recent issues of Flight International that said that Ansett is to convert its odd-ball 3-pilot 767s into 2-pilot 767s. When Ansett first bought its 767-200 its unions forced Ansett to buy the aircraft with a flight-engineer station. All other 767s are built for two-pilot operation, although the cockpit is actually large enough to accomodate a flight engineer position. RNA From news Fri Sep 29 13:50:45 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!fnnews.fnal.gov!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Ansett "fixes" its 767s Date: 29 Sep 1995 16:41:48 GMT Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <44h7kc$8c@kragar.kei.com> References: <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> In article <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU>, rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) wrote: > Saw a small article in one of the most recent issues of Flight > International that said that Ansett is to convert its odd-ball > 3-pilot 767s into 2-pilot 767s. > > When Ansett first bought its 767-200 its unions forced Ansett to > buy the aircraft with a flight-engineer station. All other > 767s are built for two-pilot operation, although the cockpit is > actually large enough to accomodate a flight engineer position. The 767-200 cockpit is indeed built with the aft bulkhead far enough aft for the flight engineer position to have been included. Our -300s and -300ERs have the smaller cockpit with the bulkhead positioned much farther forward. Apparently the structural design of the -200 was frozen before the flight engineer issue was resolved. George From news Fri Sep 29 14:01:38 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!fnnews.fnal.gov!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Ansett "fixes" its 767s Date: 29 Sep 1995 16:59:31 GMT Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <44h8lj$8c@kragar.kei.com> References: <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> >When Ansett first bought its 767-200 its unions forced Ansett to >buy the aircraft with a flight-engineer station. I've seen pictures of the FE station on these 767s. Pretty funny. As I recall all it had was the fuel qty panel and the AC and pressurization controls We now call this panel (P61) the FEMP - Flight Engineers Memorial Panel. Dave From news Sat Sep 30 14:30:20 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: 777F Date: 30 Sep 1995 13:34:14 -0700 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <44k9k6$b9g@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> One thing I haven't heard anything about is the potential of the 777 as a freighter. How would a 777F compare to say the MD-11, or 747-100/200F and so forth? Federal Express, for example, seems to think very highly of the MD-11 as a freighter. Shouldn't the 777 be even better, since it has similar capacity but one fewer engine? RNA